Agenda packet — East Palo Alto City Council, April 19, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

East Palo Alto City Council April 19, 2022 Agenda Page 1 of 5

EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
April 19, 2022, 6:30 p.m.

EPA Government Center
2415 University Ave, First Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
NOTICE
This City Council meeting will be conducted in accordance with City of East Palo Alto Resolution adopted in accordance with Assembly Bill 361. All members of the City Council will participate in the meeting by video conference, with no physical meeting location available to the public.

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

Please click this URL to join
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88633357473
Or join by phone:

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

US: +1 669 900 6833 or
+1 346 248 7799 or
+1 253 215 8782 or
+1 312 626 6799 or
+1 929 205 6099 or
+1 301 715 8592
Webinar ID: 886 3335 7473
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aMWYF4KT East Palo Alto City Council April 19, 2022 Agenda Page 2 of 5

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
(Government Code Section 54957.7(a))

3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR

1. RV Safe Parking Program License & Grant Agreement for Program Extension through April 30, 2023
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to:

1. Execute a Third Amendment to the License & Grant Agreement (“Third Amendment”) with Project WeHOPE, in a form approved by the City Attorney; and

2. Allocate $250,000 in Housing Successor funds to operate the RV Safe Parking Program (Program) for an additional year.

2. Authorization to Open a CalHome Meriwest Account for the CalHome ADU/JADU Loan Program
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution:

1. Authorizing the Finance Director to open any bank accounts necessary to transact business with Meriwest Credit Union as part of the CalHome ADU/JADU Loan Program; and

2. Authorizing the Finance Director and Housing & Economic Development Manager to authorize the release of funds from any accounts with Meriwest Credit Union.

3. Disposal of non operable City Fleets and Equipment
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to Designate as Surplus Sixteen (16) Vehicles from the City Fleets and Two (2) Pieces of Equipment for donation to Menlo Park Fire Protection District.

4. Contract Amendment No. 1 with Zoon Engineering, Inc. for the Bay Road Phase II and III Improvements
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the Contract with Zoon Engineering to increase the budget by $49,830 for a new not-to-exceed total of $1,035,925 for construction management and project closeout services pertaining to the Bay Road project Phase II and III Improvements project.

5. AB 361 Findings to Continue Virtual Public Meetings for the City Council and City Advisory Bodies
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution making the AB 361 findings necessary to continue virtual public meetings for the City Council and City Advisory Bodies for the month of May 2022.

6. Monthly Cash Treasury Report for February 2022
Recommendation: Accept and file the Cash Treasury Report for the month of February 2022.

7. RFP for On-Call Construction Management, Inspection, and Material Testing Services
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for on-call construction management, inspection, and material testing services related to capital improvement, private development, and other projects, including the University Avenue/101 Pedestrian Overcrossing Project.

East Palo Alto City Council April 19, 2022 Agenda Page 3 of 5

8. Consideration of Limited Duration Extra Help Classifications to Provide Additional Staff Capacity Until Permanent Positions are Filled
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1):

1. Modifying the Deputy Manager (Limited Duration Extra Help) Classification; and

2. Creating a Special Projects Manager (Limited Duration Extra Help) Classification.

9. Quarterly COVID-19 Emergency Reporting
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution:

1. Accepting the Quarterly Emergency Report For March 31, 2022, and

2. Ratifying Emergency Response Expenditures

10. Approval of Agreements for 2022 Summer Programming Activities Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1):

1. Authorizing the City Manager to enter into agreements with sixteen (16) vendors to provide programming activities during Summer 2022; and

2. Appropriating an additional $44,000 in Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue to support summer programming in 2022.

11. Proclamation Honoring Nevida Preston Butler for Her Service to East Palo Alto and in Celebration of Her 80th Birthday

12. Proclamation Celebrating the Holy Month of Ramadan

13. Proclamation Honoring Gerardo Barragan for His Service to East Palo Alto

4. CLOSED SESSION - NONE

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the City Council on items not listed on the agenda may do so under this item. Each speaker is limited to two minutes. The Mayor has the discretion to adjust speaking times. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter.

The exceptions under which the City Council may discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3).

6. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS - NONE

7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

1. East Palo Alto Community Archive Special Presentation Recommendation: Receive the presentation.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances
Recommendation:

1. Accept the staff report and adopt the final Urban Forest Master Plan (“UFMP”); and

2. Waive the First Reading and introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 12.16 and Chapter 18.28 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code and miscellaneous provisions related to trees.

East Palo Alto City Council April 19, 2022 Agenda Page 4 of 5

2. Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution adopting the Comprehensive Fee Schedule to become effective July 1, 2022.

9. POLICY AND ACTION

1. Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D
Recommendation:

1. Accept the staff report regarding the draft MSR;

2. Receive informational presentation from Rob Bartoli, San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (SMLAFCo) Executive Officer, regarding the draft MSR;

3. Direct staff to attend the SMLAFCo public hearing scheduled for April 20, 2022, to provide initial comments on behalf of the City; and

4. Direct staff to return to the City Council on May 3, 2022, with a draft letter for City Council consideration that would become the City’s official response to the draft MSR.

2. Modified Gross Receipts Tax Ballot Measure for Affordable Housing Revenue Recommendation: That the City Council:

Provide further direction on the Ballot Measure concepts; Select two subcommittee members for the Ballot Measure argument; and Direct staff to return to the May 3, 2022 City Council meeting with the draft proposed Ballot Measure for consideration and adopting a resolution:

Calling and ordering the submission of the ballot measure, and Consolidating the municipal election with the statewide November 2022 election.

3. Initial discussion on the potential use of the Tanklage property as a temporary police station
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Accept the Staff Report regarding the analysis necessary for consideration of the property at 1798 Bay Road to locate a temporary Police Station;

2. Provide staff with feedback regarding the proposed approach and concepts presented; and

3. Adopt a Resolution directing the City Manager to amend the consulting agreement with Group 4 Architecture to complete the analysis described in the staff report.

4. FY22-23 Preliminary Budget and Budget Message
Recommendation: Receive the staff report and provide direction regarding the FY2022- 23 Preliminary Budget.

5. COVID-19 Vaccination Program Regular Update
Recommendation: Discuss the COVID-19 vaccination program update and provide direction to staff.

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

11. ADJOURNMENT
East Palo Alto City Council April 19, 2022 Agenda Page 5 of 5 This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) This Notice of Availability of Public Records: All public records relating to an open session item which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, that are distributed to the majority of the City Council will be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the City Council. Such documents may also be available on the East Palo Alto website www.cityofepa.org subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. Information may be obtained by calling (650) 853-3100.

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

Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided for this purpose.

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

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

POSTED: April 15, 2022
ATTEST:

James Colin
Acting City Clerk
FUTURE MEETINGS:

Study Session Meeting April 26, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.

Regular Meeting May 3, 2022 at 6:30 p.m.

Regular Meeting May 17, 2022 at 6:30 p.m.

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Rachel Horst, Housing and Economic Development Manager Karen Camacho, Housing Project Manager
SUBJECT: RV Safe Parking Program License & Grant Agreement for Program Extension through April 30, 2023
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to:

1. Execute a Third Amendment to the License & Grant Agreement (“Third Amendment”) with Project WeHOPE, in a form approved by the City Attorney; and

2. Allocate $250,000 in Housing Successor funds to operate the RV Safe Parking Program (Program) for an additional year.

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

Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
RV Safe Parking Program Extension through April 2023
On February 1, 2022, as part of a report to City Council on the City’s response to homelessness in East Palo Alto, staff made recommendations for unhoused residents in recreational vehicles (“RVs”) parked in the public right-of-way and living in encampments.

At that meeting, staff provided an update on the RV Safe Parking Program (“Program”), a temporary overnight parking program at the Tanklage site at 1798 Bay Rd. (“Property”) for individuals living in RVs operated by Project WeHOPE. The City Council directed staff to pursue an extension of the Program through April 30, 2023. Extending the Program requires the following two actions:

3.1 Packet Pg. 6

1.) Planning Commission approval of a Special Use Permit (“SUP”) to allow the temporary use of the Property for an additional year; and

2.) City Council approval of an updated License and Grant Agreement authorizing Project WeHOPE to operate the Program and providing a grant of $250,000 from the City’s Housing Successor Fund to support operations through April 2023.

On April 11, 2022, the Planning Commission received a Program update and authorized a new SUP to extend the Program through April 30, 2023. The Resolution has yet to be executed and is therefore not included as an attachment to this staff report.

RV Safe Parking Program Daytime Operations
In addition to operating the original overnight Program from 7:00pm to 7:00am daily, ProjectWeHOPE has operated the Program during daytime hours since April 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, thus allowing RVs to remain on-site for 24 hours per day.

Daytime Program operation was authorized separately through City Council resolution (Resolution No. 49-2020) when the County Shelter-in-Place Order took effect. The City supported the costs of daytime operations from the General Fund, with funding totaling $110,731, through December 2021. Project WeHOPE does not intend to operate the Program during daytime hours if the Program is extended for an additional year.

The purpose of this staff report is to seek City Council authorization to extend the Program via an amended License & Grant Agreement (“Third Amendment”).

Analysis
Third Amendment to the License and Grant Agreement
The Third Amendment (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) extends the term of the License and Grant Agreement, authorizing Project WeHOPE to operate the Program through April 30, 2023. The Third Amendment also includes amendments to two provisions of the License and Grant Agreement to allow for minor changes to the original Program design from 2018 with the approval of the City Manager.

These amendments affect the Parking Agreement that each Program participant must sign with Project WeHOPE and the hours of Program operation. As noted above, Project WeHOPE will not operate a daytime Program but has suggested that Program participants be permitted to leave their RVs parked at the Tanklage site during the day (Program participants would not have access during the day). The original License and Grant Agreement required Program participants to vacate the site with their RVs no later than 7:00am daily.

Next Steps
If approved, the City Manager will execute the Third Amendment with Project WeHOPE. The Program will continue to operate without interruption and would allow Program participants to leave their RV parked at the Tanklage site during the day.

Fiscal Impact

3.1 Packet Pg. 7
The Third Amendment commits $250,000 in Housing Successor funds to Project WeHOPE to support the operation of the Program through April 2023.

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

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

Attachments

1. Resolution

3.1 Packet Pg. 8
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDED LICENSE AND GRANT

AGREEMENT WITH PROJECT WEHOPE TO EXTEND THE RV SAFE PARKING PROGRAM THROUGH APRIL 30, 2023 AND ALLOCATING $250,000 IN HOUSING SUCCESSOR FUNDS TO

OPERATE THE PROGRAM FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, through Resolution No. 4998, the City Council declared a Shelter Crisis pursuant to Government Code Section 8698 and authorized the City Manager to execute a License and Grant Agreement (“Agreement”) with Project WeHOPE (“PWH”), to operate the RV Safe Parking Pilot Program (“Program”) for one year at the City-owned property located at 1798 Bay Road (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4998 also committed a maximum of $318,500 to the Program, including a grant of up to $218,500 to PWH to assist with operations and programming and $100,000 for preparation of the Property; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2018, through Resolution No. PC 2018-07, the Planning Commission authorized the interim use of the Property for a one-year period, commencing with the date the City deemed the site construction complete (May 1, 2019); and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2019, the Program began serving clients at the Property; WHEREAS, on April 21, 2020, through Resolution No. 60-2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an Amended License and Grant Agreement (“Amended Agreement”) with PWH that extended the term through April 30, 2021, allowed two temporary structures to be placed on the Property and allocated $250,000 in Housing Successor Funds as a grant to PWH to operate the Program; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2021, through Resolution No. 50-2021, the City Council once again extended the term of the Program through April 30, 2022, by authorizing the City Manager to execute a Second Amendment to the License and Grant Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved two additional special use permits to continue the Program through April 2022: SUP20-001 and SUP21-001, by Resolution No. PC 2020-01 and Resolution No. PC 2021-04, respectively; and
WHEREAS, to date, 36 households have obtained permanent housing through the Program; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on February 1, 2022, the City Council considered options for unhoused residents in East Palo Alto and directed staff to obtain the necessary authorizations from the Planning Commission and City Council to extend the Program for an additional year, through April 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2022, through Resolution No. PC 2022-XX, the Planning Commission approved a new Special Use Permit (SUP22-001) to allow the Program to continue through April 30, 2023.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Resolution (2202 : RV Safe Parking Program License & Grant Agreement for Program Extension through April 30, 2023)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY authorizes the City Manager to:

1. Execute the Third Amendment to the License and Grant Agreement with PWH for the Program, included as Exhibit A, in a form approved by the City Attorney; and

2. Allocate $250,000 in Housing Successor funds to operate the Program for an additional year.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, Acting City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Resolution (2202 : RV Safe Parking Program License & Grant Agreement for Program Extension through April 30, 2023) 1 551\01\3263159.1
4/6/2022

THIRD AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AND GRANT AGREEMENT
(Tanklage Property-RV Safe Parking Pilot Program)
This Third Amendment to License and Grant Agreement (this "Third Amendment") is entered into as of ________________, 2022 (the "Amendment Date"), between the City of East Palo Alto, a municipal corporation (the "City" or the "Owner"), and WeHope, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation doing business as "Project We Hope" ("Grantee"). Grantee and the City are sometimes referred to herein, individually, as a "Party" and, collectively, as the "Parties".

RECITALS
A. The City is the owner of that certain real property commonly known as 1798 Bay Road, East Palo Alto, California (the "Site"). The Site is subject to a use restriction that requires the Site to be utilized for a public purpose.

B. Prior to the Amendment Date, the Parties entered into that certain "License and Grant Agreement" dated as of July 18, 2018 as amended by the First Amendment to License and Grant Agreement dated April 30, 2020 and as further amended by the Second Amendment to License and Grant Agreement dated April 20, 2021 (the "Agreement") regarding the Site.

Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Third Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement. Pursuant to the Agreement, among other things, the City granted the Grantee a license to use the Site for the Permitted Use.

C. The Parties desire to enter into this Third Amendment to: (i) extend the Term of the Agreement for one (1) additional year.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and of the covenants and conditions set forth herein and in the Agreement, and for other valuable consideration the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

Section 1. Extension of Term. Notwithstanding any provision of the Agreement to the contrary, the Term of the Agreement is hereby extended until April 30, 2023; provided, however, nothing in this Section shall be deemed to waive, limit, or otherwise impair the City's right to terminate the Agreement in accordance with Section 4.4 of the Agreement.

Section 2. Limitation on Permitted Use. Section 2.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to reads as follows:

The Grantee acknowledges that in utilizing the Site for the Permitted Use, the Grantee shall only allow RVs to be parked on the Site during hours approved by the City Manager. The Grantee shall not allow more individuals or households utilizing an RV on the Site (each such individual or household, a "RV Parker") to utilize the Site than the Total Parking Stalls (defined below).

Exhibit A

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Resolution (2202 : RV Safe Parking Program License & Grant Agreement for Program Extension through April 30, 2023) 2 551\01\3263159.1
4/6/2022
Section 3. Parking Agreement and Rules and Regulations. Grantee may propose changes to the Parking Agreement including the rules attached to the Parking Agreement for the City Manager's approval from time to time. Grantee shall not implement any changes to the Parking Agreement or the Rules prior to obtaining the City Manager's approval.

Section 4. Representations and Warranties. Grantee represents and warrants to the City as of the Third Amendment Date that:
(a) No Default. No Event of Default has occurred and is continuing or results from the execution and delivery of this Third Amendment or the consummation of any transactions contemplated hereby;
(b) Approvals. Grantee has received such consents and approvals as may be required prior to execution of this Third Amendment; and (c) Valid and Binding Agreement. This Third Amendment and the Agreement are legal, valid and binding agreements of Grantee and are enforceable against the Grantee in accordance with their terms.

Section 5. Ratification. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Third Amendment, and the terms of the Agreement, the terms of this Third Amendment shall control.

Except as hereby amended or waived, the Agreement and each provision thereof is hereby ratified and confirmed in every respect and shall continue in full force and effect, and this Third Amendment shall not be, and shall not be deemed to be, a waiver of any covenant, term or provision of the Agreement. Grantee acknowledges that the Temporary Occupants, if any, are bound by the release set forth in Section 4.18 of the Agreement.

Section 6. Governing Law. This Third Amendment shall be deemed to constitute a contract made under and governed by the laws of the State of California.

Section 7. Successors and Assigns. This Third Amendment shall be binding upon each of the Parties, and their respective successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each of the Parties; provided, however, nothing in this Section shall be deemed to modify, waive, or limit the Grantee's obligations under Section 4.10 of the Agreement.

Section 8. Headings. Section headings in this Third Amendment are included herein for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this Third Amendment for any other purpose.

Section 9. Integration. This Third Amendment, in conjunction with the Agreement, contains the entire understanding of the Parties with regard to the subject matter contained herein. This Third Amendment supersedes all prior or contemporaneous negotiations, promises, covenants, agreements and representations of every nature whatsoever with respect to the matters referred to in this Third Amendment, all of which have become merged and finally integrated into this Third Amendment. The Parties have read and reviewed this Third Amendment and agree that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not apply to the interpretation of this Third Amendment (including Civil Code section 1654 as the same may be amended from time to time). Each of the Parties

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Resolution (2202 : RV Safe Parking Program License & Grant Agreement for Program Extension through April 30, 2023) 3 551\01\3263159.1
4/6/2022
understands that in the event of any subsequent litigation, controversy or dispute concerning any of the terms, conditions or provisions of this Third Amendment, no Party shall be entitled to offer or introduce into evidence any oral promises or oral agreements between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Third Amendment not included or referred to herein and not reflected by a writing included or referred to herein.

Section 10. No Course of Dealing. The City has entered into this Third Amendment on the express understanding with Grantee that in entering into this Third Amendment, the City is not establishing any course of dealing with Grantee. The City's right to require strict performance with all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall not in any way be impaired by the execution of this Third Amendment. The City shall not be obligated in any manner to execute any further amendments or waivers and if such waivers or amendments are requested in the future, assuming the terms and conditions thereof are satisfactory to them, the City may require the payment of fees in connection therewith. In addition, if the City agrees to any further or subsequent amendment to this Third Amendment or the Agreement, then such amendment shall only be effective if made in writing and executed by the Parties.

Section 11. No Limitation on Municipal Powers. Nothing in this Third Amendment or the Agreement shall limit, waive, or otherwise impair the authority and discretion of: (a) the City's Building Department, in connection with the review and approval of any proposed design plans for the Temporary Structures (or any change to such plans), or any use, or proposed use, of the Site; or (b) any other office or department of the City acting in its capacity as a governmental regulatory authority with jurisdiction over the development, use, or operation of the Site.

Section 12. Counterparts. This Third Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Third Amendment shall become effective when the Parties have duly executed and delivered signature pages of this Third Amendment to each other. Delivery of this Third Amendment may be effectuated by hand delivery, mail, overnight courier or electronic communication (including by PDF sent by electronic mail, facsimile or similar means of electronic communication). Any signatures (including electronic signatures) delivered by electronic communication shall have the same legal effect as physically delivered original signatures.

Remainder of Page Left Intentionally Blank

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Resolution (2202 : RV Safe Parking Program License & Grant Agreement for Program Extension through April 30, 2023) 551\01\3263159.1
4/6/2022
WHEREFORE, the Parties have entered into this Third Amendment as of the Amendment Date.

CITY:

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, a municipal
corporation
By: ____________________________________
Name: ____________________________________
Its: ____________________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Valerie Armento
Interim City Attorney
GRANTEE:

WEHOPE, a California nonprofit public benefit
corporation doing business as "Project We Hope"
By: _________________________________
Name: _________________________________
Title: _________________________________

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Resolution (2202 : RV Safe Parking Program License & Grant Agreement for Program Extension through April 30, 2023)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Rachel Horst, Housing and Economic Development Manager SUBJECT: Authorization to Open a CalHome Meriwest Account for the CalHome ADU/JADU Loan Program
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution:

1. Authorizing the Finance Director to open any bank accounts necessary to transact business with Meriwest Credit Union as part of the CalHome ADU/JADU Loan Program; and

2. Authorizing the Finance Director and Housing & Economic Development Manager to authorize the release of funds from any accounts with Meriwest Credit Union.

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

Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
The City was awarded a $2 million CalHome award from the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in June 2019. CalHome is a revolving loan program for lowincome homeowners to build or substantially repair accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units (“ADUs” or “JADUs”).

The CalHome program operates on a reimbursement basis; the City loans funds up-front and later requests reimbursement from HCD.1 The maximum amount per loan is $70,000 JADUs and $80,000 for ADUs.

CalHome Coordination with EPACANDO and Meriwest Credit Union 1 As noted in the October 19, 2021 staff report, staff will use funds from the Affordable Housing Fund (F207), a special revenue fund with sufficient reserves to support CalHome ADU/JADU Loan disbursements prior to reimbursement from HCD, for this purpose.

3.2 Packet Pg. 15
On October 19, 2021, via Resolution No. 141-2021, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with EPACANDO to act as the City’s “Administrative Subcontractor” for the duration of the CalHome grant period. As indicated in the staff report from October 19, 2021,2 EPACANDO is subcontracting with Meriwest Credit Union (“Meriwest”) for loan underwriting and origination.

The table below shows an updated version of the table from the October 19 staff report, to illustrate the role of the City, EPACANDO, and Meriwest on the CalHome ADU/JADU Loan Program:

Step Description Responsible Party
Loan Application
EPACANDO assists applicant with
loan application preparation for
submittal to Meriwest and City. EPACANDO
City Approval
City approves applicant for loan
amount and prepares for
disbursement. City
Underwriting
Loan application is submitted to
Meriwest for underwriting. EPACANDO/Homeowner
Loan Documents
City and applicant execute
CalHome loan documents. EPACANDO/City/Homeowner
CalHome Disbursement
City places CalHome loan amount
into Meriwest account (will range
from $70-80k). City
CalHome Draw
Requests
EPACANDO monitors progress and
issues draw requests for City
approval based on prescribed
construction milestones. Payments
issued in up to 5 phases. EPACANDO/City/Homeowner
City Draw Request to
HCD
After completion of 3 or more
CalHome loans, City submits draw
request to HCD for reimbursement
of total amount, plus activity
delivery fee. City
The City intends to open a business account with Meriwest for the sole purpose of depositing the CalHome loan funds before they are disbursed (in separate draws) to the recipient of a CalHome Loan.

CalHome ADU/JADU Loan Program Status
EPACANDO and the City launched the CalHome ADU/JADU Loan program in January 2022.

Information is available on the City’s website and EPACANDO’s website, including a recorded webinar and the CalHome application.3In addition, City staff and EPACANDO hold weekly meetings to coordinate outreach to potential CalHome-eligible homeowners with active ADU or 2 Link to the staff report from October 19, 2021:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1428&MediaPosition=648.415&ID=1917&CssClass =
3 Please see: CANDO ADU | EPA CAN DO and CalHome Loans for ADUs/JADUs | City of East Palo Alto (cityofepa.org)

3.2 Packet Pg. 16
JADU Building applications.

With up to 20% of the total CalHome grant amount of $2 million set aside for administration (“Activity Delivery Fee”), it was anticipated that the first round of CalHome ADU/JADU Loans will serve a minimum of 20 households. Currently, EPACANDO is working with three applicant households through the underwriting process for a CalHome ADU/JADU Loan.

The purpose of this staff report is to obtain City Council authorization via resolution to open a business account with Meriwest so that loan funds may be disbursed to CalHome ADU/JADU Loan recipients.

Analysis
Section 3.04.060 of the Municipal Code authorizes the Finance Director to place City funds into an account:

The director of finance is authorized to deposit for safekeeping with a trust company or a state or national bank located within this state or with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or any branch thereof located within this state or with any Federal Reserve Bank or with any state or national bank located in any city designated as a reserve city by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the securities in which the city money has been invested pursuant to Section 3.04.020; provided, however, that the director of finance/city treasurer shall take from such trust company or bank a receipt for the securities so deposited and shall not be responsible for such securities delivered to and receipted for by such trust company or bank until they are withdrawn therefrom by the director of finance.

However, Meriwest also requires a resolution from the entity opening the account. This resolution must indicate which staff, by name, are authorized to open an account or otherwise conduct business with this account.

The resolution in Attachment 1 names the Finance Director as the authorized representative who may open a Meriwest account and conduct any business with the account. The Housing & Economic Development Director is named as an authorized party to authorize the release of funds from the Meriwest account.

Next Steps
If the resolution is adopted by the City Council, staff will submit the executed resolution to Meriwest and proceed to open a business account. The first CalHome ADU/JADU Loan application is anticipated to be submitted for underwriting to Meriwest by the end of May.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact with the items described in this staff report.

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

3.2 Packet Pg. 17
Environmental
The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Attachments

1. Resolution

3.2 Packet Pg. 18
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ESTABLISH AN ACCOUNT AND TRANSACT

BUSINESS WITH MERIWEST CREDIT UNION FOR THE CALHOME ADU/JADU LOAN PROGRAM WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, by Resolution No. 155-2020, the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto (“City”) authorized the City Manager to submit an application to the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) to participate in the CalHome Program; and WHEREAS, the City and EPACANDO jointly applied for $2,000,000 in CalHome funds for the purpose of providing loans to low-income owner-occupants for new construction, repair, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of accessory dwelling units/junior accessory dwelling units (“ADUs/JADUs”); and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2020, HCD notified the City that its application was successful and the Standard Agreement was executed on June 8, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2022, by Resolution No. 141-2021, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with EPACANDO, which will act as the City’s Administrative Subcontractor for the CalHome program, and which will subcontract with Meriwest Credit Union for loan underwriting and origination; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to open an account with Meriwest Credit Union for the purpose of depositing the CalHome loan funds before they are disbursed to the recipient of a CalHome Loan; and
WHEREAS, Meriwest Credit Union requires a certified resolution from the governing body authorizing one or more City staff to conduct business on behalf of the City; and WHEREAS, Section 3.04.060 of the Municipal Code authorizes the Finance Director to place City funds into a state or national bank account.

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

1. That it is in the best interest of the City to establish a banking account with Meriwest Credit Union.

2. That the Finance Director, Tomohito Oku, is hereby authorized on behalf of, and in the name of the City, to open any bank accounts necessary to transact business with Meriwest Credit Union as part of the CalHome ADU/JADU Loan Program.

3. That the Finance Director and/or the Housing and Economic Development Manager, Rachel Horst, acting together or either one acting alone, may authorize the release of funds from any accounts with Meriwest Credit Union.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a duly signed copy of this resolution shall be delivered to Meriwest Credit Union.

3.2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Resolution (2201 : Authorization to Open a CalHome Meriwest Account for the CalHome ADU/JADU Loan Program) PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, Acting City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

3.2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Resolution (2201 : Authorization to Open a CalHome Meriwest Account for the CalHome ADU/JADU Loan Program)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Jay Farr, Maintenance Division Manager
Humza Javed, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Disposal of non operable City Fleets and Equipment Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to Designate as Surplus Sixteen (16) Vehicles from the City Fleets and Two (2) Pieces of Equipment for donation to Menlo Park Fire Protection District.

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

Priority No. 1: Enhance Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Priority No. 5: Improve Communication and Enhance Community Engagement Background
Fleet vehicles and equipment listed in the Exhibit 1 from Public Works Department, Police Department, and Community Services Department are recommended for disposal due to age, mechanical condition, hi-mileage, and inoperability It would be ineffective and costly to retain and/or maintain these items.

Exhibit 1: FLEET VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT DESIGNATED FOR SURPLUS No Year Make Model Vin Number Department
1 2013 Dodge Charger 2C3CDXAG4DH597732 Police
Department
2 2008 Dodge Charger 2B3KA43G08H199596 Police
Department
3 2013 Dodge Charger 2C3CDXAG8DH597734 Police
Department
4 2007 Dodge Charger 2B3LA43H17H708753 Police

3.3 Packet Pg. 21
Department
5 2011 Dodge Charger 2B3CL1CT2BH600163 Police
Department
6 2013 Dodge Charger 2C3CDXAG6DH597733 Police
Department
7 2011 Dodge Charger 2B3CL1CT7BH600160 Police
Department
8 2012 Dodge Charger 2C3CDXAT2CH262027 Police
Department
9 2014 Ford Explorer 1FM5K8AR5EGC60299 Police
Department
10 2009 Ford Crown Victoria 2FABP7BV5AX102974 Police
Department
11 2007 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAHP71W57X108545 Police
Department
12 1994 Ford Crown Victoria 2FALP71WXRX179334
Police
Department
13 1979 Chevrolet Command Van CPL3593304228
Police
Department
14 1995 Ford F-150 Truck 1FTDF15N0SLB11448
Public
Works
15 1991 Ford Dump Truck 2FDLF47M2MCA57435
Public
Works
16 1995 John Deere Lawn Mower
M01145X140120 Public
Works
17 2003 Paco Pump 25919
Public
Works
18 1986 Ford Econoline-Van 1FTHS35L6GHA97864
Senior
Transportation
Analysis
The Menlo Park Fire Protection District is currently seeking donations of surplus vehicles for use at its training facility. The vehicles will be used to practice patient extrication using the Jaws of Life. This particular type of training is essential to the safety of their personnel and the public the City serves. As the laws in the state become more difficult with regard to the disposal of vehicles the District has found this type of property has become difficult to secure.

The Menlo Park Fire Protection District greatly appreciates the City of East Palo Alto’s assistance.

The Menlo Park Fire Protection District will provide for the pick-up, transportation and final disposal of any vehicles donated, with Pink Slips. Once the District takes delivery, the City of East Palo Alto will have no further liability associated with these vehicles. By making this donation, the City of East Palo Alto will be making the best use of our surplus property by allowing it to be used by our local Fire Department in training to hone their skills.

Fiscal Impact
Given the price of scrap metal, it is unlikely that the City will receive any significant revenue

3.3 Packet Pg. 22
from auctioning the inoperable vehicles. With the proposal, the City of East Palo Alto will generate no revenue, but incur no expense. According, there is no negative impact to the General Fund.

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

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Menlo Park Fire Protection District Letter

3.3 Packet Pg. 23
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF CITY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT

THROUGH DONATION TO THE MENLO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WHEREAS, sixteen (16) vehicles from the city fleet and two (2) pieces of equipment are recommended for disposal due to age, mechanical condition, hi-milage, and inoperability; and WHEREAS, surplus items, a detailed list of which is included in the staff report, will be donated to Menlo Park Fire Protection District for fire fighter training and exercises to hone their skills; and WHEREAS, disposal of the surplus vehicles and equipment will reduce overall maintenance costs for the City; and
WHEREAS, the Menlo Park Fire Protection District will provide for the pick-up, transportation and final disposal of the vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto will generate no revenue, but incur no expense so there is no negative impact to the General Fund.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY authorizes the City Manager to donate the surplus vehicles and equipment to the Menlo Park Fire Protection District,
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, Acting City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

3.3.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Resolution (2158 : Disposal of non operable City Fleets and Equipment)

3.3.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Menlo Park Fire Protection District Letter (2158 : Disposal of non operable City Fleets and Equipment)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Humza Javed, City Engineer
Kamal Fallaha, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment No. 1 with Zoon Engineering, Inc. for the Bay Road Phase II and III Improvements
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the Contract with Zoon Engineering to increase the budget by $49,830 for a new not-to-exceed total of $1,035,925 for construction management and project close-out services pertaining to the Bay Road project Phase II and III Improvements project.

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

Priority No. 1: Enhance Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Priority No. 2: Enhance Economic Vitality
Priority No. 4: Improve Public Facilities and Infrastructure Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
The Bay Road Phase II and III Improvements project began construction in the Summer of 2020. Resolution No. 10-2020 authorized a contract with Teichert & Son, Inc. (Teichert) for construction services, and a contract with Zoon Engineering for construction management and inspection services. The construction work was completed in February 2022.

On December 21, 2021, the Council adopted a Resolution authorizing a contract amendment with Teichert & Son, Inc., the construction contractor, to increase the budget by $2,345,638 in order to complete additional work related to the project. The additional work required additional time, which was approximately six months.

The City’s construction management consultant, Zoon Engineering, who has been overseeing

3.4 Packet Pg. 26
the contractor and construction activities on behalf of the City on-site on a daily basis, has been managing its budget over the course of the last six months for the additional work. As of March 2022, the construction management contract has been depleted. Although, the project is complete, there are number of services still needed from Zoon Engineering for project closeout. This work includes oversight of PG&E work along Bay Road for electrical service that needs to be relocated, review and approval of project As-Builts (construction drawings), support with Caltrans grant closeout documentation, execution of change orders, and support with claim settlement.

Analysis
The additional work pertaining to the construction management contract will continue through the summer 2022 and is identified in the Zoon Engineering proposal, included as Attachment

2. The additional amount is $49,830.

This amount includes review and approval of project As-Builts (construction drawings) based on field changes that will be prepared and finalized by the designer, city inspector as well as construction manager; support with Caltrans grant closeout documentation for federal funds which includes various forms for inspection, close out, labor compliance, disadvantaged business enterprise, etc., and execution of change orders based on the December 2021 contract amendment with Teichert.

This amount also includes support for a claim settlement report if a global settlement is reached between the City and Teichert on the notice of potential claims (NOPCs) for the project. The budget forecast for this item does not cover extensive efforts needed to provide for claims and dispute resolution support. If the City Council chooses to go through dispute resolution, then additional support services may be required in the future.

Fiscal Impact
Funds are available in the EDA grant for this additional cost. The amount needed from the EDA grant will be $39,864. A 20% city match in the amount of $9,966 will be needed from the CIP fund 301 (local portion of the EDA grant) and is budgeted.

Attachments

3.4 Packet Pg. 27

1. Resolution

2. Proposal

3.4 Packet Pg. 28
1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH ZOON ENGINEERING TO INCREASE THE BUDGET BY $49,830 FOR A NEW NOT-TOEXCEED TOTAL OF $1,035,925 FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES PERTAINING

TO THE BAY ROAD PHASE II/III IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Bay Road Improvements Phase II/III Project (“Project”) along Bay Road and Pulgas Avenue includes construction of underground utilities, complete street bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and pavement rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 10-2020 on January 21, 2020, approving a construction management contract with Zoon Enginering for the construction management, inspection, and materials testing for the Project; and
WHEREAS, over the course of construction a number of changed conditions were encountered during the installation of underground utilities which required additional time to complete the project; and
WHEREAS, the project was completed in February 2022, however, additional construction management services are needed through summer 2022 for review and approval of project As-Builts (construction drawings), support with Caltrans grant closeout documentation, execution of change orders, and support with claim settlement; and
WHEREAS, grant funds through the Economic Development Administration, and a local match are available to fund the contract amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY authorizes the City Manager to execute a first amendment to the contract with Zoon Engineering to increase the contract budget by $49,830 for a new not-to-exceed total of $1,035,925 for construction management services pertaining to the Bay Road Phase II/III Improvements Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

3.4.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Resolution (2197 : Contract Amendment No. 1 with Zoon Engineering, Inc. for Bay Road Phase II and III Improvements) 2 of
2 Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk Valerie Armento, City Attorney

3.4.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Resolution (2197 : Contract Amendment No. 1 with Zoon Engineering, Inc. for Bay Road Phase II and III Improvements) CM | claims | project controls
3960 adeline street # 3 | emeryville, ca 94608 | (510) 338.6434 | zoon‐eng.com April 11, 2022
Humza Javed, PE
City Engineer
City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate Street East Palo Alto, CA 94303
RE: Additional Funds Request
Construction Management Services Bay Road Improvements Phase II/III Project Federal-Aid Project No. HPLUL-5438 (011) - City Contract No. CIP-ST-05A-13 Dear Mr. Javed,
As previously discussed, Zoon Engineering is requesting additional funds in amount of $49,830.00 related to the construction management services for the Bay Road Improvements project. The construction of the project was completed in February 2022. The initial proposal by Zoon Engineering was based on the original project schedule with an anticipated completion around the end of Summer 2021. Since then, Zoon Engineering has worked within the project budget to provide additional services until March 2022. However, City Staff has requested additional support services to close out all outstanding change orders, attend various meetings, close out grant documentation with Caltrans, support PG&E work along Bay Road, and prepare a claim settlement report through June 2022.

The following tables provide the estimated budget needed:

Name Title Total Estimated Hours
through June 2022 Rate Total Estimated Cost
Keyvan Khorassani Field Engineer 78  $     85.00   $            6,630.00 Saeed Shahmirzai Resident
Engineer 200  $  200.00   $          40,000.00
Nabil Hissen Project
Manager 8  $  200.00   $            1,600.00
Doug Johnson Claims 8  $  200.00   $            1,600.00 Total Projected Cost to Complete $          49,830.00
NOTE: The hours listed provide for preparing a claim settlement report if a global settlement is reached between the City and Teichert on the NOPCs. This forecast does not cover extensive efforts needed to provide for claims and dispute resolution support.

Please don’t hesitate to call me with any questions. Thank you for your trust in Zoon Engineering.

Sincerely,
Saeed Shahmirzai, PE
Senior Construction Manager

3.4.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Proposal (2197 : Contract Amendment No. 1 with Zoon Engineering, Inc. for Bay Road Phase II and III Improvements)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney
BY: Patricia Del Castillo, Legal Assistant
SUBJECT: AB 361 Findings to Continue Virtual Public Meetings for the City Council and City Advisory Bodies
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution making the AB 361 findings necessary to continue virtual public meetings for the City Council and City Advisory Bodies for the month of May 2022.

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

Priority No. 3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
The California Brown Act has long-established requirements for local agencies to use teleconferencing to conduct meetings. It provides that if the local agency elects to use teleconferencing to conduct a public meeting, then it must identify each teleconference location in the public notice and agenda, and post agendas at all teleconference locations. All teleconference locations must be publicly accessible and there must be an opportunity for public comment at each teleconference location. Additionally, a quorum of the members of the legislative body must participate from locations physically within the jurisdictional boundaries of the agency.

In March 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 authorizing exemptions to these Brown Act teleconferencing requirements. These requirements were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic to promote social distancing and to facilitate remote work and meetings. Executive Order N-08-21 extended the previous order until September 30, 2021.

On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361 into law to allow the continued use of virtual public meetings during a declared state of emergency when certain conditions are met.

AB 361 took effect immediately as an urgency statute.

3.5 Packet Pg. 32
Analysis
AB 361 exempts local agencies from complying with the following teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act:
· Ensuring that each teleconference location is physically accessible to the public; · Maintaining quorum with members physically within the jurisdiction; and · Providing an opportunity for public comment at each teleconference location.

The AB 361 exemptions only apply during a declared state of emergency - as defined under the California Emergency Services Act - and one of the following circumstances must apply:

1. State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.

2. The legislative body is meeting to determine whether, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

3. The legislative body has determined that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person presents imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

Under AB 361, when a local agency elects to hold a virtual meeting because the applicable criteria are met, an alternate set of requirements apply:
· No Action During Disruptions - Where there is a disruption in the public broadcast of the call-in or internet-based meeting service, the local agency must cease and take no further action on agenda items until public access is restored. · Public Comment Rights - A local agency is prohibited from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and cannot close the comment period or opportunity to register online until the timed public comment period has elapsed.

Lastly, at least every 30 days during the proclaimed state of emergency, the local agency acting under the teleconference exemptions must make findings about whether the circumstances explained above still apply. Therefore, to continue holding virtual meetings, the City Council must find that it reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and that one of the following circumstances exist: “(i) the emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members to safely meet in person,” or “(ii) state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to propose social distancing.” Today’s action would allow the City Council and City advisory bodies to continue meeting virtually during the month of May 2022. The teleconferencing exemptions authorized by AB 361 will sunset on January 1, 2024.

Fiscal Impact
None
Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this agenda item by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official bulletin board outside City Hall and making the agenda and report available at the City’s website and at the San Mateo County Library located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

3.5 Packet Pg. 33
Attachments

1. Resolution

3.5 Packet Pg. 34
Resolution No. XX-2022 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
ADOPTING THE AB 361 FINDINGS NECESSARY TO CONTINUE VIRTUAL

PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY ADVISORY BODIES DURING THE COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2020, the United States Department of Public Health and Human Services Secretary declared a public health emergency for the novel disease named “coronavirus disease 2019” or “COVID-19" by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC”) reiterates that COVID-19 is a serious public health threat based on current information; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2020, the San Mateo County Health Officer declared a local health emergency throughout San Mateo County and the County Manager, serving as the County Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency throughout San Mateo County related to the novel coronavirus and on March 10, 2020, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors ratified and extended the declaration and proclamation, and this state of emergency remains in effect; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of California declared a State of Emergency due to the outbreak and spread of COVID-19, and the State of Emergency is still in effect; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the East Palo Alto City Council (“City Council”) proclaimed a local emergency due to COVID-19 and the local emergency is still in effect; and WHEREAS, in March 2020, the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended Brown Act requirements related to teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic provided that notice, accessibility, and other requirements were met, and the public was allowed to observe and address the legislative body at the meeting, and subsequently adopted Executive Order N-08-21 extending the previous order until September 30, 2021 and on September 16, 2021, the Governor signed into law AB 361 to allow the continued use of virtual public meetings during a declared state of emergency without conforming to the Brown Act teleconferencing rules during a declared state of emergency if certain findings were made; and
WHEREAS, since March 2020, the City Council and the City’s boards, commissions, and committees (“City Advisory Bodies”) have conducted their meetings virtually, as authorized by the Executive Order and since October 2021, the City Council has adopted resolutions, on a monthly basis, making the required AB 361 findings to continue virtual public meetings for the City Council and City advisory bodies; and
WHEREAS, throughout the world over 6 million people have succumbed to the coronavirus, which has morphed into several variants of concern, including Delta and Omicron; and

3.5.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Resolution (2200 : AB 361 Authority for virtual Public Meetings) Resolution No. XX-2022 2 of 2
WHEREAS, due to uncertainty and concerns about the Delta and Omicron variants and the fact that many people, particularly young children are unvaccinated, and concerns remain regarding the return to regular in-person operations; and
WHEREAS, given the heightened risks of these variants of COVID-19 in the community, holding indoor meetings with all members of the City Council, staff, and the public in attendance would pose an unnecessary and immediate health and safety risk to the attendees.

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

1. Adopts the recitals set forth herein as findings of fact;

2. Incorporates by this reference prior City Council resolutions making the AB 361 findings necessary to continue virtual public meetings for the City Council and City Advisory Bodies during the COVID-19 State of Emergency;

3. Determines that, after having reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency, finds that the emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members to safely meet in person; and

4. Suspends the Brown Act teleconferencing rules in accordance with AB 361, and based on the findings and determinations herein, thereby authorizing the use of virtual meetings of the City Council and City Advisory Bodies, during the month of May 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

3.5.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Resolution (2200 : AB 361 Authority for virtual Public Meetings)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
Bo-Kyoung Kim, Financial Services Manager
SUBJECT: Monthly Cash Treasury Report for February 2022 Recommendation
Accept and file the Cash Treasury Report for the month of February 2022.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
➢ Priority #3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency ➢ Priority #5: Improve Communication and Enhance Community Engagement Background
Pursuant to Section 53646 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Treasurer may submit a quarterly report to the City Council regarding the funds and investments of the City. Further, City Investment Policy Section XVIII requires monthly reporting of investment transactions, as specified. Because the City participates in State and County investments pools and does not independently broker or engage outside investment advisors to transact investments; the monthly reporting provides a snapshot of overall cash receipting, transfers, and disbursements on a monthly basis.

Analysis
This report covers cash and investments of the City in the three cash and investment accounts: Wells Fargo Bank, San Mateo County Pool, and the California State Local Agency Investment Fund. The monthly report does not include petty cash, or the California State Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP) bond proceeds held by a trustee in the name of the City. For investment purposes, City cash is pooled, except for bond proceeds held by a trustee. The City does not have, nor is it legally required to have, separate bank accounts for each individual fund. However, all cash is segregated in the City’s accounting records.

Monthly cash transactions for the monthly period ending February 28, 2022, are as follows:

3.6 Packet Pg. 37
Account
Beginning
Balance Receipts Disbursements
Quarterly
Interest
Allocation
Inter-Account
Transfers Ending Balance
Wells Fargo Bank 3,567,032.92 3,194,374.05 (2,205,082.60) - - 4,555,795.69 LAIF 10,005,380.81 - - 10,005,380.81
San Mateo County Pool 97,134,425.15 35,995.81 - - - 97,170,420.96 Total 110,706,838.88 3,230,369.86 (2,205,082.60) - - 111,731,597.46 The Wells Fargo cash balance reflects the book value balance (i.e., total outstanding checks not cashed are deducted from the account balance). The month-to-date cash and investment balance increased approximately $1.0M compared to the balance as of January 31, 2021.

February receipts, a total of approximately $3.2M, primarily consist of Business license renewal fees ($0.7M), Sales Tax ($0.4M), and various receipts including TOT and Veolia payments.

February disbursements total $2.2M and primarily consist of payroll costs ($1.1M), Engineering analysis services ($0.2M), and other recurring operating expenditures.

The table below reflects recent treasury yield comparisons up to five-year notes since that is the maximum maturity the City may invest:1
Feb-22 Jan-22 Feb-21
6-month Treasury Bill 0.68 0.49 0.05
2-year Treasury Note 1.44 1.18 0.14
5-Year Treasury Note 1.71 1.62 0.75
LAIF average monthly effective yields were 0.278% in February which slightly increased for

0.04% from January 2022. San Mateo County monthly gross earnings for February were

0.953% compared to 0.885% in January 2022. The County Pool earnings estimates for FY 21- 22 are at 0.98%.

Staff believes the City has investment liquidity and anticipated revenues to meet the City’s anticipated expenditure requirements for the ensuing six months.

Fiscal Impact
This report is informational.
1 Daily US Treasury Yield Curve. Treasury.gov

3.6 Packet Pg. 38

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Adrian Biggs, Associate Engineer
Glen March, Senior Engineer
Humza Javed, City Engineer
SUBJECT: RFP for On-Call Construction Management, Inspection, and Material Testing Services
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for on-call construction management, inspection, and material testing services related to capital improvement, private development, and other projects, including the University Avenue/101 Pedestrian Overcrossing Project.

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

Priority No. 3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Priority No. 4: Improve Public Facilities and Infrastructure Priority No. 5: Improve Communication and Enhance Community Engagement Background
The City has several upcoming construction projects that will require construction management, inspections, and/or materials testing services. These projects include the University Avenue/101 Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, the University/Cooley Avenue 12-inch Water Main project, the water main gap at University Avenue/Woodland Avenue, as well as others. Some of these projects have extensive requirements which will require daily inspections and quality control.

Additionally, many private development projects within the City are expected to start construction in the coming years. These projects will require a significant number of inspections by Public Works as part of their on-site and off-site improvements. Additional inspection coverage will be necessary to meet the inspection needs of the pending

3.7 Packet Pg. 39
developments.

Analysis
Staff is expecting numerous projects, both private development, and capital improvements, in the coming years that will require construction management, inspection, constructability reviews, and/or material testing services. Currently, the Public Works Department has one public works inspector to cover all public works and engineering inspections. This work includes inspection of utility work, encroachment permits, capital improvements as well as engineering and grading inspections pertaining to development projects.

City staff is seeking to create an on-call construction management, inspection, and materials testing contract and issue task orders for each project or assignment as they occur. Instead of hiring a new full-time employee, a multi-year on-call services contract will allow staff flexibility to utilize the technical services of a construction management firm for various constructionrelated and material testing services as needed for the various upcoming projects. This will also create efficiency in the Public Works Department by eliminating the administrative burden for proposals, contracts, purchase orders, and invoice processing for individual projects.

Complex projects such as the University Avenue/101 Pedestrian Overcrossing project require a full-time Construction Manager (Resident Engineer) during the duration of the construction phase of the project. Having the Resident Engineer perform a detailed constructability review before a project is bid out for construction is crucial to address design details that may create constructability issues in the field during construction.

Staff intends to advertise the RFP to the public as well as reach out to the firms currently listed on the City’s on-call list. The firms that submit RFPs will be rated by a panel of at least three members consisting of City staff as well as Caltrans staff. Staff will negotiate scope and fee with the highest rated proper. Once a firm is selected, staff will return to the City Council with a recommendation.

Fiscal Impact
There is no cost to advertise the RFP. Once a firm is selected, staff will bring a report back to the City Council for a contract award. The costs for construction management, inspection, and/or material testing services will be paid out from a combination of Grant Funds, Development Impact Fees, Water Funds, and Inspection fees.

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

3.7 Packet Pg. 40
Attachments

1. Resolution

3.7 Packet Pg. 41
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RELEASE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ON-CALL

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INSPECTION, AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES RELATED

TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, AND OTHER PROJECTS INCLUDING THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE/101 PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING PROJECT WHEREAS, the City has several upcoming projects that will require construction management, inspection, constructability reviews, and/or materials testing services; and WHEREAS, City staff is seeking to create an on-call construction management, inspection, and materials testing contract so work orders may be issued for each project as it occurs; and WHEREAS, an on-call construction management services contract will create efficiency within the public works department to ensure the ability to provide inspection coverage as well as other construction management services for capital improvements as well as private development projects and other projects;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY authorizes the City Manager to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for oncall construction management, inspection, and material testing services related to capital improvements, private development, and other projects, including the University Avenue/101 Pedestrian Overcrossing project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Rubin Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, Acting City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

3.7.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Resolution (2196 : RFP for On-Call CM)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Patrick Heisinger, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of Limited Duration Extra Help Classifications to Provide Additional Staff Capacity Until Permanent Positions are Filled
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1):
1) Modifying the Deputy Manager (Limited Duration Extra Help) Classification; and 2) Creating a Special Projects Manager (Limited Duration Extra Help) Classification.

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

Priority No. 3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Background
On July 27, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution (113-2021) that established a Limited Duration Deputy Manager (Deputy Manager) Special Projects position to add capacity when the Finance Director position was vacant during recruitment. The Deputy Manager position was specific to finance and accounting activities.

On April 5, 2021, the City Council approved an agreement with the current Assistant City Manager to serve as Interim City Manager, while the City embarks on a recruiting process to identify the next permanent City Manager.

Staff intends to embark on a robust effort fill all vacancies. However, while recruitments are underway, it is imperative that staff have the flexibility to identify qualified/experienced individuals who can step in and help the City during times of transition.

The purpose of this staff report is to propose that 1) the Deputy Manager classification be modified in order to provide the administration with greater flexibility and short-term capacity;

3.8 Packet Pg. 43
and 2) additional staff management capacity be generated to address critical City projects through the creation of a temporary Special Projects Manager classification.

Analysis
The previously approved Deputy Manager classification was written to address a specific need for finance and accounting expertise. Given the need for additional resources, this classification can be modified to provide management capacity to meet urgent needs and provide temporary help across the organization. In collaboration with outside legal counsel, staff has drafted a modified Deputy Manager classification to offer flexibility for the City Manager to bring in short term support where and when most needed in the organization.

Key Elements of the Modified Deputy Manager (Limited Duration Extra Help) Classification
Staff recommends the following language be included in the current Deputy Manager classification:
“Under the general direction of the City Manager, requiring organizational skill and executive experience for management or high-level or time sensitive projects or to alleviate the backlog in the following areas:
• Finance
• Public Works
• Community Development
• Administration”
Please see Attachment 2 to review the complete revised Deputy Manager classification.

Key Elements of Proposed Special Projects Manager (Limited Duration Extra Help) Classification
Recognizing that high-level vacancies have led to critical current City management needs, staff recommends consideration of an additional limited duration extra help classification to oversee specific projects or programs, such as a Special Projects Manager. The draft classification includes the following language:
“Under the general direction of the City Manager or designee (i.e., a Department Head), requiring organizational skills and related experience for specific or time sensitive projects or to alleviate the backlog in the following areas:
• Finance
• Public Works
• Community Development
• Administration”
Please see Attachment 3 to review the proposed Special Projects Manager classification.

By modifying the Deputy Manager classification and adding a Special Projects Manager classification, as proposed, the City Manager will be positioned to identify temporary capacity,

3.8 Packet Pg. 44
usually when a department head position or other high level managerial positions become vacant or when the City has a special project or a backlog of work that needs completion. In addition, by requiring these positions to be limited duration extra help and creating job descriptions and salary schedules, retired annuitants participating in the CalPERS system would be eligible to support the City in a limited capacity.

Next Steps
The incoming Interim City Manager intends to bring a staffing plan to the City Council in May. If the City Council approves the modified Deputy Manager classification and adds a Special Projects Manager classification, as requested in this report, the Interim City Manager would only fill these positions on a temporary basis, using salary savings to cover the expenses.

Fiscal Impact
It is staff’s intent to only utilize Limited Duration Extra Help positions to back fill permanent vacancies and on a temporary, as needed basis; therefore, there would be no fiscal impact to the City’s budget because the costs will be offset by salary savings.

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

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Deputy Manager Classification

3. Special Projects Manager Classification

3.8 Packet Pg. 45
1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

ESTABLISHING LIMITED DURATION DEPUTY MANAGER AND LIMITED DURATION SPECIAL

PROJECTS MANAGER CLASSIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

IMPLEMENT STAFFING CHANGES
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3.4.02 of the City of East Palo Alto (“City”) Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, temporary staffing changes may be deemed necessary from time to time; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the temporary position classification, the City has implemented temporary, limited duration positions for time-limited and non-recurring special projects or process improvements due to vacancies or transitions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to maintain staff continuity for limited periods by broadening the existing limited duration appointment classification of Deputy Manager and creating a limited duration appointment classification of Special Projects Manager for specific projects or programs.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY:
1) Establishes a limited duration Deputy Manager classification description and compensation scale as set forth in Exhibit A attached and incorporated herein by this reference; and, 2) Establishes a limited duration Special Projects Manager classification description and compensation scale as set forth in Exhibit B attached and incorporated herein by this reference.
3) Authorizes the City Manager to implement the limited staffing positions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

3.8.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Resolution (2208 : Consideration of Limited Duration Extra Help Classifications to Provide Additional Staff Capacity Un) 1 of 2
Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, Acting City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

3.8.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Resolution (2208 : Consideration of Limited Duration Extra Help Classifications to Provide Additional Staff Capacity Un)

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION
(LIMITED DURATION EXTRA HELP)

Page 1 of 3 ends

CLASS TITLE: DEPUTY MANAGER – SPECIAL PROJECTS CLASS CODE:

DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER FLSA STATUS: EXEMPT
REPORTS TO: CITY MANAGER EMPLOYEE GROUP: N/B
This class specification should not be interpreted as all inclusive. It is intended to identify the essential functions and requirements of this job. Incumbents may be requested to perform job-related responsibilities and tasks other than those stated in this specification.

Overview
Under the general direction of the City Manager, requiring organizational skill and executive experience for management or high-level or time sensitive projects or to alleviate the backlog in the following areas:
• Finance
• Public Works
• Community Development
• Administration
The position provides the following, but is not limited to organizational efficiency, advisory support involving high level, complex projects, assistance with conducting administrative and special studies to resolve operational issues and implementation of special projects, assistance in alleviating a backlog of work, accurate and timely analysis, written reports, consultation and presentations, and may supervise staff on a temporary basis Distinguishing Characteristics
Positions at this level aredistinguished by the level of responsibility assumed, complexity of duties assigned, and independence of action taken. Employees at this level are required to be fully trained in allprocedures and regulations related to assigned areas of responsibility.

Supervision Received / Exercised
This executive level position reports directly to the City Manager and will exercise a functional, technical, and advisory oversight and/or review role within the department, when needed.

Essential Functions (include, but are not limited to the following) • Ability to communicate complex problems effectively in either written or verbal form. • Maintains effective working relationships with all levels of staff and with the public. • Ability to demonstrate initiative, problem solve, and participate in generating options for solving complex issues.
• Highly skilled the areas of developing, implementing programs, policies and plans related to facets of City government as specified by the City Manager.

3.8.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Deputy Manager Classification (2208 : Consideration of Limited Duration Extra Help Classifications to Provide Additional Staff

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION
(LIMITED DURATION EXTRA HELP)

Page 2 of 3 ends

• Extremely well organized with attention to detail and ability to effectively prioritize in a fast-paced, challenging environment.

Minimum Education and Experience
Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be:

Equivalent to a bachelor’s degree in an area related to appointment or public administration, or a related field and seven (7) years of management and/or administrative experience. ➢ Possession of a valid California Class C Driver’s License and a good driving record, at the time of appointment.

Physical Demands
Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer, to operate a motor vehicle, and to visit various City and meeting sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, before groups, and over the telephone. This is primarily a sedentary office classification although standing and walking between work areas may be required. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, reach, push, and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information.

Environmental Conditions
Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may interact with upset staff and/or public and private representatives in interpreting and enforcing departmental policies and procedures.

Tools and Equipment
Competent mastery of personal computer including word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software, central accounting mainframe system experience, telephone, 10-key calculator, fax, copy machine, printers, postal meters, and motor vehicle is required.

Selection Guidelines
This position is intended to be filled upon recommendation of placement by the City Manager.

Duties listed above are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similar, related or a logical assignment to the position.

The job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the employer and

3.8.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Deputy Manager Classification (2208 : Consideration of Limited Duration Extra Help Classifications to Provide Additional Staff

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION
(LIMITED DURATION EXTRA HELP)

Page 3 of 3 ends

employee and is subject to change by the employer as the needs of the employer and Salary and Benefits
The following salary scale is approved for this limited duration Extra Help appointment:

LIMITED

DURATION

CLASSIFICATION
Deputy Manager - Special Projects
Hourly 92.4575 97.0804
Bi-Weekly 7,396.60 7,766.43
Monthly 16,025.97 16,827.27
Annual 192,311.60 201,927.18
All benefits offered and accruing to the non-represented executive class of the City shall accrue to this limited duration assignment.

3.8.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Deputy Manager Classification (2208 : Consideration of Limited Duration Extra Help Classifications to Provide Additional Staff

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION
(LIMITED DURATION EXTRA HELP)

Page 1 of 3 ends

CLASS TITLE: SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER CLASS CODE:

Overview
Under the general direction of the City Manager or designee (i.e., a Department Head), requiring organizational skills and related experience for specific or time sensitive projects or to alleviate the backlog in the following areas:
• Finance
• Public Works
• Community Development
• Administration
The position provides the following, but is not limited to organizational efficiency, support involving specific projects, assistance with administrative and special studies, assistance in alleviating a backlog of work, written reports or other work product, consultation and presentations, and may supervise staff on a temporary basis Distinguishing Characteristics
Positions at this level aredistinguished by their supervisory or mid-managerial level of responsibility assumed, complexity of duties assigned, and independence of action taken.

Employees at this level are required to be fully trained in allprocedures and regulations related to assigned areas of responsibility.

Supervision Received / Exercised
This mid-managerial level position reports directly to the City Manager or designee and will exercise functional, technical, or advisory oversight and/or review role within the department, as needed.

Essential Functions (include, but are not limited to the following) • Ability to communicate problems effectively in either written or verbal form. • Maintains effective working relationships with all levels of staff and with the public. • Ability to demonstrate initiative, problem solve, and participate in generating options for solving issues.
• Demonstrate independence and initiative in the timely and accurate preparation and processing of studies and reporting.
• Highly skilled the areas of developing, implementing programs, policies and plans

3.8.c
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Special Projects Manager Classification (2208 : Consideration of Limited Duration Extra Help Classifications to Provide Additional

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION
(LIMITED DURATION EXTRA HELP)

Page 2 of 3 ends

related to facets of City government as specified by the City Manager or designee. • Well organized with attention to detail and ability to effectively prioritize in a fastpaced, challenging environment.

Equivalent to an Associate’s degree in an area related to appointment or public administration, or a related field and two (2) years of management and/or administrative experience. ➢ Possession of a valid California Class C Driver’s License and a good driving record, at the time of appointment.

Selection Guidelines
This position is intended to be filled upon recommendation of placement by the City Manager.

3.8.c
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Special Projects Manager Classification (2208 : Consideration of Limited Duration Extra Help Classifications to Provide Additional

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION
(LIMITED DURATION EXTRA HELP)

Page 3 of 3 ends

The job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the employer and employee and is subject to change by the employer as the needs of the employer and Salary and Benefits
The following salary scale is approved for this limited duration Extra Help appointment:

LIMITED

DURATION

CLASSIFICATION
Special Projects - Manager
Hourly 65.10 69.33
Bi-Weekly
Monthly
Annual
All benefits offered and accruing to the non-represented executive class of the City shall accrue to this limited duration assignment.

3.8.c
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Special Projects Manager Classification (2208 : Consideration of Limited Duration Extra Help Classifications to Provide Additional

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
Greg Henry, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Quarterly COVID-19 Emergency Reporting
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

1. Accepting the Quarterly Emergency Report For March 31, 2022, and

2. Ratifying Emergency Response Expenditures
Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority No. 1: Enhance Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Priority No. 5: Improve Communication and Enhance Community Engagement Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
The widespread, deleterious impacts of the outbreak of novel coronavirus (named “COVID-19” by the World Health Organization) continues to strain communities throughout the Bay Area and the world.

On March 17, 2020, the Council proclaimed a local emergency for COVID-19 and further authorized the City Manager to make repairs, alterations, or improvements to the City’s public facilities, take any directly related and immediate actions required by said emergency, and procure the equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes.

To date, the City has committed significant direct resources to respond to COVID-19. The City also incurred significant indirect staff time and diversion because of the organizational effect of long-term remote work protocol, as well as, responding to COVID quarantine protocols, acquiring additional unplanned responsibilities, and backfilling the responsibilities of the staff

3.9 Packet Pg. 54
directly responding to COVID-19 testing and vaccination activities, as well as supportive activities such as food bank traffic support. As a result, this report does not capture the total direct and indirect costs to the City. Thus, this reporting is not intended to capture the true cost impacts of the pandemic.

COVID-19 Response Activities
For the quarter ended December 31, 2021, the City incurred approximately $200,000 in identified COVID-19 spending. This consisted primarily of community testing and vaccine support as well as payments to Project WeHope management of the additional daytime use for the RV Safe Parking Program.

Emergency Reporting Requirement
Under City Municipal Code Section 3.20.030, the Finance Director - as Budget Officer - reports to Council regarding the status of emergency expenditures within fifteen days of each quarter end. This report provides an update to the previous report provided to Council October 5, 2021.

Analysis
COVID-19 Financial Reporting Information
Presented below in Table 1 is the City’s COVID-19 Authorization. As of April 2, 2021, the City Council provided the City Manager $975,000 in Emergency Authorization. In addition, the City Council approved $815,147 in additional COVID related contracts and activity supported by outside funding (CARES, Bureau of Justice Grants and San Mateo Count). As part of this report, staff are asking that the Council approve $48,042 in additional County Funding for Vaccination and Testing support. Including this agreement ,the Council will have approved $1.94M in COVID response activity.

3.9 Packet Pg. 55
Table 1
Date Authorization Amount
03/27/20 Emergency Appropriation $ 300,000
03/27/20 Rapid Rehousing Funds 100,000
05/19/20 Community Outreach 26,000
06/16/20 Community Distance Learning 60,000
07/07/20 Emergency Appropriation 75,000
07/07/20 Bureau of Justice Grant 18,000
10/20/20 Emergency Appropriation 200,000
10/20/20 CARES Funding 380,218
01/19/21 Emergency Appropriation 100,000
03/02/21 Emergency Appropriation 300,000
04/20/21 RV Safe Parking Mitigation 96,731
09/20/21 San Mateo County Funding (Curative I) 17,754
09/20/21 San Mateo County Funding (Curative II) 29,151
09/20/21 San Mateo County Funding (Vaccination) 47,293
04/05/22 Vaccination Incentive 45,000
03/22/22 San Mateo County Funding (Vacc & Testing) 145,000 Total $ 1,940,147
Table 2 below shows the source of funding for all current expenditures (not including funds committed to contracts, but unspent). Amounts charges to federal and San Mateo County funding sources reflect only those costs that are directly supported by verifiable or required time keeping and expenditure data submitted by Departments, and such amounts are subject to change upon Finance review and final approval of expenditures submitted for reimbursement by Departments.

Table 2
Date Source of Fund for Expenditures Amount
CARES Funding $ (380,218)
Bureau of Justice (BOJ) Funding (20,362)
San Mateo County Funding (Curative I) (17,754)
San Mateo County Funding (Curative II) (29,151)
San Mateo County Funding (Vaccination) (47,293)
San Mateo County Funding (Vacc & Testing) (94,897)
FEMA (85,836)
City Emergency Funds (880,721)
Total (1,556,231)
03/31/22
It is important to note that all outside funding has strict regulatory eligibility and reporting requirements. Staff is making best efforts to maximize the City’s overall funding reimbursements; however, we recognize certain funding requests may not result in approved reimbursements. In such a case, those costs will need General Fund resources.

Finance is also applying discretion over certain charges whereby the estimated cost of administrative cost of tracking, supporting, and applying for federal reimbursement is greater

3.9 Packet Pg. 56
than the actual cost receipt.

Below is a detailed analysis of the City’s COVID-19 response activity. Costs shown in Table 3 do not reflect the significant additional workload and all the diversion in the Police Department, City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, City Clerk, Finance and Human Resources.

Table 3
Description Spent
Committed
to Contract Total
City Council
Direct
Authority
City Manager
Emergency
Authority
Vaccine Incentive Cards 25,290 19,710 45,000 45,000 -
COVID-Testing, Vaccine 535,214 - 535,214 218,932 316,282 Traffic Support 186,353 - 186,353 4,467 181,886
Police Response Mitigation 241,188 - 241,188 241,188 -
Remote Dance Classes 12,500 - 12,500 - 12,500
Distance Learning 19,905 40,095 60,000 60,000 -
Tenant Rental Assistance 100,000 - 100,000 100,000 -
Small Business Assistance 27,000 - 27,000 - 27,000
Safety Measures 121,585 - 121,585 46,117 75,468
Homeless "At Risk" Mitigation 78,884 38,647 117,531 96,731 20,800 Employee Remote Work 67,470 - 67,470 20,520 46,950
Employee Leave 74,070 - 74,070 56,090 17,980
COVID Staffing Support 12,900 12,100 25,000 - 25,000
Outreach and Communication 53,873 3,000 56,873 26,000 30,873 1,556,231 113,552 1,669,783 915,045 754,739
Table 3 reflects tracked costs by category; however, not all tracked costs are “external”. In other words, a significant portion of tracked emergency expenditures reflect costs for staff diverted to emergency response or on COVID-related paid sick and other leave and, therefore, are not “additional” costs paid to outside entities.

Fiscal Impact
Of the total City and outside source funding authorized of $1.94M, approximately $1.67M is spent and committed. All other response costs will be within $0.22M emergency authority remaining for the ensuing quarter. Therefore, staff are not seeking additional emergency funding authority through June 30, 2022.

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

3.9 Packet Pg. 57
Attachments

1. Reso.QuarterlyEmer.March 2022

3.9 Packet Pg. 58
1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO.–

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
APPROVING THE QUARTERLY EMERGENCY REPORT FOR MARCH 31, 2022, AND RATIFYING ALL PREVIOUSLY ENCUMBERED AND EXPENDED COVID-19 EMERGENCY RESPONSE

EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY MANAGER AS SET FORTH IN THE QUARTERLY EMERGENCY REPORT FOR DECEMBER 31, 2021
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2020, the United States Department of Public Health and Human Services Secretary declared a public health emergency for the novel disease named “coronavirus disease 2019” or “COVID-19" by the World Health Organization; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC”) has stated that COVID-19 is a serious public health threat based on current information; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2020, the San Mateo County Health Officer declared a local health emergency throughout San Mateo County and the County Manager, serving as the County Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency throughout San Mateo County related to the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) and on March 10, 2020, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors (“County Board”) ratified and extended the declaration and proclamation and this state of emergency remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of California declared a State of Emergency due to the outbreak and spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the City Council proclaimed a local emergency due to COVID19 and further authorized the City Manager to make repairs, alterations or improvements to the City’s public facilities pursuant to Section 22050 of the California Public Contract Code, take any directly related and immediate actions required by said emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to let contracts; and WHEREAS, City staff services in public safety, administrative services and other divisions have been substantially diverted, and other direct expenditures have been incurred since March 1, 2020 for COVID-19 public health and safety response and mitigation purposes; and WHEREAS, East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 3.20.010 states that the City Council, as governing body, may make emergency appropriations to meet a pressing need for public expenditure to protect public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, City Council authorized emergency appropriations of $975,000; and WHEREAS, such funds may be utilized for COVID-19 emergency mitigation strategies including, but not limited to, public safety, first responder mitigation and monitoring activities, community testing and outreach, City staff and facility safety protocol, enhanced hygiene for local residents and in facilities, sustained multi-lingual and multi-platform communication, and other equipment and supplies as deemed necessary.

3.9.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Reso.QuarterlyEmer.March 2022 (2186 : Quarterly COVID-19 Emergency Reporting March 2022) 2 of 2

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

1. Accepts the Quarterly Emergency Report for March 31, 2022;

2. Ratifies the Testing and Vaccination Support Agreement for City support of the San Mateo County Testing and Vaccination efforts from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 accepted by the City Manager

3. Ratifies all previously encumbered and expended COVID-19 emergency response expenditures authorized by the City Manager under said Emergency Appropriation.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19
th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, Acting City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

3.9.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Reso.QuarterlyEmer.March 2022 (2186 : Quarterly COVID-19 Emergency Reporting March 2022)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Azalea Renfield, Community Services Manager
Maurice Baker, Recreation Programs Coordinator
Patrick Heisinger, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Agreements for 2022 Summer Programming Activities Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1):

1. Authorizing the City Manager to enter into agreements with sixteen (16) vendors to provide programming activities during Summer 2022; and

2. Appropriating an additional $44,000 in Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue to support summer programming in 2022.

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

Priority No. 1: Enhance Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Priority No. 2: Enhance Economic Vitality
Priority No. 3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Priority No. 4: Improve Public Facilities and Infrastructure Priority No. 5: Improve Communication and Enhance Community Engagement Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
On December 21, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing staff to take the following actions:

1. Allocate $110,000 in TOT funding to fund 2022 Summer Programming efforts;

2. Allocate a one-time appropriation of $10,000 of TOT funding to implement the 2022 Pilot Micro-Grant Program to assist local sports teams with the leasing of athletic space;

3. Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify eligible individuals and organizations to provide Summer Programming services to East Palo Alto residents;

3.10 Packet Pg. 61

4. Issue a “Call for Proposals” to identify athletic teams who may qualify for the City’s pilot micro-grant program; and

5. Direct the City Manager to return to the City Council in Spring 2022 with recommendations for Summer Programming to be funded.

On January 5, 2022, staff issued an RFP to identify eligible individuals and organizations to provide Summer Programming services to East Palo Alto residents. The deadline to submit responses to the City’s RFP was February 7, 2022.

The City received 18 proposals and 16 were eligible to participate in the City’s Summer Programming efforts. Community Services staff now returns to the City Council with program recommendations and funding requests for Summer 2022.

Analysis
Staff recommends the City Council approve contracts with each entity, in the funding amounts identified in the table below:

Preliminary Results of Summer Programming RFP
Vendor Activity Amount
StreetCode Academy Tech and Engineering activities in the Park $10,000 Hope Horizon formerly
Bayshore Christian Ministries
Holistic youth camp catering to Westside community $10,000 EPA T-Ball & Pitching Machine Host partner for Junior Giants program $10,000 Bottletree Culture West African dance instruction for all ages $10,000 Step It Up Dance Contemporary, Hip Hop, Modern, Praise Dance $10,000 My Gym Gymnastics and Fitness training at Joel Davis Park $9,000 Camp Doza Multisport camp feat. Basketball, Soccer, & Nature $10,000 Paxton Sports Academy &
Process Academy
Expert basketball instruction and sports challenges $11,000 East Palo Alto Tennis &
Tutoring
Youth Tennis training & Academic instruction $10,000
Live in Peace Multifaceted programming: Bike Shop, Golf Program, Moderate-High Level fitness training
$10,000
Sign Gypsies Multigenerational activities such as Meditation, Bingo, Paint by Numbers
$8,000
MPAA Mastodons Football Youth competitive football training with holistic approach
$10,000
Fit To the Core Intergenerational group fitness activities $10,000 UEHL Literacy and homework assistance for youth $10,000 GG Leagues First time eSports programming $7,000
Razorhawks Youth Rugby Competitive youth rugby Summer Sevens $9,000 Total $ 154,000
Next Steps
If the City Council approves the staff recommendation as described in this report, staff will finalize agreements with each of the approved vendors. In addition, marketing efforts will be initiated with banners citywide, a one-time mailer to all residents, and partnerships with EPACenter Arts and Ravenswood City School District to enhance community awareness of these upcoming programs.

Staff will then Issue a “Call for Proposals” to identify athletic teams who may qualify for the

3.10 Packet Pg. 62
City’s pilot micro-grant program.

Parks Master Plan
The City is in the process of completing the first Parks Master Plan (Plan). The Plan will inform staff and the City Council on how to implement summer programming efforts beginning in 2023.

Fiscal Impact
There are ample funds available in Fund 231(Children/Youth/Senior/Family Fund TOT).

Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this agenda item by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official bulletin board outside City Hall and making the agenda and report available at the City’s website and at the San Mateo Co. Library located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto
Environmental
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” pursuant to 15378(b)(4) because it is a fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.

Attachments

1. Summer Programming Resolution

3.10 Packet Pg. 63
RESOLUTION NO.

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH SIXTEEN PROGRAM PROVIDERS TO CONDUCT 2022 SUMMER PROGRAMMING

FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES IN CITY OWNED AND OPERATED PARKS WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 177-2021 which allocated $110,000 in TOT funding to 2022 Summer Programming efforts and directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify eligible individuals and organizations to provide Summer Programming services to East Palo Alto residents; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2022, staff issued an RFP to identify eligible individuals and organizations to provide Summer Programming services to East Palo Alto residents, with a response deadline of February 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City received 18 proposals, 16 of which were eligible to participate in the City’s Summer Programming efforts; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is seeking authority to enter into agreements with sixteen (16) vendors to provide programming activities during Summer 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is requesting the City Council appropriate an additional $44,000 of TOT funding to pay for all summer programming activities.

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

1. Authorizes the City Manager to enter into agreements with the specified vendors in the amounts listed to conduct 2022 Summer Programming activities in City owned and operated parks.

1. StreetCode Academy ($10,000)

2. East Palo Alto Tennis & Tutoring ($10,000)

3. Hope Horizon formerly Bayshore Christian Ministries ($10,000)

4. Bottletree Culture ($10,000)

5. Step It Up Dance ($10,000)

6. Live in Peace ($10,000)

7. East Palo Alto Tee-Ball & Pitching Machine ($10,000)

8. Paxton Sports Academy & The Process Academy ($11,000)

9. MPAA Mastodons ($10,000)

10.Sign Gypsies ($8,000)

11.Camp Doza ($10,000)

3.10.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Summer Programming Resolution (2214 : Approval of Agreements for 2022 Summer Programming Activities)

12.My Gym ($9,000)

13.Fit to the Core ($10,000)

14.UEHL ($10,000)

15.GG Leagues ($7,000)

16.Razorhawks Youth Rugby Club ($9,000); and

2. Appropriates $44,000 of TOT funding to pay for all summer programming activities.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
James Colin, Acting City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

3.10.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Summer Programming Resolution (2214 : Approval of Agreements for 2022 Summer Programming Activities)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: James Colin, Executive Assistant
SUBJECT: Proclamation Honoring Nevida Preston Butler for Her Service to East Palo Alto and in Celebration of Her 80th Birthday
Recommendation
Present the proclamation.

Attachments

1. Nevida Butler Proclamation

3.11 Packet Pg. 66

3.11.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Nevida Butler Proclamation (2210 : Proclamation Honoring Nevida Preston Butler for Her

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: James Colin, Executive Assistant
SUBJECT: Proclamation Celebrating the Holy Month of Ramadan Recommendation
Present the proclamation.

Attachments

1. Ramadan Proclamation

3.12 Packet Pg. 68

PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

CELEBRATING THE HOLY MONTH OF RAMADAN
WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto boasts a small but growing Muslim community representing a wide array of backgrounds, from African Americans, to Arabs, and other nationalities, as well as those who grew up Muslim, as well as converts; and WHEREAS, the Bay Area has one of the highest concentrations of Muslims in the nation with approximately 250,000 residents from ethnically diverse backgrounds; and
WHEREAS, Muslims represent small business owners, city staff and officials, civic leaders, and residents that have enriched East Palo Alto’s historically multiethnic and culturally rich communities; and
WHEREAS, Ramadan, represents one of the five pillars of Islam, and is, above all, a time of introspection and spiritual reinvigoration for the entire umma, that is the global Arabic community; and
WHEREAS, civic responsibility and social justice is at the heart of Islamic teachings, as evidenced by the words of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), “Allah will aid a servant (of His) so long as the servant aids his brother,” one whose spirit of mutual aid and care for one another mirrors our own city’s ethos; and
WHEREAS, during the month of Ramadan, Muslims are obliged to partake in acts of alms-giving (or zika in the Arabic), thus underscoring the religion’s alignment with the values of our beloved city, and
WHEREAS, the observance of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan commences at dusk on Friday April 1, 2021, and continues for one lunar month, from sunrise to sunset each day.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto, celebrates Ramadan and expresses its deepest appreciation to the Muslims of East Palo Alto and throughout the Bay Area and world on this occasion; and we affirm our commitment to ensuring that our City values remain welcoming and compassionate to all peoples and that we pursue policies that respect the dignity and rights of all working people, regardless of race, religion, immigration status, or country of origin, and the City Council urges the people of East Palo Alto to join in celebrating the holy month of Ramadan and taking this month to honor the Muslim community and reflect on the health and wellbeing of family, friends, and fellow citizens.

3.12.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Ramadan Proclamation (2207 : Proclamation Celebrating the Holy Month of Ramadan)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: James Colin, Executive Assistant
SUBJECT: Proclamation Honoring Gerardo Barragan for His Service to East Palo Alto Recommendation
Present the proclamation.

Attachments

1. Gerardo Barragan Proclamation

3.13 Packet Pg. 70
Proclamation Honoring Gerardo Barragan for His Service to East Palo Alto WHEREAS, Gerardo Barragan was born on May 5, 1969, in Michoacan, Mexico and came to East Palo Alto in the early 1990’s where he began working at Links to Positive People, a drug and alcohol program in East Palo Alto, CA. First as a receptionist with very limited English, he quickly moved up to outreach worker; and WHEREAS, Gerardo took on the challenge of working in the field of recovery because he wanted to help people and, in 1994, he became a part of a mission to provide services to people of color and to address the need for recovery in the East Palo Alto community. He was inducted as an “Honorary Board Member” of Free at Last and quickly rose through the ranks to serve in almost every position in the agency; and WHEREAS, he returned to school to further his education and graduated from Menlo College with a bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts in 1998, maintaining a 4.0 grade average and awarded Outstanding Scholastic Achievement each of those years; and WHEREAS, Gerardo has served on many committees in the community, advocating services for the youth, working as a translator for the Latino community, mentoring youth as well as the elderly who cannot speak for themselves, and was on the first task force for the AIDS Committee, instrumental, along with Priya Haji, David Lewis, and others, with organizing the annual AIDS march in the East Palo Alto community; and WHEREAS, among the many awards he has received over the years are: 1997 East Palo Alto Teen Home Positive Image Award, 2005 Awarded Leadership in the Latino Community Award by the Latino Student Union at Menlo College, 2014 San Mateo County Mental Health and Substance Abuse Recovery/David Lewis Award, 2014 Service Award for 20 Years with Free at Last, and 2019 Award from the Free at Last Board of Directors for Perseverance in Maintaining Free at Last as an agency; and
WHEREAS, Gerardo chose to help people no matter who they were and advocated for a Spanish speaking program for addicts and alcoholics called The Animo Program which brought many in the Latino community into recovery; and WHEREAS, Gerardo is currently retiring from the position of Executive Director at Free at Last after serving in every office in the agency from Chief Operating Officer to finance, outreach, custodian, gardener, counselor, mentor, electrician, and plumber over the years. We appreciate Gerardo with all our hearts and soul. By sacrificing precious time with his family including daughter Ixchel Barragan, his dedication kept the agency afloat during hard times. We salute him and welcome him into the world of retirement, knowing that this man will never stop helping others or giving back to a community that he so loves.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that I, Ruben Abrica, Mayor of East Palo Alto, along with the City Council, do hereby deem it an honor and pleasure to extend this proclamation honoring Gerardo Barragan for his service to East Palo Alto and with best wishes for many more happy, productive years.

Dated: April 19, 2022
Ruben Abrica, Mayor

3.13.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Gerardo Barragan Proclamation (2209 : Proclamation Honoring Gerardo Barragan for His

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: James Colin, Executive Assistant
SUBJECT: East Palo Alto Community Archive Special Presentation Recommendation
Receive the presentation.

Background

7.1 Packet Pg. 72

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Amy Chen, Community & Economic Development Director Elena Lee, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances
Recommendation

1. Accept the staff report and adopt the final Urban Forest Master Plan (“UFMP”); and

2. Waive the First Reading and introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 12.16 and Chapter 18.28 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code and miscellaneous provisions related to trees.

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

Priority No. 1: Enhance Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Priority No. 4: Improve Public Facilities and Infrastructure Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
In August 2018, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Cal Fire to accept the 2017-2018 Urban & Community Forestry California Climate Investment Grant: “From Gray to Green: An Urban Forest Master Plan for East Palo Alto” (also known as the CalFire Grant), which included up to $280,680 to develop the first Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) and to update the Tree Protection Ordinance, along with $50,000 dedicated to planting 100 trees in the community with Canopy considered the lead partner for this effort.

In January 2020, City Manager was authorized by City Council to identify the Aquatic Science Center as the primary agency with San Francisco Estuary Institute (“SFEI”) to administer the CalFire grant goals, objectives and completing deliverables. SFEI along with Hort Science Bartlett Consulting and Canopy, have partnered with the City of East Palo Alto for the CalFire

8.1 Packet Pg. 73
Grant. This team has been developing a 40-year UFMP through community outreach with various groups and establishing an UFMP Steering Committee to create a shared vision and a list of goals, access current statuses and benefits of trees and strategize an action plan. SFEI is the lead consultant on this project assisting City staff with the development of the UFMP and these proposed ordinance revisions. Canopy is primarily in charge of planting the 100 trees in the community but also conducting training and outreach on the UFMP efforts.

On May 7, 2021, oversight and management of the UFMP project, including grant management of the CalFire grant, was transferred from Michelle Daher in Public Works to the City’s Community and Economic Development (CED) Director, Amy Chen. The Public Works Department will continue to lead current activities related to the maintenance of street trees.

Where needed, CED staff will work together with Public Works especially upon implementation of the revised code provisions.

On May 24, 2021 and June 15, 2021, the Planning Commission and City Council, respectively, received an introductory presentation on the UFMP and the anticipated timeline.

CalFire recently received legislative approval to extend grants issued in 2017 and 2018 from March 30, 2022 to March 30, 2023, due to challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Staff made the request to extend the CalFire Grant deadline to March 30, 2023 and CalFire approved this request. Contracts with SFEI and Canopy have been extended to ensure the grant requirements are met. Although there is more time to focus on the UFMP project, City staff and the consultant team felt it important to keep up the momentum of work done on the project thus far.

On November 16, 2021, City staff and consultants presented to City Council a progress report on the CalFire Grant and sought direction on the final UFMP based on a draft version submitted with the staff report. The City Council provided direction on recommendations to be included in the UFMP and directed staff to return to Council with draft revisions to tree-related ordinances, specifically in Chapters 12.16 and 18.28 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code. A summary of this meeting is further discussed in the analysis section below.

On April 11, 2022, City staff and consultants presented the UFMP and an ordinance amending Chapter 12.16 and Chapter 18.28 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code and miscellaneous provisions related to trees to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission unanimously accepted the staff report and recommended City Council adopt the UFMP. The Planning Commission suggested a change to the Development Code in Chapter 18.28 to require all private tree removal permits to be heard by the Planning Commission. This item will be further discussed in the analysis section below.

The purpose of this staff report is to seek Council approval of the final UFMP and seek approval to adopt proposed changes to the Municipal Code to support the goals and objectives of the East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan.

Analysis
The Urban Forest Master Plan
An urban forest master plan is a roadmap towards a shared vision for the future of the city’s tree canopy. Funded by the CalFire Grant described above, the City has drafted an Urban

8.1 Packet Pg. 74
Forest Master Plan to evaluate and plan for the City’s trees.

The plan has two goals and three objectives:

GOALS OBJECTIVES

1. Grow a healthy, extensive, vibrant,
and diverse urban forest to provide
20% canopy cover by 2062 and 30%
by 2122.

2. Connect with an engaged and
informed community to provide
stewardship of the urban forest.

1. Grow the urban forest

2. Define responsibilities and support
improved maintenance practices and
protections for public and private trees

3. Connect with the community around
tree stewardship
The initial development of the UFMP started with several focus group meetings with key community stakeholders including Anamatangi Polynesian Voices, El Comite, Youth United for Community Action, the Senior Advisory Committee, the Ravenswood business community, and local churches. City staff and consultants conducted a public survey, and to boost participation, respondents were entered into a raffle drawing for gift cards. In total, 208 completed surveys were received. A UFMP community steering committee was formed and a representative from the Planning Commission (Commissioner Fisk) and City Council (Councilmember Lopez) participated in this committee to help develop the initial UFMP.

The UFMP includes three sections:
1) Introduction and Context,
2) Current Status, and
3) Plan for the Future.

Please see the November 16, 2021 City Council agenda report for more detail on the sections of the UFMP1. City staff and the consultants have further refined sections of the UFMP in accordance with feedback received from City Council to prepare the attached version to present for final adoption. The adopted UFMP is a primary deliverable of the CalFire Grant. It is key for City Council to accept this staff report and adopt the final Urban Forest Master Plan which will be published online and must be submitted to CalFire.

Summary and Follow up to November 16, 2021 City Council Meeting At the November 16, 2021 City Council meeting, City staff and consultants presented an overview of the City’s current urban forest program and who is responsible for planting, maintenance, and removal of public trees, and review of applications to remove private protected trees. This work is accomplished by a combination of City staff in the Planning and Public Works departments, Canopy staff and volunteers and contracted tree care services.

City staff and the consultants suggested the future program should include more public engagement around tree care and protection issues and suggested clarifying some of the details in the tree ordinances to help make implementation procedures clearer for both the public and City staff. City Council agreed the City should take more responsibility for 1 November 16, 2021 City Council meeting, agenda item 9.1:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=None&MeetingID=1431&MediaPositio n=15434.576&ID=1963&CssClass=

8.1 Packet Pg. 75
maintaining public trees, rather than having private property owners take on responsibilities.

Please see attached summary of the questions and discussion items from the November 16, 2021 City Council meeting. The main concern was whether City staff can manage the increased workload and the scope of the overall staffing and budget implications of the recommendations of the UFMP. City staff and the consultants developed a matrix of all the roles and responsibilities to begin to evaluate the needs for additional resources. The primary needs identified include expanding contracted services to accommodate a proactive grid pruning approach, to record tree care activities in a tree inventory, and to provide support during removal permit review. These changes should be scoped with the City’s existing contractor or in a new RFP. Additional time spent on review of tree removals and the issuance of tree removal permits associated with development will take an unknown amount of additional staff time, depending on the degree to which they are needed. A new investment in community engagement and outreach around trees also is recommended if resources allow.

Updates to City Tree-Related Ordinances
Recommendations from the Plan can be implemented in part through changes to the City’s tree regulations and related staff procedures. Changes are intended to improve some internal processes, make requirements clearer and easier to implement, encourage more tree planting, and build in more opportunity for public input.

The following needs were identified for changes:
• Public Trees – Current public tree ordinances lack standard components, including specifying responsibilities and standards. Additionally, grid or cycle pruning public trees will allow more trees to be pruned for fewer dollars spent while proactively pruning trees to American National Standards Institute A300 standards, in alignment with recommendations of the UFMP.
• Private Trees – Recommended revisions pertaining to private trees would match the Development Code with best management practices. Recommendations including removing the exemption for development-related tree removals to allow the City to track and report on the impact of development on the urban forest. An expanded permit approval hearing process will increase public visibility. Additionally, adding a shading requirement for parking lots would encourage expansion of urban tree canopy cover.

As directed by City Council, City staff and consultants looked at all current city ordinances related to trees and concluded it is preferable to have one clear ordinance for public trees and one for private trees, and propose the following changes:
• Public trees – Key revisions to Chapter 12.16 and deletion of Section 13.24.410 (Street Trees) so that Chapter 12.16 now encompasses street trees and refocuses on all trees on public property and in the public right-of-way, including setting a policy to enact a proactive maintenance program.
• Within the Development Code
o Private trees –Current Chapter 18.28 focuses on landscaping and trees. The proposed ordinance changes focus to streamlining the tree removal permit application process for trees on private property and requiring tree removal permits for development projects.
o Parking lots – Revisions to Section 18.30.090 enhance tree planting

8.1 Packet Pg. 76
requirements in parking lots.

These changes were reviewed in a public community meeting held on March 30, 2022. Further synopsis of the public community meeting is described below. All residents and homeowners in the city were notified of the meeting via a postcard mailer and invited to attend the Planning Commission meeting on April 11, 2022.

Summary and Follow up to April 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting At the April 11, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, City staff and consultants presented the UFMP and the proposed ordinance changes. The conversation center primarily around three topics:
• Parking lot shading – In order to expand tree canopy in the city, staff and consultants recommended an addition to the parking lot design standards in 18.30.090 to require 50% tree canopy cover over new parking lots within 15 years of development permit approval. The Planning Commission questioned if the new provisions requiring shading over 50% of parking lot areas was too much. Discussion centered on how private development projects can ensure 50% cover within 15 years of permit approval. The Planning Commission accepted this change.
• Protected trees – The consultants presented a diagram showing the current ordinance, for both public and private trees, where a tree’s circumference should be measured at 40 inches above ground. If the tree has a circumference of 24 inches or greater, this tree would be considered a protected tree. The consultants further explained that the current practice in East Palo Alto is to measure at 24 inches above grade and trees with a circumference of 40 inches or greater are considered protected. City staff and the consultants suggest changing the ordinance so that the measurements are taken at 54 inches above grade (industry standard height) and trees with a diameter of 8 inches (equivalent to circumference of 25 inches) are considered protected. This change will sets a standard measurement that other cities also follow. With staff and community education, applying this change in practice will result in more trees protected. The Planning Commission accepted this change.
• Tree removal permit application process – Currently tree removal permits for private trees are processed and approved administratively by the Director of the Community and Economic Development Department or delegated to the Planning Manager. Tree removal permits may be applied for through the Universal Planning Application process. City staff reviews the tree removal application for completeness and works with the applicant to post all notices including an initial 300-foot radius pre-decision mailer and on-site noticing (posted on the tree being considered for removal). Once the review is complete, staff issues the decision and removal permit, usually within 4 weeks if everything is submitted properly by the applicant. Decisions also follow noticing requirements, consistent with the Municipal Code and the Community Outreach Policy.

There is ongoing communication with the applicant to confirm all posting and mailings occur, and to confirm tree replacement as well as requesting a financial deposit (averaging $200-$350 to cover the cost of each replacement tree, but not the cost of planting). This deposit is returned afterwards once staff confirms that all replacement trees were planted and there are no deficiencies in the replanting. Applicants also pay a permit fee as set by the Comprehensive Fee Schedule, which is currently $356 each for the first two trees and $762 for three or more trees.

8.1 Packet Pg. 77
Originally, to increase awareness and transparency to the public about tree removal permit applications, City staff and the consultants recommended adding a step to allow the public to request a Director’s Hearing to discuss the permit approval or denial decision and provide public comment. Decisions made at the Director’s Hearing would then be appealable to the Planning Commission. A Director’s Hearing can be scheduled more flexibly than a Commission hearing and is a process already included in the Municipal Code. An example is Temporary Use Permits, which are efficiently heard at Director’s Hearings and require published notices prior to the public hearings.

If a Director’s Hearing is not requested within 15 days of the staff decision being posted via a notice, then the permit is deemed effective. Per the current Comprehensive Fee Schedule, an appeal to the Planning Commission would cost $7,979. Requesting a Director’s Hearing is expected to cost $1,847. The Planning Commission recommendation regarding Chapter 18.28 is to require all private tree removal applications to be heard by the Planning Commission to increase public transparency.

If the Planning Commission reviews all private tree removal applications, staff would still complete the initial review and noticing mentioned above. Involving the Planning Commission hearing noticing and newspaper advertisement requires a lead time of 15 days and would be an added cost in the process. Preparation for the Planning Commission public hearing would add an additional 3-4 weeks because it would occur after the initial review, doubling the initial process timeline and potentially the cost of the tree removal permit.

Of 12 cities surveyed, a majority only require director review and approval for tree removal permits and decisions are appealable to some sort of public review body like a commission. If the modified recommendation were accepted by Council, East Palo Alto will be the only City surveyed that requires tree removal permit applications to go to the Planning Commission directly. See attachment 4 for details.

Over the past several years, on average the City processes few permits each year:
o 2017 tree removal permits: 20
o 2018 tree removal permit: 9
o 2019 tree removal permit: 21
o 2020 tree removal permits: 13
o 2021 tree removal permits: 8
o 2022 tree removal permits: 4 so far
On average, half of those permits filed are after the tree has already been removed, and the community engagement process associated with this project highlighted a strong perception that the current ordinance is not widely followed. Thus, there is concern with requiring tree removal applications to go to Planning Commission that compliance with filing a removal application before cutting the tree down could be reduced even further, and more people will illegally remove trees due to the extended timeline and increased cost associated with following the correct process. This would be opposite the intended effect of increasing public awareness and the purpose of the UFMP to increase tree canopy.

Upon further review of the suggested ordinance changes, City staff recommend the City Council do not change anything in the current tree ordinances as it relates to the tree

8.1 Packet Pg. 78
removal permit process. The revised ordinance establishes a review and public outreach process intended to clarify the process and require public noticing, which staff will implement immediately. To still aid in increased transparency and to help track the effectiveness of these tree ordinance updates, City staff may provide a periodic report to Planning Commission on the number of tree removal permits that are processed and approved. This approach is the best balance considering staff workload, costs to the applicant, and the public transparency of tree removal permits.

There were some minor corrections to the ordinance text that Planning Commission included as a part of its motion when approving the UFMP and the tree related ordinance changes.

These minor corrections are included in the ordinance attached to this staff report for Council consideration.

Next Steps
City staff and the consultants want to emphasize that although the UFMP is the main deliverable required of the CalFire grant and Planning Commission was unanimously supportive of finalizing that report, the approval of these tree related ordinance changes is critical to making the recommendations of the UFMP effective. More specifically, key recommendations are the ordinance changes around the parking lot shade being increased to 50%, standardizing the protected tree definition measurement, defining and updating public tree maintenance practices, and requiring tree removals associated with development projects to submit tree removal permit applications.

If City Council introduces the Ordinance at this meeting, the Ordinance may be adopted at the next City Council meeting on May 3 and would typically take effect 30 days thereafter. City staff suggests this Ordinance not take effect until October 1, 2022 to allow time in both CED and PW to set up procurements and make necessary changes to the City’s Master Fee schedule, which will follow its own public hearing timeline.

Public feedback has suggested that delayed implementation will lead to additional tree removals before changes take effect. The City’s Code Enforcement team are working to deploy additional overtime shifts this spring to avoid tree removals without permits. The current ordinance protects trees of approximately the same size, meaning there will not be a large number of trees that gain protection when the changes go into effect.

The Ordinance would apply to both public and private trees, and tree removal permits could still be submitted under the current code requirements and procedures. As noted above, adoption of these ordinance changes will require the City to review and update internal procedures and processes.

Staff will return to City Council with recommendations on future staffing or outside consultant contracts, for example to hire an on-call tree arborist to assist both Public Works and the Planning Division.

Fiscal Impact
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the items discussed in this staff report. Staff will

8.1 Packet Pg. 79
return with recommendations for adequate staffing and potential procurements for an on-call arborist to support the implementation of the UFMP and the tree ordinances. If there are any changes to the tree removal permit fees and a consultant is hired to provide arborist services, monetary impacts will be addressed through a separate City Council action and will eventually fall in line with the annual Master Fee schedule update. At this time, there are no impacts on the City’s general fund or staffing. Preparation of the UFMP and the ordinance updates were covered by the CalFire Grant.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice via publication in the Palo Alto Daily News on April 8, 2022, and by posting the agenda on the City’s official bulletin board outside City Hall and making the agenda and report available online at http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx.

Public Input
On March 30, 2022 a virtual public community meeting was held to discuss the UFMP and potential ordinance updates. The public meeting was posted on the City website, promoted through the City’s email newsletter (4,400 recipients). Postcards were mailed to all City of East Palo Alto residents and landlords, totaling to nearly 8,000 postcards were mailed out in early March 2022.

A total of 8 community stakeholders participated and the following key topics were discussed:
• How the changes to the ordinance are actually going to strengthen the tree protection ordinances
• Applicability and timing of noticing for development permits • Reviewing which trees are protected and how to actually match current practice with the current ordinance so that measurements are taken properly Environmental
The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Attachments

1. Ordinances

2. East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft

3. Key Discussion Points from the November 2021 City Council meeting

4. Benchmarking Summary of Approvals Appeals and Fees

8.1 Packet Pg. 80
ORDINANCE NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
REVISING CHAPTERS 12.16 AND 18.28 OF THE EAST PALO

ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TREES, MAKING

CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO SEVERAL OTHER SECTIONS
AND REPEALING SECTION 13.24.410

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. CHAPTER 12.16 REVISED.

Chapter 12.16 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code is revised in its entirety as set forth in Attachment A.

SECTION 2. CHAPTER 18.28 REVISED.

Chapter 18.28 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code is revised in its entirety as set forth in Attachment B.

SECTION 3. SECTION 18.08.010 AMENDED.

Section 18.08.010, under “D” Definitions, the definition of Department and the definition of Director, respectively, are revised to read:

Department. The Community and Economic Development Department responsible for administering the Development Code.

Director. The Director of the Community and Economic Development Department of the City of East Palo Alto, or authorized designee(s).

SECTION 4. SECTION 18.30.090 AMENDED
Subsection D.4. of Section 18.30.090 is amended and a new Subsection D. 6. is added to Section 18.30.090 to read:

D.4. Parking lot shade. At least 50% of a paved parking lot shall be shaded with tree canopies within 15 years of obtaining a building permit or certificate of occupancy.

Plantings shall comply with the following specifications:

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) a. Landscaping fronting a street shall include a minimum of one tree for every 30 feet of frontage. Trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size and six feet in height at the time of planting and shall be of a fast growing variety capable of providing maximum shade coverage.
b. Tree well dimensions shall be a minimum of 6' X 6'. Irregular tree well design may be allowed if a minimum of 36 square feet of surface area is provided and a minimum of 85 cubic feet of rootable soil volume is incorporated into the tree well planting. Deviations from this standard are subject to approval by the Director.
c. Trees should be planted in the center of the tree well. For irregular tree wells, trees should be planted in equal distances from curbs.
d. Two feet of vehicle overhang into a planter area is allowed, provided the planter has a minimum width of four feet and trees are aligned with the parking strip.
e. Structural soil systems for trees in parking lots or hardscape areas should be used to increase the volume of rootable soil, the eventual size of the canopy, and the amount of shade the tree provides.
f. Continuous planting islands are encouraged to allow for multiple tree plantings and increased rootable soil volume. These islands could be designed to incorporate surface water runoff treatment measures such as bio-swales. To increase the amount of planting area available for shade trees, planter fingers connected to continuous planting islands are recommended. g. If more than 10 trees are required, a mix of tree species or cultivars shall be provided. If 20-40 trees are required, no more than 50% of the trees may be of the same type. If more than 40 trees are required, no more than 25% of the trees may be of the same type
h. Native climate-adapted species are recommended.
i. Parking lot lighting should not conflict with required shade tree locations or growth. Light standards no greater than 16 feet in height are preferred.

Buildings located close to streets must reduce potential conflicts between trees and free-standing signs.
j. If the installation of required trees is not feasible due to conditions such as soil contamination, groundwater levels or utility easements, an in-lieu fee or an alternative tree planting program may be approved, as set forth in Chapter

18.28. ---
D.6. Permanent irrigation system and maintenance. All planting areas shall be planted to maximize benefits and minimize hazards. Trees shall be provided with permanent irrigation, monitored and regularly maintained.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) SECTION 5. SECTIONS 18.104.010, 18.104.020 and 18.104.030 AMENDED.

Sections 18.104.010, 18,104, 020 and 18.104.030 are revised to read:

18.104.010 - Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the authority and responsibilities of the City Council, Planning Commission, Director of Community and Economic Development and the Planning Division in the administration of the Development Code.

18.104.020 - Planning Agency and Advisory Agency
The Planning Division staff function as the Planning Agency, when so required by provisions of the Government Code. The Planning Commission is the Advisory Agency, in compliance with Government Code Section 65101.

18.104.030 – Director of Community and Economic Development A. Appointment. The Director of Community and Economic Development shall be appointed by the City Manager.

B. Duties and Authority. The Director shall:

1. Have the responsibility to perform all of the functions designated by state law;

2. Perform the duties and functions prescribed in the Development Code, Government Code Section 65901 et seq., and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

3. Have the authority to defer action on an application and refer the request to the Commission for consideration and final action;

4. Perform other responsibilities assigned by the City Manager, Commission or Council; and

5. Delegate the responsibilities of the Director to Department staff under the supervision of the Director.

C. Imposition of Conditions. In making decisions on applications, the Director may impose conditions the Director deems reasonable and necessary to implement the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, the Municipal Code, and to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the community.

SECTION 6. TABLE 7-1 REVIEW AUTHORITY AMENDED
Table 7-1 Review Authority is amended to include Tree Removal Permit, as set forth in Attachment C.

SECTION 7. SECTION 13.24.410 REPEALED.

Section 13.24.410 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) SECTION 8. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This Ordinance is not subject to CEQA because it is not a “project” which would have a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on the environment pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines section 15378. Even if it were a project subject to CEQA review, this project would be exempt from CEQA Guideline Section 15378 (regulatory actions), Section 15061(b)(3) (no significant environmental impact), and Section 15183 (actions consistent with the general plan and zoning). The Council therefore directs that the Planning Division may file a Notice of Exemption with the San Mateo County Clerk.

SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY.

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

SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect as of October 1, 2022.

SECTION 11. PUBLICATION.

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

This Ordinance was introduced at the______________ meeting of the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Ruben Abrica, Mayor

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ ______________________________ James Colin, Acting City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) Attachment A
Chapter 12.16
Trees on Public Property and In the Public Right-of-Way

12.16.010 Title and Purpose
A. This chapter may be referred to as the “Trees on Public Property and Street Tree Ordinance”.

B. The City of East Palo Alto recognizes the importance of trees and the benefits they provide. The purpose of this chapter is to manage city tree resources by regulating the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in public places. The provisions of this chapter are enacted to carry out the goals, policies, regulations, and standards set forth in the City of East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan and are necessary to ensure the City will realize the benefits of healthy, stable, and sustainable public tree resources.

C. An additional purpose of this chapter is to implement the Urban Forest Master Plan to:

1. Establish and maintain maximum canopy cover in the public right-of-way within the city through programmed tree planting, maintenance, preservation, and removal.

2. Maintain species and genetic diversity to stabilize the urban forest as a buffer against pest and disease outbreaks and minimize decline in canopy cover.

3. Implement ANSI A-300 tree maintenance practices such as regular inspections and structural pruning at time of planting to increase tree value and associated benefits and protect the tree resource by regulating activities that will harm trees.

12.16.020 Definitions
“ANSI A-300 Standards” means the accredited industry standards and practices for managing trees and other woody plants.
“Appraisal of tree value” means an unbiased estimate of the tree's worth performed in accordance with the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
“Certified Arborist” means an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and approved by the director.
“Diameter” means diameter at standard height (DSH), or trunk diameter measured at 54” above grade.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) “Director” means the public works director or designee. “Dripline” means the area directly located under the outer circumference of the tree branches or with a radius of ten times the diameter of the trunk as measured at 54 inches above grade (DSH), whichever is greater.
“Excessive pruning” means the removal of functioning leaf, stem, or root area of a tree in any thirty-six (36) month period such as to cause a significant decline in health, increased risk of failure, or the unbalancing of a tree.
“Master Plan” means the City of East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, which sets forth the policies and guidelines for planting and maintenance programs for the care and protection of trees.
“Public right-of-way” means any property dedicated to public use including but not limited to streets from property line to property line, alleys, easements, dedicated bike paths or open spaces.
“Public tree” means a tree within a public park, trail, or other property owned by the city and dedicated to public use.
“Remove” means (a) complete removal, such as cutting the tree to the ground, or (b) taking any action that would lead to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health, including excessive pruning, girdling, cutting of tree roots, poisoning, over-watering, under-watering, trenching, excavating, altering the grade, paving within the dripline. “Street tree” means any city-owned tree located within the public right-of-way or easement.
“Tree canopy cover” means a measurement of the total area of a tree’s branches, stems, and leaves when viewed from above.

12.16.030 Authority, Responsibilities and Duties
A. The Director has the responsibility to implement and authority to make decisions and judgments to enforce the provisions of this chapter. Duties include but are not limited to:

1. Developing a comprehensive municipal tree care operations plan, including pruning, planting, and removal of public trees.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances)

2. Developing recordkeeping protocols for all tree maintenance activities and maintaining a database reflecting the current tree inventory and accurate status of the tree resources.

3. Implementing a monitoring program to evaluate and ensure the goals of the Master Plan are met.

4. Reviewing and revising the master plan in conjunction with the annual municipal tree care budget, subject to city council approval.

5. Seeking funding from state, federal, or other granting agencies for public tree restocking and maintenance.

6. Creating a tree fund for monies collected from fines, penalties, and in-lieu payments for tree planting and establishment, and to offset maintenance services.

7. Conducting tree planting projects and education programs to encourage community participation and involvement in the city’s urban forest.

B. Property owners and members of the public have the responsibility to notify the director if any problems occur regarding any street tree or if any public tree maintenance services are required.

12.16.040 Policies and Procedures
A. Recommended Street Tree List. The director shall adopt a list of trees prepared by a Certified Arborist recommended for planting in the right-of-way.

B. Street Tree Inventory. A street tree inventory shall be maintained and reside in a data management system integrated with the city's GIS and shall be fully accessible to staff. Included in the inventory are information regarding trees (species, DSH, height, canopy spread, age or estimate, health and condition); sites (GIS location, planting site specifications, vacant planting site, soil type, location of underground utilities, and water availability); cultural practices (by date of action including planting, pruning, cabling, pest control, fertilization, removal, branch or whole tree failure, priority maintenance needs); and costs (material and equipment use, and personnel hours for each cultural practice).

C. Maintenance Schedule. Street trees shall be maintained on a block/grid pruning schedule assessing and prioritizing trees according to the degree of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and species growth rate.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances)

12.16.050 Tree Planting in Public Right-of-Way
A. Trees are required to be planted in the public right-of-way for all development, redevelopment, infill and similar projects.

B. Standards. The following standards for tree planting shall apply:

1. All trees selected for planting shall conform to the American Association of Standards, ANSI Z60.1 Specifications for Acceptance of Nursery Trees at the Time of Delivery. Tree planting shall follow the most current edition of ANSI A-300 Tree Planting, including post-planting pruning, and early tree care. Trees shall comply with the standards and recommendations set forth in the master plan related to species diversity. A maximum of twenty percent (20%) of one general and ten percent (10%) of any species may be used to meet planting requirements within the city.

2. Tree species must be appropriate for the site, keeping in mind “right tree right place” principles. Trees shall be selected for function and purpose as outlined in the master plan to shade public sidewalks, parking lots and neighborhood streets, mitigate stormwater runoff and prevent soil erosion, facilitate flood protection, create a visual barrier and filter particulate matter along heavy traffic thoroughfares, and create habitat for wildlife.

3. Trees shall be situated to maximize benefits and to minimize hazard, nuisance, hardscape damage and maintenance costs.

4. All newly planted street trees shall be scheduled for monitoring, structural pruning, and irrigation as needed during the first three (3) years of establishment.

5. All tree planting shall be recorded in a tree inventory database. The database should include date of planting and scheduled work such as monitoring, structural pruning, stake removal and irrigating as required. Suitable planting sites shall be maintained in the database for future planting.

C. Installation Requirements.

1. One specified minimum gallon size tree must be installed for every twenty-five (25) feet of property frontage.

2. Trees shall be a minimum 15-gallon size with the planting of at least one 24- inch box tree for every three 15-gallon trees planted, or one 24-inch box tree per twenty - five (25) feet of lineal footage, whichever results in a greater number of plantings.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances)

3. Placement of all plantings in new or infill developments shall be located consistent with these requirements:
a. Twenty (20) feet from the curb returns at street intersections. b. Ten (10) feet from light standard power poles.
c. Ten (10) feet from fire hydrants.
d. Five (5) feet from water and sewer lines.
e. Five (5) feet from service walks, driveways, buildings, walls and permanent structure.

D. Street tree planting requirements for new development shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.28. Shade tree planting specifications for tree canopy cover in parking lots shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.30.

12.16.060 Tree Pruning
A. Street tree pruning. Street tree pruning is the responsibility of the public works department and performed by certified arborists. A permit is required for authorization to prune a city street tree. Any unauthorized pruning is unlawful.

B. The following maintenance standards for pruning street trees apply:

1. All street tree pruning shall be performed in compliance with the most current edition of ANSI A300 – Pruning, which includes pruning young trees to develop lowest branching structure above roadway vehicular traffic, and crown cleaning, crown thinning, crown raising, crown restoration, crown reduction and utility line pruning in semi-mature and mature trees.

2. All street trees shall be programmed on a block pruning or grid schedule assessing and prioritizing trees according to the degree of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and species growth rate. Inspections shall be conducted prior to pruning to prioritize streets with the most pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic and to assess trees in areas with the greatest pruning needs by species.

3. Except for pruning for utility line or traffic light clearance, or to abate a public nuisance, excessive pruning is prohibited.

4. All tree pruning shall be recorded in the tree inventory database noting date of activity, work performed, tree health status, and future maintenance needs. All contractors are required to provide work records upon completion of work.

12.16.070 Criteria for Tree Removal

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) A. Public tree removals are the responsibility of the public works department and shall be performed at the direction of a certified arborists. Any tree within the public right-of-way or on public property, regardless of size, is a protected tree.

B. The director may remove or cause the removal of any public tree found to be dead, damaged beyond repair, having a compromised root system that cannot adequately support the tree, causing storm drain or sanitary sewer stoppages which cannot be remedied, causing structural damage that cannot be mitigated by pruning limbs or roots, or hazardous to the public safety or welfare.

C. A tree may be removed when it interferes with proposed development, repair, alteration, or improvement of a site and preservation of the tree would be considered a taking of real property, so long as the proper permit is obtained. Tree removal, if approved, may only occur once building permits are issued.

D. A tree may be removed when removal is requested by a utility, public transportation agency, or other governmental agency due to a health or safety risk resulting from the tree’s interference with existing or planned public infrastructure and preservation of the tree would add unreasonable cost to the project.

E. No liability shall be imposed upon the city or upon any of its officers or employees for damages related to an unsafe tree to relieve the owner or occupant of any private property from the duty to keep in safe condition any trees upon the property or adjacent to or overhanging the public right-of-way.

12.16.080 Permit Required
A. When a private project or entity other than the city seeks to remove a public tree from the right-of-way or a public place, or a private property owner seeks to have trees in the right-of-way pruned out of cycle at the owner’s expense, a permit is required. A permit also is required to prune branches or roots of a street tree or public tree.

B. An application for a tree removal permit shall be made to the director on the form provided. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth in the master fee schedule and shall provide a justification for the action to be taken. The director shall conduct an inspection and determine whether to approve or deny the application.

C. If the application is approved, the property owner must follow all noticing requirements. The issuance of the permit may be reconsidered by the director or appealed to the city manager. If no request for reconsideration or appeal is filed, the work may be performed as approved and in compliance with all requirements to provide proper and sufficient measures to mitigate against any hazards or nuisances. The property owner is

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) responsible for any damages, necessary repairs or needed replacements. Unauthorized removal is unlawful.

12.16.090 Notices
A. For Removal. All public tree removals, except those that are part of a capital improvement project approved by the City Council, must be noticed for a period of fifteen (15) days on a list made publicly available and with a dated notice attached to the tree. Trees determined by the city to be an imminent risk to public safety may be removed without noticing.

B. For Pruning. Notice must be given to the property owner at least three (3) working days prior to scheduled street tree pruning. The notice may require no parking at the curb adjacent to the tree to provide for equipment access.

12.16.100 Reconsideration and Appeals
A. Reconsideration. Reconsideration of the decision to approve or deny a removal permit may be requested by any member of the public on the basis of the criteria used to make the determination. Request for a hearing to publicly review the decision must be submitted in writing to the director within fifteen (15) days after notice of the decision is provided. Notice of the reconsideration decision will be mailed to the applicant, the owners and occupants of all adjacent properties, and any person requesting notice of the decision. The decision shall become final fifteen (15) days after the notice is mailed.

B. Appeal. The decision of the director may be appealed within fifteen (15) days of the notice of decision to the city manager, who shall review the record and make a decision. Decisions of the city manager shall be final.

12.16.110 Replacement of Trees or In-Lieu Fee
A. If the city allows a tree to be removed, replacement tree(s) of an equivalent value must be planted or an in-lieu fee must be paid. Replacement tree(s) planted on-site are a priority. More than one replacement tree may be required to accomplish the goal of replacing the lost canopy.

B. If replacement on a one-to-one basis cannot be fully accomplished in the immediate vicinity of the removed tree(s), staff may authorize payment of in-lieu fees.

The value of the removed tree(s) shall be calculated in compliance with the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) C. Tree planting replacement requirements for the removal of a street tree shall be based on canopy size, measured as the average distance across the canopy in four cardinal directions.

D. The replacement standard shall be as follows:

Street tree canopy size Replacement tree size
4’-9’ Two (2) 24” box
10’-27’ Three (3) 24” box
28’-40’ Four (4) 24” box
40’-56’ Six (6) 24” box
56’-60’+ Two (2) 24” box &
Two (2) 36” box &
Two (2) 48” box

12.26.120 Enforcement
A. The director is charged with the responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter and may serve notice upon any person violating any provision of this chapter. Violators shall be subject to the provisions set forth in Chapter 1.12 and Chapter 1.14.

B. A person who intentionally removes or destroys a street tree or a public tree without a tree removal permit, or who negligently causes the removal or destruction a street tree or public tree, shall be required to replace the removed tree and pay the value of the removed tree(s), calculated in compliance with the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, as well as a tree maintenance fee for five (5) years.

C. If the director determines on-site replacement trees are not suitable, the director shall determine the cost of the mitigation needed to remedy the effects of the removal or destruction based upon the value of the unlawfully removed or destroyed tree(s) in compliance with the current version of the Guide for Plant Appraisal by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, and the cost of planting replacement trees elsewhere.

This amount shall be in addition to any other assessed fees or penalties. This amount shall be in addition to any other assessed fees or penalties.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) Attachment B
Chapter 18.28
Trees on Private Property

18.28.10 Purpose
A. Preserve trees on private property for the health, safety, and welfare of the community while recognizing individual rights to develop and maintain private property; B. Utilize trees to create scenic beauty and wildlife habitat, attract visitors and businesses and serve as a source of community pride;
C. Mitigate storm water runoff, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards, and counteract pollutants in the air;
D. Reach climate goals by shading structures and outdoor places, cooling sidewalks, reduce impacts from increasing temperatures and decreasing wind velocities while improving public health outcomes for residents; and

18.28.020 Definitions
ANSI A-300 Standards. Accredited industry standards and practices for managing trees and other woody plants.

Applicant. Owner of the property to be developed who submits an application to remove a protected tree located on the subject property, or the private property owner applying to remove a protected tree.

Appraisal of Tree Value. An unbiased estimate of the tree's worth performed in accordance with the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

Certified Arborist. An arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and approved by the Director.

Diameter. Diameter at standard height (DSH), or trunk diameter measured at 54” above grade.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) Dripline. Area directly located under the outer circumference of the tree branches or with a radius of ten times the diameter of the trunk as measured at 54 inches above grade (DSH), whichever is greater.

Excessive Pruning. Removal of functioning leaf, stem, or root area of a tree in any thirty-six (36) month period such as to cause a significant decline in health, increased risk of failure, or the unbalancing of a tree.

Master Plan. City of East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, which sets forth the policies and guidelines for planting and maintenance programs for the care and protection of its trees.

Protected Tree. Any tree on private property having a main stem or trunk of 8” or greater in diameter at a height of 54” above grade (DSH); any tree required to be preserved as a condition of a development approval; any tree required to be planted as a condition of a development approval.

Remove. Complete removal, such as cutting the tree to the ground, or taking any action that would lead to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health, including excessive pruning, girdling, cutting of tree roots, poisoning, over-watering, underwatering, trenching, excavating, altering the grade, paving within the dripline or unauthorized relocation or transportation.

Tree Canopy Cover. Measurement of the total area of a tree’s branches, stems, and leaves when viewed from above.

18.28.030 Authority, Responsibilities and Duties
A. Director. The Director has the responsibility to implement and authority to make decisions and judgments to enforce the provisions of this chapter. Duties include but are not limited to implementing tree protection policies for trees on private property and throughout the development process, accepting and reviewing applications from any person requesting to remove one or more trees on any private property, and approving or denying applications involving trees based on criteria set forth in this chapter, with appropriate conditions.

B. Property Owner. Every owner of real property within the City, and every person responsible for removing or damaging a tree, regardless of whether the person is engaged in a tree removal business, is subject to the regulations in this chapter.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances)

18.28.040 Tree Planting
A. ANSI. All trees selected for planting shall conform to the American Association of Standards, ANSI Z60.1 Specifications for Acceptance of Nursery Trees at the Time of Delivery. Tree planting shall follow the current edition of ANSI A-300 Tree Planting, including post-planting pruning, and early tree care. Newly planted trees should be provided regular maintenance, including irrigation and pruning as needed, during the first five years.

B. Species. Tree species must be appropriate for the site, keeping in mind “right tree right place” principles. Trees shall be selected for function and purpose as outlined in the Master Plan. Tree should be situated to maximize benefits and to minimize hazards, nuisances and hardscape damage.

C. New Single-Family Subdivisions. In all new single-family residential subdivisions there shall be a minimum of two trees on each parcel. This tree requirement is in addition to the 150 square feet of permanent private open space required for each parcel.

D. Multiple-Family Residential Subdivisions and Non-Residential Subdivisions.

There shall be a goal of 20% canopy cover over the site within 15 years of final building permit issuance. This requirement is in addition to landscaping required within parking lots and trees installed along the street frontage.

18.28.050 Pruning
No permit is required for pruning a private protected tree. Private protected tree pruning should be performed in compliance with the most current edition of ANSI A300 – Pruning, which includes pruning young trees to develop lowest branching structure above homes or nearby structures, and crown cleaning, crown thinning, crown raising, crown restoration, crown reduction and utility line pruning in semi-mature and mature trees.

Excessive pruning, topping, vandalizing, mutilating, or destroying a protected tree is prohibited.

18.28.060 Permit Required
A. Tree Removal Permit. No person shall remove, destroy or disfigure any protected tree within the city without a permit. If the tree removal is part of a development application, a separate Tree Removal Permit is required, but the Tree Removal Permit will be considered as part of the development application. A Certified Arborist report as noted below, is required.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) B. Application. An application for a Tree Removal Permit shall be made to the Director on the form provided. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth in the master fee schedule. The application shall contain the number and location of each tree to be removed, the type and approximate size of the tree, the reason for removal, and any additional information required by the Director. The application shall include a tree report by a Certified Arborist report. Any expense associated with the preparation of the tree report shall be the responsibility of the applicant. The Director may refer the application or report to another department, or person for an additional report or recommendation.

C. Tree Protection Plan. All development projects shall submit an Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan.

1. The report by the Certified Arborist shall specify the following:
a. The location of trunk and dripline, size, health, and species of all trees on site with a diameter of 6” or greater.
b. The reason for removal for any tree proposed to be removed. c. Recommendations for tree protection measures.
d. An appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all affected trees. The appraisal shall be performed in accordance with the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

2. If an application for a development permit includes tree removal, the report by the Certified Arborist also shall include a planting plan detailing the number of tree replacements, species and irrigation system. Prior to acceptance of improvements, a final tree report by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted to the Director. The report shall assess the health and condition of the trees retained and protected during development and any changes in physical condition.

D. Owner Responsibility. If the removal request is approved, the property owner may perform the work as approved and must comply with all requirements to provide proper and sufficient measures to mitigate against any hazards or nuisances. The property owner is responsible for any damages, necessary repairs or needed replacements. No liability shall be imposed upon the City or upon any of its officers or employees for damages related to an unsafe tree to relieve the owner or occupant of any private property from the duty to keep in safe condition any trees upon the property or adjacent to or overhanging the public right-of-way.

E. Emergency. If the condition of a tree presents an immediate hazard to life or property, as defined by ANSI A300, it may be removed without a permit on order of the City Manager, Building Official, or the Director; an after-the-event permit will be required.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) F. Public Utilities. Public utilities subject to the jurisdiction of the State Public Utilities Commission may, without a permit, take actions necessary to comply with the safety regulations of the Commission and as may be necessary to maintain safe operation of facilities. Where possible, trees shall be preserved.

G. Financial Security. A check, or an alternative form of payment if approved by the City shall be provided to the City for the appraised value of the trees impacted by development and the value of replacement trees as mitigation for the removal of trees, as well as the cost of staff time. The financial security shall be refunded upon the receipt of a final arborist report certifying preservation or proof of replacement, or payment of an in-lieu impact fee.

18.28.070 Criteria for Tree Removal
A Protected Tree may be removed under the following circumstances:

A. The tree is dead, expected to die within 5 years, or poses a high or extreme risk (as defined by International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practice (A300 part 9), or is classified as invasive by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC, 2017). Where an arborist report indicates that a tree fits this category, fees may be waived.

B. The tree is structurally unsound and cannot be corrected or the risk cannot be significantly reduced by traditional pruning, cabling, or bracing or is causing visible damage to property, which cannot be corrected without destroying the tree canopy or root system.

C. The tree is causing visible damage to property which cannot be corrected without destroying the tree canopy or root system.

D. The tree interferes with proposed development, repair, alteration, or improvement of a site and preservation would stop the implementation of a wellintegrated and thoughtful design that enhances the property and neighborhood while meaningfully furthering the goals set forth in the General Plan and the project will incorporate replacement trees.

E. Removal is requested by a utility, public transportation agency, or other governmental agency due to a health or safety risk resulting from the tree’s interference with existing or planned public infrastructure and preservation of the tree would add unreasonable cost to the project.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances)

18.28.080 Replacement of Trees or In-Lieu Fee
If the city allows a tree to be removed, either replacement tree(s) of an equivalent value must be planted or an in-lieu fee must be paid.

A. Replacement. Trees shall be replaced on a one-to-one basis; however, more than one replacement tree may be required to accomplish the goal of replacing the lost canopy. Replacement tree(s) planted on-site are a priority.

B. In-Lieu. If replacement cannot be fully accomplished on-site, staff may authorize payment of in-lieu fees. The value of the removed tree(s) for in-lieu fee payment shall be calculated in compliance with the latest edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

18.28.090 Tree Removal Review Process.

A. Tree Removal Application and Noticing. The property owner shall notify adjacent property owners and tenants, if any, of the intent to remove a protected tree.

Upon submittal of the application, notice is required to be posted. Once the decision is final, a second notice is required to be posted at least 48 hours prior to removal. The notification shall be in a written form, dated and posted on the tree or in another visible location within close proximity to the tree that is clearly visible to adjacent owners and tenants.

B Review Process. Tree removal permit applications shall be reviewed and decided upon by the Director within 30 days of a complete application being submitted. Notice of the decision will be mailed to the applicant, the owners and occupants of all adjacent properties, and any person requesting notice of the decision. The decision shall become final 15 days after the notice is mailed. The decision of the Director may be appealed within 15 days of the notice of decision by filing an appeal in writing. Appeals shall be to the Planning Commission and conducted consistent with the provisions of Chapter

18.106. The decision of the Planning Commission is final.

18.28.110 Enforcement
A. Violations. Violation of a provision contained in this chapter is unlawful and a public nuisance. The Director may serve notice upon any person violating any provision of this chapter. Violators shall be subject to the provisions set forth in Chapter 1.118.

B. Replacement. Intentional or negligent removal or destruction of a protected tree without a Tree Removal Permit shall require replacing on-site each unlawfully removed/destroyed tree with two or three new trees, or a greater number of new trees, as

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) the Director may determine to be necessary to ensure the replacement of the lost canopy and to provide an aesthetic quality reasonably equivalent to the unlawfully removed/destroyed tree within 10 to 15 years. The size, species, and condition of the replacement trees shall be subject to approval by the Director. All replacement trees shall be maintained by the property owner under a five-year maintenance agreement with the City.

C. Value. If the Director determines that on-site replacement trees will not provide sufficient reasonably equivalent canopy cover and aesthetic quality, the Director shall determine the cost of the mitigation needed to remedy the effects of the unlawful removal/destruction based upon the value of the tree(s) in compliance with the latest edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, and the cost of planting replacement trees elsewhere. The established value of the tree(s) shall be the civil penalty assessed, in addition to the penalty prescribed by law for the commission of the offense. Such an amount shall be payable to the City.

D. Business License Revocation. A violation of any provision by a person of a tree removal, landscaping, construction, or other business in the City shall constitute grounds for revocation of the Business License issued to the person or business.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) Attachment C
Table 7-1
Review Authority
Type of Action Applicable
Code
Citation
Role of Review Authority(1)(2)
Director Commission Council
A. Administrative Permits and Actions
Administrative Use Permits Ch. 18.86 Decision Appeal Appeal Development Code Interpretations Ch. 18.12 Decision Appeal Appeal Joint/Off-Site Parking Plans Ch. 18.36 Decision Appeal Appeal Minor Variances Ch. 18.90 Decision Appeal Appeal
Reasonable Accommodations Ch. 18.94 Decision Appeal Appeal Sign Permits/Comprehensive Sign Programs Ch. 18.38 See Table 7-2 (Site Plan and Design Review Authorities)(3)
Site Plan and Design Reviews Ch. 18.86 See Table 7-2 (Site Plan and Design Review Authorities)(3)
Temporary Use Permits Ch. 18.94 Decision Appeal Appeal
Tree Removal Permits Ch. 18.28 Decision Appeal N/A
Zoning Clearances Ch. 18.84 Issuance Appeal Appeal
B. Quasi-Judicial Permits and Actions
Conditional Use Permits Ch. 18.86 Decision Appeal
Planned Development Permits Ch. 18.92 Recommend Decision Variances Ch. 18.90 Decision Appeal
Density Bonus for Affordable Housing Ch. 18.42 Recommend Decision C. Legislative Actions
Development Agreements and Amendments Ch. 18.116 Recommend Decision Development Code Text/Zoning Map
Amendments
Ch. 18.108 Recommend Decision
General Plan Text/Map Amendments Ch. 18.108 Recommend Decision D. Subdivision Maps and Other Approvals
Tentative Maps, Final and Parcel Maps See Table 5-1
Lot Line Adjustments, Mergers, and Approvals See Table 5-1 Notes:

1. "Decision" means the Review Authority makes the final decision on the matter; "Appeal" means the Review Authority may consider and decide upon appeals of the decision of a lower decision-making body; “Issuance” means the Review Authority may consider and grant the request; “Recommend” means the Review Authority should provide preliminary review and forward input to the decision-making Review Authority for consideration.

2. Any Review Authority may defer action and refer the request to the next higher Review Authority level for consideration and final action. In cases where the Council is specified as the Review Authority, the Council is the final level of review.

3. Responsibility for Site Plan and Design Review, as well as the review of Sign Permits and Comprehensive Sign Programs is shared by the Department staff, the Director, and the Commission. The specific Review Authority for these actions is further specified in Table 7-2.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Ordinances (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Tree Ordinances) FROM GRAY TO GREEN:

An Urban Forest
Master Plan
for East Palo Alto
The City of East Palo Alto • April 2022
Prepared by San Francisco Estuary Institute and HortScience | Bartlett Consulting

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related FROM GRAY TO GREEN:

An Urban Forest Master Plan
for East Palo Alto

AUTHORS
Megan Wheeler (SFEI)
Lauren Stoneburner (SFEI)
Erica Spotswood (SFEI)
Robin Grossinger (SFEI)
Darya Barar (HortScience)
Carol Randisi (HortScience)
SPATIAL ANALYSIS and

CARTOGRAPHY
Lauren Stoneburner (SFEI)
SFEI-ASC Publication #1071
prepared by
San Francisco Estuary Institute
and HortScience | Bartlett Consulting

REPORT DESIGN
Ellen Plane (SFEI)
Ruth Askevold (SFEI)
prepared for
The City of East Palo Alto
April 2022
funded by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Climate Investments Program

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related

SUGGESTED CITATION
San Francisco Estuary Institute and Bartlett Consulting. 2022. From Gray to Green: An Urban Forest Master Plan for East Palo Alto. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto. A report of SFEI-ASC’s Resilient Landscapes Program, Publication #1071, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA.

REPORT AVAILABILITY
Report is available on SFEI’s website at www.sfei.org/projects/east-palo-altourban-forest-master-plan

IMAGE PERMISSION
Permissions rights for images used in this publication have been specifically acquired for one-time use in this publication only. Further use or reproduction is prohibited without express written permission from the responsible source institution. For permissions and reproductions inquiries, please contact the responsible source institution directly.

COVER CREDITS
East Palo Alto, view down University Ave toward the Dumbarton Bridge. (Cover image courtesy of Droneshot: droneshot.com)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related

CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi
VISION (in English) vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (in English) viii
VISION (in Spanish) xii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (in Spanish) xiii
Section 1: Introduction and Context
01 INTRODUCTION2
Why care about the urban forest?2
An Urban Forest Master Plan for East Palo Alto4
References5
02 THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO7
History7
The city today 10
Current and future challenges 14
Connections with other planning efforts 19
References 22
Section 2: Current Status
03 URBAN FOREST ASSESSMENT 26
Background 26
Tree canopy assessment 28
Public tree inventory 41
Benefits of the urban forest 46
Conclusions 54
References 55

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 04 CURRENT TREE MANAGEMENT
and PROTECTIONS 59
Overview 59
Public tree management and protections 59
Private tree protections 67
Conclusions 70
References 71
05 COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES 72
Approach 72
Community themes 76
Conclusions 82
Section 3: Plan for the Future
06 STRATEGY and ACTION PLAN 84
Challenges, Benefits, and Recommended Steps 84
Goals 86
Objective 1: Grow the Urban Forest 87
Objective 2: Clarify and codify responsibilities, maintenance practices, and protections for public and private trees 98
Objective 3: Connect with the community around tree stewardship 111 Next Steps 118
References 119
RESOURCES 121
Appendices (Available Online)
APPENDIX I. Urban Forest Assessment Methodology
APPENDIX II. East Palo Alto Current Tree Ordinance Text APPENDIX III. Community Survey Detailed Results
APPENDIX IV. Species Selection Guidance
<links to come>

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related vi • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Vision and Executive Summary acknowledgements
Funding for the development of this Plan was provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) as part of the California Climate Investments Program. Additional funding was provided by the Sand Hill Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to support additional engagement with the community and evaluation of the public health implications of expanding the urban forest.

The From Gray to Green: An Urban Forest Master Plan for East Palo Alto Project is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide program that puts billions of Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and the environment– particularly in disadvantaged communities. The Cap-and-Trade program also creates a financial incentive for industries to invest in clean technologies and develop innovative ways to reduce pollution. California Climate Investments projects include affordable housing, renewable energy, public transportation, zero-emission vehicles, environmental restoration, more sustainable agriculture, recycling, and much more. At least 35 percent of these investments are located within and benefiting residents of disadvantaged communities, lowincome communities, and low-income households across California. For more information, visit the California Climate Investments website at: www. caclimateinvestments.ca.gov.

We are grateful for feedback on ideas and drafts of this plan from the members of our community steering committee: Bronwyn Alexander, Najiha Al Asmar, Maya Briones, Robert Allen Fisk, Lileiti Grew, Elizabeth Jackson, Antonio Lopez, Catherine Martineau, Laura Martinez, Jeff Poetsch, and Violet Saena. Special thanks to Nuestra Casa and Anamatongi Polynesian Voices for hosting a focus group meeting, and to all community members who took the time to speak with us or submit survey responses as part of our community input gathering. Canopy donated a fruit tree as a raffle prize, in addition to providing valuable insight into planting opportunities and constraints in the city. Photos for this report were provided courtesy of Canopy and Pro Bono Photography.

Many people contributed to the text and ideas in this plan. Thanks to Catherine Martineau, Uriel Hernandez, Michelle Daher, and Jimi Schied for the early conceptualization of this plan and for their significant contributions along the way. Thanks to East Palo Alto staff members who contributed their knowledge and ideas: Amy Chen, Elena Lee, Humza Javed, Jay Farr and Patrick Heisinger.

Additional writing, review, design, and background research was done by Clara Kieschnick, Crissy Pickett, Erik Ndayishimiye, Stephanie Panlasigui, Vanessa Lee, Ellen Plane, Brandon Herman, and Jennifer Symonds.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related East Palo Alto
is a diverse community with strong roots
in land stewardship, connection to nature,
and a commitment to building
the urban canopy.

East Palo Alto’s urban forest will include a
diverse mix of healthy trees that provide
benefits to residents across the city
by reducing air pollution, heat, noise,
flooding, and stress.

An expanded urban forest will close the
“Green Gap” and bring East Palo Alto the
mental, physical, and ecological health
benefits that surrounding
communities experience.

VISION

STATEMENT
vii • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Vision and Executive Summary

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Executive summary
Introduction and context
The urban forest is an important part of urban infrastructure. Trees can provide shade, help mitigate air pollution, create beautiful and relaxing places, reduce stormwater runoff, store carbon, provide fruit, and support wildlife. In order to ensure that the community of East Palo Alto can enjoy the benefits provided by trees, it is necessary for the City to invest in their planting, management, and protection. This Urban Forest Master Plan is intended to help the City effectively manage this important resource to achieve benefits for community members.

East Palo Alto historically included areas of willow grove and oak woodland, both landscapes containing trees. These landscapes were converted to agriculture and then suburban development, though some native oaks remain. The city faces numerous environmental challenges in the future, including increased flood and heat risk, health disparities, and limited potable water resources. Planning for a robust urban forest can help to address some of these concerns, and should take into account both current and future conditions.

Current status of the urban forest
The current urban forest was evaluated by quantifying the existing tree canopy cover in the city and analyzing the most recent public tree inventory conducted.

About 13.5% of East Palo Alto is currently covered by tree canopies, far below canopy cover in neighboring Menlo Park (27%) or Palo Alto (38%). Histories of inequitable investment and development likely account for these differences, which also impact environmental and health outcomes.

The City manages 5,745 public trees representing 253 different species. 15% of public trees are California native species, which are important for supporting local birds and other wildlife. Many of the trees are still small, reflecting recent planting efforts. Public trees provide numerous benefits to residents, including carbon sequestration and storage, air pollution removal, wildlife support, creating beautiful places, and a wide variety of mental and physical health benefits.

Trees in East Palo Alto are currently regulated by three ordinances within the municipal code. Any street tree or tree in a public place within the city, and any private tree 24” or greater in circumference is protected and requires a permit for removal. Management authority and procedures regarding street trees are not clearly defined in the existing ordinances. Most tree planting in the city is done by the nonprofit Canopy. About $150,000 is budgeted annually by the City for public viii • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Vision and Executive Summary

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related tree management, which is largely carried out by a contractor in response to reported problems. No arborist is employed on staff. Recommended management practices include a regularly updated tree inventory to enable a proactive maintenance approach, which should be clearly defined in city ordinances along with tree protection measures.

During development of this Urban Forest Master Plan, the team engaged with over 350 community members to understand opportunities and barriers for expanding the urban tree canopy. Community members expressed positive opinions of trees overall and a desire to grow the urban forest, along with concerns about appropriate management and maintenance, vulnerability to climate change and water restrictions, and application of the current tree protection ordinance.

Plan for the future
Following these analyses and in consultation with the project community steering committee, two goals were identified to enhance the City’s urban forestry program. The table on the following pages details objectives toward these goals, along with actions the City can take to achieve each objective.

From left: Former Mayor Laura Martinez, Mayor Ruben Abrica,Teen Urban Foresters, and partners. Bayshore Christian Ministries tree planting in the fall of 2019. Photo: Canopy. ix • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Vision and Executive Summary

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related x • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Vision and Executive Summary Goal 1: Grow a healthy, extensive, vibrant, and diverse urban forest to provide 20% canopy cover by 2062 and 30% by 2122.

Objective Action Key Point

1. Grow the urban
forest.

1. Develop a city-wide tree planting
strategy to increase equity with
neighboring cities.

1. Plant 200-250 public trees per year

2. Plant 150-200 private trees per year

3. Measure city-wide and zone-specific tree canopy
cover every 10 years to track progress

2. Plant climate-adapted species with
the intention of planting the right
tree in the right place to maximize
benefits for public health, wildlife, and
resilience.

1. Plant appropriate trees for each habitat zone in
the city

2. Plant the right species for the specific planting
location

3. Maintain species and age diversity within the
urban forest

3. Integrate trees into future urban
design.

1. Set standard sizes for tree wells and planting
strips to allow for healthy tree growth

2. Enact a parking lot shade ordinance

3. Review development plans for tree protection and
planting

2. Define
responsibilities and
support improved
maintenance
practices and
protections for
public and private
trees.

4. Codify responsibility and set
standards for proactive public tree
maintenance and protection.

1. Codify the City’s authority and responsibility for
street tree maintenance

2. Take a proactive grid pruning approach to public
tree maintenance

3. Condense the City code regulating public trees
into a single ordinance with all key components,
including standards of care for public trees

5. Revise the tree protection ordinance
and implementation process to
provide strong protection for private
trees.

1. Revise the definition of a protected tree

2. Revise the criteria for protected tree removal

3. Require development projects to apply for tree
removal permits

4. Increase staff capacity to manage the tree
protection ordinance by hiring or contracting with a
certified arborist

5. Review and clarify fees and requirements for tree
removal permit applications

6. Create a more robust appeals process with
community input

7. Publicize and enforce tree protections

6. Seek opportunities for additional
funding.

1. Identify opportunities to obtain additional funding
to support urban forestry programs

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related xi • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Vision and Executive Summary Goal 2: Connect with an engaged and informed community to provide stewardship of the urban forest.

Objective Action Key Point

3. Connect with the
community around
tree stewardship.

7. Design a cohesive and inclusive
public outreach program focused on
building awareness of the benefits
of trees and how and why trees are
protected in the city.

1. Engage with local community groups in urban
forest stewardship activities

2. Partner with Canopy to identify opportunities to
expand current community outreach programs

3. Provide up-to-date information about tree
protections and management on the City website

4. Translate tree information into common nonEnglish languages spoken in East Palo Alto

5. Designate a forum for the public to engage with
tree management and protection actions

6. Identify ways for the City to celebrate trees

8. Become a Tree City USA.

1. As in Action 4, update the public tree ordinance to
set standards of care

2. As in Actions 5 and 7, designate or create a public
body to review tree removal applications and
appeals, and to serve as a public forum for treerelated issues

3. As in Action 7, plan celebratory activities for Arbor Day
East Palo Alto. Imagery: Google Earth.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related East Palo Alto
es una comunidad diversa con fuertes raíces
en la administración de la tierra, conexión
con la naturaleza y dedicación a construir un
bosque urbano.

El bosque urbano de East Palo Alto incluirá
una mezcla diversa de árboles saludables
que brindan beneficios a los residentes de
toda la ciudad al reducir la contaminación
del aire, el calor, el ruido,
las inundaciones y el estrés.

Un bosque urbano expandido cerrará
la “Brecha Verde” y traerá a East Palo
Alto los beneficios para la salud mental,
física y ecológica que experimentan las
comunidades circundantes.

DECLARACIÓN
DE VISIÓN
xii • Plan Maestro de Bosque Urbano • Declaración de Visión y Resumen Ejecutivo

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Resumen ejecutivo
xiii • Plan Maestro de Bosque Urbano • Declaración de Visión y Resumen Ejecutivo Introducción y contexto
El bosque urbano es una parte importante de la infraestructura urbana. Los árboles pueden dar sombra, ayudar a mitigar la contaminación del aire, crear lugares hermosos y relajantes, reducir la escorrentía de aguas pluviales, almacenar carbono, proveer fruta y apoyar la vida silvestre. Para garantizar que la comunidad de East Palo Alto pueda disfrutar de los beneficios proporcionados por los árboles, es necesario que la Ciudad invierta en su plantación, manejo y protección. Este Plan Maestro de Bosques Urbanos está destinado a ayudar a la Ciudad a administrar de manera efectiva este importante recurso para lograr beneficios para miembros de la comunidad.

East Palo Alto históricamente incluía áreas de arboledas saucos y bosques de robles, ambos paisajes que contenían árboles. Estos paisajes se convirtieron en agricultura y luego en desarrollo suburbano, aunque quedan algunos encinos nativos. La ciudad enfrenta numerosos retos ambientales en el futuro, incluyendo el aumento del riesgo de inundaciones y calor, disparidades de salud y recurso limitados de agua potable. La planificación de un bosque urbano robusto puede ayudar a dirigir algunas de estas preocupaciones, y debe tener en cuenta las condiciones actuales y futuras.

Estado actual del bosque urbano
El bosque urbano actual se evaluó cuantificando la cobertura árborea existente en la ciudad y analizando el inventario público de árboles más reciente realizado. Cerca de 13.5% de East Palo Alto está actualmente cubierto por copas árboreas, mucho menos que la copa árborea de Menlo Park (27%) o Palo Alto (38%). Es probable que historias de inversión y desarrollo inequitativos explican estas diferencias, que también afectan los resultados ambientales y de salud.

La Ciudad administra 5,745 árboles públicos que representan 253 especies diferentes. El 15% de árboles públicos son especies nativas de California, que son importantes para apoyar las aves locales y otros animales salvajes. Muchos de los árboles todavía son pequeños, lo que refleja los recientes esfuerzos de plantación. Los árboles públicos proporcionan numerosos beneficios a los residentes, la eliminación de la contaminación del aire, el apoyo a la vida silvestre, la creación de lugares hermosos y una amplia variedad de beneficios para la salud mental y física.

Los árboles en East Palo Alto están actualmente regulados por tres ordenanzas dentro del código municipal. Cualquier árbol en la calle o árbol en un lugar público dentro de la ciudad, y cualquier árbol privado de 24 “o más de circunferencia está protegido y requiere un permiso para removerlo. La autoridad de Administración y procedimientos relativos a árboles en la calle no están claramente definidos en las ordenanzas existentes. La mayor parte de la

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related plantación de árboles en la ciudad es realizada por la organización sin fines de lucro Canopy.

Alrededor de $150,000 son presupuestados anualmente por la Ciudad para el manejo público de árboles, que es llevado a cabo en gran parte por un contratista en respuesta a los problemas reportados. No se emplea ningún arborista en el personal. Las prácticas de manejo recomendadas incluyen un inventario de árboles actualizado regularmente para permitir un enfoque de mantenimiento proactivo, que debe definirse claramente en las ordenanzas de la ciudad junto con las medidas de protección de árboles.

Durante el desarrollo de este Plan Maestro de Bosque Urbano, el equipo se reunió con más de 350 miembros de la comunidad para comprender las oportunidades y barreras para expandir la copa de árboles urbanos. Miembros de la comunidad expresaron opiniones positivas sobre los árboles en general y el deseo de cultivar el bosque urbano, junto con preocupaciones sobre el manejo y mantenimiento adecuados, la vulnerabilidad al cambio climático y las restricciones de agua, y la aplicación de la ordenanza actual de protección de árboles.

Plan para el futuro
Después de estos análisis y en consulta con el comité directivo de la comunidad del proyecto, se identificaron dos objetivos para mejorar el programa de bosque urbano de la Ciudad. La siguiente tabla detalla los objetivos hacia estas metas, junto con las acciones que la Ciudad puede tomar para lograr cada objetivo.

De izquierda: Previa Alcaldesa Laura Martinez, Alcalde Ruben Abrica, Adolescentes Forestales Urbanos, y socios.

Plantación de árboles de Bayshore Christian Ministries en otoño 2019. Foto: Canopy. xiv • Plan Maestro de Bosque Urbano • Declaración de Visión y Resumen Ejecutivo

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related xv • Plan Maestro de Bosque Urbano • Declaración de Visión y Resumen Ejecutivo Objetivo 1: Cultivar un bosque urbano saludable, extenso, vibrante y diverso para proporcionar un 20% de cobertura de árboles para 2062 y un 30% para 2122.

Objetivo Acción Punto Clave

1. Cultivar el bosque
urbano.

1. Desarrollar una estrategia de
plantación de árboles en toda la
ciudad para aumentar la equidad con
las ciudades vecinas.

1. Plantar 200-250 árboles públicos por año

2. Plantar 150-200 árboles privados por año

3. Medir la cobertura arbórea de toda la ciudad y de la zona cada 10 años para realizar un seguimiento del progreso

2. Plantar especies adaptadas al
clima con la intención de plantar el
árbol correcto en el lugar correcto
para maximizar los beneficios para
la salud pública, la vida silvestre y la
resiliencia.

1. Plantar árboles apropiados para cada zona de hábitat en la ciudad

2. Plantar la especie adecuada para el lugar de plantación específico

3. Mantener la diversidad de especies y edades dentro del bosque urbano

3. Integrar los árboles en el futuro
diseño urbano.

1. Establecer tamaños estándar para pozos de árboles y las tiras de plantación para permitir el crecimiento saludable de los árboles

2. Promulgar una ordenanza de sombra en estacionamientos

3. Revisar los planes de desarrollo para la protección y plantación de árboles

2. Definir responsabilidades y apoyar
mejores prácticas
de mantenimiento
y protecciones para
árboles públicos y
privados.

4. Codificar la responsabilidad
y establecer estándares para el
mantenimiento y la protección
proactiva de árboles públicos.

1. Codificar la autoridad y la responsabilidad de la Ciudad para el mantenimiento de árboles en viás públicas.

2. Adoptar un enfoque proactivo de poda para el
mantenimiento público de árboles

3. Condensar el código de la Ciudad que regula árboles públicos en una sola ordenanza con todos los componentes clave,
incluyendo los estándares de cuidado para árboles públicos.

5. Revisar la ordenanza de protección
de árboles y el proceso de
implementación para proporcionar
una fuerte protección a árboles
privados.

1. Revisar la definición de árbol protegido

2. Revisar los criterios para la eliminación de árboles protegidos

3. Exigir que proyectos de desarrollo soliciten permisos de remoción de árboles

4. Aumentar la capacidad del personal para administrar la ordenanza de protección de árboles mediante la contratación o contratación de un arborista certificado

5. Revisar y aclarar las tarifas y los requisitos para las solicitudes de permisos de remoción de árboles

6. Crear un proceso de apelaciones más sólido con el aporte de la comunidad

7. Dar a conocer y hacer cumplir las protecciones de árboles

6. Buscar oportunidades de
financiamiento adicional.

1. Identificar oportunidades para obtener fondos adicionales para apoyar programas de bosque urbano

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related xvi • Plan Maestro de Bosque Urbano • Declaración de Visión y Resumen Ejecutivo Objetivo 2: Conectarse con una comunidad comprometida e informada para proporcionar administración del bosque urbano.

Objetivo Acción Punto Clave

3. Conéctarse con
la comunidad en
torno a la administración de árboles.

7. Diseñar un programa de divulgación
pública cohesivo e inclusivo centrado
en crear conciencia sobre los
beneficios de árboles y cómo y por
qué los árboles son protegidos en la
ciudad.

1. Participar con grupos comunitarios locales en actividades de administración de bosques urbanos

2. Asociarse con Canopy para identificar oportunidades para expandir los programas actuales de alcance comunitarios

3. Proporcionar información actualizada sobre la protección y el manejo de árboles en el sitio web de la Ciudad

4. Traducir la información de árboles a idiomas que se hablan en East Palo Alto

5. Designar un foro para que el público participe en acciones de administración y protección de árboles

6. Identificar formas para que la Ciudad celebre árboles

8. Convertise en Tree City USA.

1. Al igual que en la Acción 4, actualizar la ordenanza de árboles públicos para establecer estándares de cuidado

2. Al igual que en las Acciones 5 y 7, designar o crear un foro público para revisar las solicitudes y apelaciones de eliminación de árboles, y para servir como un foro público para cuestiones relacionadas a los árboles.

3. Al igual que en la Acción 7, planear actividades de
celebración para el Día de Árboles.

East Palo Alto. Imágen: Google Earth

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related SECTION 1:

INTRODUCTION
and CONTEXT

IN THIS SECTION
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION...............1
Chapter 2: THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO ..............7
(top) Vice Mayor Lisa Gauthier planting her “Mayor’s Tree” with arborist and former planning commissioner Uriel Hernandez at MLK Park on MLK Day 2019. (bottom) Young volunteer showing worm. Photos: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 2 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Introduction

INTRODUCTION
Why care about the urban forest?
The urban forest is an essential part of urban infrastructure, thanks to the ability of trees to provide cost effective, natural solutions to challenges faced in urban environments (Livesley et al., 2016). By creating cooling shade, capturing air pollutants, producing fruit for people and animals, and creating beautiful places, trees are a powerful tool for building functional, attractive cities with nature.

The urban forest can serve multiple functions within a city, benefiting both nature and people. With appropriate design and management, the urban forest can mimic a natural forest and provide habitat and resources for native wildlife (Spotswood et al., 2019). Public fruit trees can increase access to local healthy foods for urban residents, and tending to these trees and sharing the harvest can help build community connections (Colinas et al., 2019). Trees can make spaces look unique and memorable, and can even boost business for stores located along tree-lined streets (Wolf, 2005). In addition, trees can improve public health by creating comfortable spaces for recreation and relaxation, creating shade under their canopies and cooling surrounding areas (Armson et al., 2012; Nesbitt et al., 2017). By providing shade, urban tree 1 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 3 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Introduction
canopy can cool buildings and people, reducing the risk of heat-related health issues such as heat stroke (Graham et al., 2016). As temperatures in the Bay Area increase due to climate change, cooling by trees can be part of a climate adaptation strategy.

The urban forest, as a component of “green infrastructure,” works together with the built components of the city and can make them more effective. For example, by capturing raindrops before they reach the ground, the tree canopy slows down and reduces runoff during storms (Berland et al., 2017). Pavement on roads that are shaded by trees lasts longer before needing repairs (McPherson & Muchnick, 2005). Trees purify the air by removing floating particulate matter, and can also help combat climate change by storing carbon in their trunks, roots, and branches (Nowak & Crane, 2002; Escobedo et al., 2011). Trees can also cool buildings, saving energy and associated emissions needed for air conditioning (Roy et al., 2012).

Urban trees can have downsides as well, such as when conflicts occur between tree roots and sidewalks or building foundations. Tree planting can lead to increased housing prices, resulting in gentrification if protective policies are not in place (Donovan et al., 2021). Some trees produce allergenic pollen, which can be detrimental for the health of sensitive community members (Cariñanos & Casares-Porcel, 2011). Planning and policy can address these problems, protecting communities from displacement, supporting planting of the right trees for the right place, and providing a framework for choosing diverse and beneficial tree species.

With all of these benefits in mind, it’s clear that the urban forest is a fundamental piece of the urban infrastructure, and should be cared for and invested in accordingly.

What is the urban forest?
The California Urban Forestry Act of 1978
defines the urban forest as “native or
introduced trees and related vegetation in
the urban and near-urban areas, including,
but not limited to, urban watersheds, soils
and related habitats, street trees, park
trees, residential trees, natural riparian
habitats, and trees on other private and
public properties” (California Urban
Forestry Act of 1978, 1978). While the
main focus of urban forestry is on trees,
all vegetation, including shrubs, flowering
plants, and lawns, can be considered part
of the urban forest. Young oaks will shade this school sports field in East Palo Alto. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 4 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Introduction
An Urban Forest Master Plan for East Palo Alto
Growing and maintaining East Palo Alto’s urban forest is a long term investment that must be designed to fit the needs and resources of the City. Decisions such as tree species selection, placement, and maintenance schedules affect the urban forest’s ability to deliver environmental benefits, such as providing shade, reducing air pollution, and slowing stormwater runoff.

In order to thrive, the urban forest requires investments including financial resources, supportive policy frameworks, and community stewardship (Ko et al., 2015; Vogt et al., 2015; Breger et al., 2019). In addition to the City’s direct investment in the urban forest, fostering connections with the local community and equipping residents with tree care knowledge and resources is a key strategy for building the large part of the urban forest that is located on private property.

The Urban Forest Master Plan is a document that will guide urban forestry in East Palo Alto to maximize long-term climate, biodiversity and health benefits for the community and to ensure that urban forest management aligns with the City’s strategic goals. This plan highlights existing needs and resources and presents recommendations to work toward a shared vision for a robust and equitable urban forest over the next 40 years. It includes an assessment of the current status of the city’s urban forest, including tree canopy cover distribution and current management practices. The plan provides guidance for tree planting and management, drawing heavily from community input and scientific analysis. As part of addressing historical inequities in tree canopy distribution both within and between cities, the plan prioritizes planting to ensure that the urban forest’s benefits are shared equitably by all the city’s residents. It seeks to anticipate future challenges including those associated with development pressure and climate change to build an urban forest that will be sustainable, equitable, and resilient.

The Urban Forest Master Plan was funded by a grant from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and developed by the City, San Francisco Estuary Institute, HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, and Canopy, in consultation with members of the community. Plan development primarily occurred in 2021, beginning with an evaluation of the current urban forest and community engagement process in the spring and summer (Fig. 1.1). The plan makes recommendations based on community input and scientific analysis of local ecology and climate. With the urgent need to adapt to ongoing and future challenges brought about by climate change, this plan aims to allow East Palo Alto’s urban forest to deliver long term benefits to all residents and establish the city as a climate-resilient and vibrant landscape.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 5 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Introduction
Figure 1.1. Development process for the East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan.

References
Armson, D., Stringer, P., & Ennos, A. R. (2012). The effect of tree shade and grass on surface and globe temperatures in an urban area. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(3), 245-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.05.002 Berland, A., Shiflett, S. A., Shuster, W. D., Garmestani, A. S., Goddard, H. C., Herrmann, D. L., & Hopton, M. E. (2017). The role of trees in urban stormwater management.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 162, 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2017.02.017
Breger, B. S., Eisenman, T. S., Kremer, M. E., Roman, L. A., Martin, D. G., & Rogan, J. (2019).

Urban tree survival and stewardship in a state-managed planting initiative: A case study in Holyoke, Massachusetts. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 43, 126382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126382
California Urban Forestry Act of 1978, Public Resources Code § 4799.06-4799.12. (1978).

Retrieved August 16, 2021 from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_ displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=4.&title=&part=2.5.&chapter=2.&article Colinas, J., Bush, P., & Manaugh, K. (2019). The socio-environmental impacts of public urban fruit trees: A Montreal case-study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 45, 126132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.05.002
Cal Fire Grant
received
The City was funded
by Cal Fire through
the Community
and Urban Forestry
Program to develop
an Urban Forest
Master Plan.

Project work
begins
The team began
gathering data
and information on
the current status
of East Palo Alto’s
urban forest.

City
engagement
The team presented
to City Council
and Planning
Commission;
and developed a
project steering
committee including
representatives
from each of these
bodies.

Tree canopy
assessment
The evaluation of
East Palo Alto’s
current tree canopy
was completed,
showing 13.5% tree
canopy cover across
the city. This was far
below Menlo Park
(27%) and Palo Alto
(38%).

Community
outreach
The team engaged
with community
members through
an online survey,
individual
conversations,
public tabling,
and focus group
conversations to
gather input on East
Palo Alto’s urban
forest needs and
opportunities.

Plan
development
With feedback
from the steering
committee, City
Council, and City
staff, the team
drafted and
revised an Urban
Forest Master
Plan to evaluate
the current urban
forest and make
recommendations
for future
management.

Plan
adoption
The plan was
adopted by City
Council on XXX,
2022.
2018 Jan
2021
May-June
2021
June
2021
June-Aug
2021
Spring
2022
Sept 2021 -
Feb 2022

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 6 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Introduction
Donovan, G. H., Prestemon, J. P., Butry, D. T., Kaminski, A. R., & Monleon, V. J. (2021). The politics of urban trees: Tree planting is associated with gentrification in Portland, Oregon. Forest Policy and Economics, 124(August 2020), 102387. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102387
Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., & Wagner, J. E., (2011). Urban forests and pollution mitigation:

Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution, 159, 2078- 2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010
Graham, D. A., Vanos, J. K., Kenny, N. A., & Brown, R. D. (2016). The relationship between neighbourhood tree canopy cover and heat-related ambulance calls during extreme heat events in Toronto, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 180-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.005
Ko, Y., Lee, J.H., McPherson, E.G., & Roman, L.A., (2015). Factors affecting long-term mortality of residential shade trees: evidence from Sacramento, California. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.002 Livesley, S.J., McPherson, G.M., & Calfapietra, C. (2016). The urban forest and ecosystem services: Impacts on urban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, street, and city scale. Journal of Environmental Quality, 45, 119-124. https://doi.org/10.2134/ jeq2015.11.0567
McPherson, E.G., & Muchnick, J. (2005). Effects of Shade on Pavement Performance.

Effects of street tree shade on asphalt concrete pavement performance. Journal of Arboriculture, 31(6), 303-310.

Nesbitt, L., Hwotte, N., Barron, S., Cowan, J., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2017). The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: a review and suggestions for future research. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 25, 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.005 Nowak, D. J., & Crane, D. E. (2002). Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution, 116: 381-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269- 7491(01)00214-7
Roy, S., Byrne, J., & Pickering, C. (2012). A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(4), 351-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ufug.2012.06.006
Spotswood, E., Grossinger, R., Hagerty, S., Bazo, M., Benjamin, M., Beller, E., Grenier, JL., & Askevold, R. A. (2019). Making Nature’s City. SFEI Contribution No. 947. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA. Retrieved March 26, 2021 from https://www.sfei. org/documents/making-natures-city.

Vogt, J., Hauer, R. J., & Fischer, B. C. (2015). The costs of maintaining and not maintaining the urban forest: A review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature.

Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 41(6), 293-323. https://doi.org/10.48044/ jauf.2015.027
Wolf, K. L. (2005). Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. Journal of Forestry, 103(8), 396-400. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/103.8.396

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 7 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
History
The area that is now East Palo Alto was historically populated by the Ohlone tribe known as the Puichon. The Puichon spoke the Ramaytush dialect and lived along lower San Francisquito Creek, lower Stevens Creek, and in surrounding areas (Milliken et al., 2009). One village, Ssiputca, was located at the mouth of San Francisquito Creek, potentially near the Ravenswood area of East Palo Alto (Milliken, 1983). The Puichon and other neighboring Ramaytush Ohlone people were hunters and gatherers, moving seasonally to take advantage of a wide variety of available resources.

Prior to European colonization in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, East Palo Alto hosted diverse habitat types including oak savannas and woodlands, wet meadows and alkali meadows, willow groves, and tidal marsh (Fig. 2.1).

Historically, approximately 10% of the city’s area outside of the tidal Baylands was covered by willow groves. Willow groves are densely forested areas associated with high groundwater. They were dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) with a mixture of other trees and shrubs. Cooper (1926) described willow trees in the region being up to 30 feet in height, intermixed with cottonwood (Populus spp.), box elder (Acer negundo), and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and underlaid with an often dense understory of California wild rose (Rosa californica), blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus; Beller et al., 2010). In East Palo Alto, these densely forested groves were found in low-lying areas along the shorelines, where the water table was high. For example, the modern Gardens neighborhood included a large 140-acre willow grove.

In addition to willow groves hugging the shoreline, wet meadows and potentially also alkali meadows accounted for approximately 50% of the city’s non-tidal area historically. Wet meadows are seasonal wetlands, with soils that remain saturated throughout the wet season—in the case of East Palo Alto, due to its fine soils and high water table. These wet meadows were characteristic of the region’s black adobe soils, which were described as “extremely sticky when wet” (Lapham, 1903). Alkali meadows are also seasonally inundated wetlands, but they are associated with soils that have accumulated high levels of alkali salts, fostering a more highly-specialized community of plants that are specifically adapted to tolerate alkaline environments. While East Palo Alto’s wet meadows were mostly composed of low-lying herbaceous vegetation, a “scattering growth of native oaks sometimes occurs along borders adjoining areas of lighter soil” (Lapham, 1903). 2 THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 8 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
The remaining nearly 40% of East Palo Alto’s historical landscape consisted of oak woodlands and oak savanna, where trees dotted a grassy landscape.

These oak lands were dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and benefited from the higher ground and more well-drained alluvial deposits from San Francisquito Creek. The coast live oaks were interspersed with valley oaks (Q. lobata) as well, and particularly along San Francisquito Creek, the oaks were mixed with other riparian tree species, such as California box elder (Acer negundo ssp. californicum). Today, old oaks can still be found in areas of former oak woodland and savanna, particularly along San Francisquito Creek and in the Palo Alto Park neighborhood.

Colonization and increased agricultural use has greatly changed the landscape of East Palo Alto (Michelson & Solomonson, 1994). Early-arriving Spanish rancheros cleared the landscape to raise cattle, and by the mid-1800s the agricultural Figure 2.1. Map representing average ecological conditions in East Palo Alto during the early 19th century, prior to major land modifications resulting from European and American colonization and settlement. Historical ecology mapping south of San Francisquito Creek completed by Hermstad et al. (2009).

Historical Habitat
Types
101
Old Street Trees
84 SAN FRANCISCO BAY

0.5 miles

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 9 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
community of “Ravenswood” had developed. Willows indicated a higher water table and good quality soil for crops, and were therefore largely removed as land was converted to agricultural uses. Meanwhile, oaks were more highly valued and sometimes persisted as East Palo Alto developed around them. Over time, rural estate owners gave way to subsistence farmers, and narrow, one-acre lots were established which later facilitated the transition to a suburb. The area remained predominantly agricultural through the rest of the 19th century, with an eventual shift to floriculture.

The city’s evolution into a residential suburban community began in earnest in the 1950s. As the area urbanized, University Avenue became the primary commercial corridor and the north end of town was increasingly industrialized.

US 101 Highway was built in 1932 and was widened in the 1960s, isolating the city from the rest of the region both physically and culturally. After World War II, large-scale developers carved East Palo Alto into smaller subdivisions that were affordable for lower-income residents. While East Palo Alto’s residential community was almost entirely white through the mid-1950s, discriminatory housing policies and practices by the federal and state real estate agencies and associations, as well as unimpeded blockbusting (real estate profiteering through stoking racial fear, causing dramatic shifts in neighborhood racial composition), led to the population’s rapid transformation, such that the population was majority Black by the 1960s (Rothstein, 2017).

East Palo Alto’s unincorporated status had major long-term implications for its economic and political future. As neighboring incorporated cities benefited from development capital and infrastructure improvements, East Palo Alto was excluded from the county’s fiscal investments and lacked the funding to improve community spaces. The cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park annexed large tracts of neighboring land, reducing the overall size and tax base of the City.

After decades of community advocacy and support, the City of East Palo Alto was formally incorporated in 1983. Nevertheless, the legacy of its slow development and late cityhood remain. Notably, the City’s water allocations, calculated based on past usage and former contracts, were originally set in 1984, not accounting for the new city’s urgent need for development, growth, and revitalization. Its critically low water allocations in the decades since have constrained East Palo Alto’s ability to meet rising demand, and in 2016, its insufficient water allocations forced the City to implement a moratorium on development, including affordable housing developments and large development projects that would enhance the City’s tax base.

With the City being one of the most under-resourced and recently incorporated in the region, its urban forest, like its other public infrastructure and amenities, received little investment and as a result is underdeveloped, particularly relative to conditions in neighboring cities.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 10 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
Figure 2.2. Map of the City of East Palo Alto, its neighborhoods, and its context in the San Francisco Bay Area region. Neighborhood names and outlines follow neighborhood designations from the Vista 2035 General Plan.

The city today
East Palo Alto ecompasses 2.5 square miles at the southeastern edge of San Mateo County. It is bordered by Menlo Park to the west, Palo Alto to the south, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The eastern edge of the city contains the natural Faber Marsh and Laumeister Marsh areas (collectively, Baylands). The city also maintains five public parks, with about 0.85 acres of public park space available per 1,000 residents. By comparison, the City of Palo Alto provides 2.6 acres of urban parkland per 1,000 residents (Sheyner 2017), and Menlo Park provides 6.48 acres per 1,000 residents (City of Menlo Park et al., 2019). East Palo Alto is separated from Palo Alto by San Francisquito Creek, which runs along the south edge of the city. Land within the city is largely developed, with almost no opportunity for new land conversion.

University
Village
Baylands
(excluded)
Weeks
Gardens
US 101 Corridor
Woodland
Willow
Gateway
District
Universitiy Corridor
Bay Road Corridor
Kavanaugh
Palo Alto Park
Ravenswood
Employment District
4 Corners /

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
101
84 0.5 miles
Schools and Parks
Schools
Parks

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 11 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
Ecologically, the city is far different from its historical landscape. A history of agriculture and development has cleared most of the native vegetation, though areas of marsh along the Bay and some large oak trees remain. The soils too have been altered, with much of the landscape disturbed by urban development (Fig. 2.2). However, groundwater remains high, as it was when willows and wet meadows covered much of the city’s low-lying, bay-adjacent land (Fig. 2.1).

The City of East Palo Alto is currently home to an estimated 30,034 residents (US Census Bureau, 2020a). 66% of the population is Hispanic/Latino, with 61% of households speaking Spanish at home. About 12% of the population is Black or African American, 5% is Asian, 5% is Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 10% is White and not Hispanic or Latino. Median household income is low for the region at around $67,000, compared to about $160,000 for the adjacent City of Palo Alto and about $138,500 in San Mateo County (US Census Bureau, 2020b; US Census Bureau, 2020c).

The City’s recent General Plan designated 12 districts or neighborhoods:
primarily commercial or industrial areas, 7 primarily residential neighborhoods, and the Baylands natural preserve area (City of East Palo Alto, 2017). These neighborhoods experience different needs, challenges, and opportunities, which impact urban forest outcomes.

In the commercial areas of University Corridor, Gateway District, and 4 Corners/ Bay Road Corridor, the main opportunities for trees are along streets and in parking lots of commercial buildings and multi-family residences. Meanwhile, the Ravenswood Employment District includes large portions of vacant land, with some retail, services, and small industrial and storage facilities.

Development in this area is ongoing and guided by the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan, which is currently being updated (City of East Palo Alto, n.d.), creating an opportunity to integrate urban forest creation and maintenance in development planning and design. Residential areas make up most of the city’s land area. Within these neighborhoods, parks, schools, and private yards provide open space for a variety of uses, including tree planting.

Residential area, East Palo Alto. Imagery: Google Earth.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 12 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
need
to add
legend, arrow, scale
Figure 2.3. Map of modern soil types in East Palo Alto. Color legend below. (Kashiwagi & Hokholt, 1991; USDA NRCS 2015)
Soil type Depth Drainage Composition
Water (#587677) N/A N/A N/A
Novato clay Very deep Very poorly
drained
Tidal marsh soils along the margins of San
Francisco Bay
Aquic Xerorthents Very deep Poorly drained Marsh soils formed in anthropogenic fill from mixed sources over bay mud from alluvium
Orthents Very shallow
to very deep
Very poorly
drained to
excessively
drained
Formed on uplands, including hills and
ridgetops, alluvial fans, coastal terraces, flood
plains, and tidal flats
Urban land-Orthens Very deep Well drained Formed on uplands, including hills and ridgetops, alluvial fans, coastal terraces, flood
plains, and tidal flats
Botella-Urban land
complex
Very deep Well drained Formed on alluvial fans, old flood plains, and stream terraces
Urban landElpaloalto complex Very deep Well drained Formed on alluvial fans and flood plains Urban land-Elder
complex
Very deep Well drained Formed on flood plains
Urban land N/A N/A N/A

0.5 miles

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
101
84 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 13 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
Figure 2.4. Map of depth to groundwater in East Palo Alto. (Plane et al., 2019) Land adjacent to the Baylands is influenced by an additional set of constraints for tree plantings. Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), a species protected under the Endangered Species Act, is found in the salt marshes of the San Francisco Bay. Predation by raptors and other predatory birds can pose a threat to local populations. While the significance of raptor predation on salt marsh harvest mice populations is not well understood, threats from predation are expected to intensify as sea level rise causes more intense flooding in tidal wetlands, forcing the mice to seek refuge in the uplands (USFWS, 2010). In an effort to reduce the impacts of predation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that habitat-inappropriate trees, especially nonnative trees, that provide perch and nest sites for raptors and corvids should be removed from marshes (USFWS, 2013).

Minimum depth
to water (ft)

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
101
84 0.5 miles

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 14 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
Current and future challenges
A recent community-based vulnerability assessment highlighted risks of sea level rise, heat waves, and extreme weather events under climate change, which may affect public health and result in displacement (Thomas et al., 2020). Plans for East Palo Alto’s urban forest should consider both how trees in the city will be impacted by climate change and how strategic management of the urban forest can support the city’s adaptation to climate change.

East Palo Alto is exposed to severe flooding and coastal inundation, especially communities that are located near the mouth of the San Francisquito Creek. Intense rainfall, runoff from the hills, storm surge from the Bay, rising groundwater, and rising high tides are all contributing factors. As of 2015, over one third of the city’s area outside of the Baylands was designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as Special Flood Hazard Area (Fig. 2.5). By 2050, sea level is most likely to rise nearly one foot relative to the Figure 2.5. Map of flood hazard zones designated by FEMA.

Flood Hazard Zones

0.2% Annual Chance
Special Flood Hazard

0.5 miles
101

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
84 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 15 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
year 2000, and three feet by 2100 (NRC, 2012). Nearly 60% of East Palo Alto’s population is vulnerable to sea level rise, with particularly high risks of flooding and permanent inundation, storm surge, and saltwater intrusion impacting groundwater resources (California Coastal Commission, 2018; Papendick et al., 2018). The City is currently working to remedy these issues through construction of a sea wall, the first reach of which has already been constructed to provide protection to the Gardens neighborhood (Dremann, 2018).

While concerns about flooding and sea level rise imply an excess of water, East Palo Alto is actually constrained by a lack of potable water availability due to poor water rights and ongoing drought. Over the past few years East Palo Alto has struggled to procure enough water, since the City’s already inadequate water allotment from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has been further limited by drought-induced restrictions. Community members have indicated that drought impacts their daily lives, such as having to comply with mandated water conservation usage (Saena, 2016). Between 2014 and 2015, East Palo Alto’s per capita water consumption was approximately half of the average per capita consumption among the San Francisco Regional Water System’s wholesale customers (Layton & Johnson, 2019). The current per capita water use for East Palo Alto residents is approximately 60 gallons per capita per day, down from 80 gallons per capita per day prior to the 2013-2016 drought.

All water demands within the city are currently met with potable water. Recycled water is not available to city customers, primarily because the city does not have any large parks, golf courses, or industrial uses where recycled water could have the greatest impact. However, water exchanges and transfers are allowed between East Palo Alto and other cities within and outside of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Regional Water System. In 2017 the City purchased

1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) from the City of Mountain View’s Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG), and in 2018 the City of Palo Alto transferred 0.5 MGD of ISG to East Palo Alto under this provision. In addition to this added capacity, a Water Shortage Contingency Plan is in place to ensure sufficient future water supply (Urban Water Management Plan, 2020).

In addition to worsening drought, the region is projected to experience more high heat days per year in the coming decades, which may cause heat-related illnesses or worsen pre-existing conditions. While temperatures near the Bay generally remain temperate, heat waves may pose a risk in warmer parts of the city.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 16 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
Figure 2.6. Map of 2020 summer temperatures. Values derived from Landsat 8 Provisional Surface Temperatures averaged across three summer dates: June 22, 2020, July 8, 2020, and July 24, 2020. (Landsat Level 2 Surface Temperature Science Product courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey.) Many East Palo Alto residents are especially vulnerable to environmental threats like flooding and extreme heat. For example, an estimated 1,860 households in East Palo Alto—or 51%—are currently considered to be financially unstable, having zero or negative discretionary income (Bick et al., 2021). As households are burdened with additional costs resulting from threats like increased flooding and need for air conditioning, households with little savings or discretionary income will be increasingly unable to absorb such costs and at risk of displacement, bankruptcy, or homelessness (Bick et al., 2021). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) classifies overall vulnerability of communities based on demographics recorded by the US Census Bureau, including housing and transportation characteristics, minority status and language barriers, age, disability, and socioeconomic status (CDC & ATSDR, 2020). East Palo Alto is considered highly vulnerable based on these indicators, especially relative to surrounding communities (Fig. 2.7). 2020
Average
Summer
Temperature
Cooler Areas
Warmer Areas

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
101
84 0.5 miles

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 17 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
Figure 2.7. Map representing relative overall social vulnerability. Social vulnerability of each census tract is ranked based on 15 social factors reported in the US Census (CDC & ATSDR, 2020).

Ravenswood Specific Plan area. Photo:
2 miles
Strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo) planted on school grounds in East Palo Alto. Photo: Canopy.

Social Vulnerability
(Percentile)
0%
100% 84

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
101
280
82 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 18 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
Figure 2.8. Map representing relative rates of emergency department visits for asthma between 2011 and 2013 (OEHHA, 2017).

Disparities in health outcomes can also be seen between East Palo Alto and neighboring communities. Residents experience the highest rates of asthma in the county and report concerns about air pollution associated with traffic and emissions on US 101 Highway (San Mateo County, 2021a). In the survey associated with this project (see Chapter 5), 91% of respondents reported being slightly or very concerned about air pollution in the city. Over 15% of residents reported poor mental health over the previous two weeks in a 2018 survey, the highest of any city in the county, and in the highest 25% for California cities overall (San Mateo County, 2021b). Trees and other green infrastructure have potential to alleviate some of these health and wellbeing concerns in the city.

The city’s current urban forest is not robust enough to meaningfully address these current and future challenges. Widespread asphalt contributes to the urban heat island effect and stormwater runoff flooding, while limited park space and tree canopy cover offer scarce areas of refuge. The city’s existing urban forest provides a suite of benefits (see Chapter 3), but a strong commitment to grow the urban forest is urgently needed in order to foster a healthy, resilient city and keep pace with growing challenges. 2 miles
Asthma (Percentile)
0%
100%
Spatially modeled,
age-adjusted rate
of emergency
department visits
for asthma per
10,000 (2011-2013)
84 SAN FRANCISCO BAY
101
280
82 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 19 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
Connections with other planning efforts
Maintenance and growth of the urban forest connects to numerous goals set by the Vista 2035 General Plan and the City’s Climate Action Plan (KEMA, Inc. & City of East Palo Alto, 2011; City of East Palo Alto, 2017). These efforts also reflect county-wide goals and strategies for climate adaptation and greening. Planning for the urban forest should also influence ongoing efforts such as the City’s Parks Master Plan and Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan Update.

The vision for East Palo Alto in the Vista 2035 General Plan describes a healthy and beautiful city with new parks, new trees and landscaping, and improved access to natural resources. Citywide greening, including the expansion of the urban forest, is a priority for achieving this vision. Due to the built-out nature of the existing infrastructure, goals focused on land use, parks, open space, and conservation are crafted to take advantage of tree planting opportunities that combine function and tangible benefits, including:

1. Enhancing the pedestrian character of streetscapes with cooling and shaded sidewalks, thereby improving the quality of life and increasing property values.

2. Creating a visual barrier while filtering particulate matter along heavy traffic thoroughfares.

3. Reducing stormwater runoff which effectively mitigates soil erosion.

4. Encouraging the planting of fruit trees in neighborhoods as a food source for residents, and foraging opportunities for wildlife, while creating the opportunity for physical connection with nature.

Guiding Principles of the Vista 2035 General Plan
Guiding Principle #8: Sustainability and environmental protection. We will strive for environmental responsibility and sustainability in our community. We are committed to preserving a healthy and ecologically flourishing planet for our children and grandchildren.

We will support innovative programs and policies for environmental sustainability, climate change mitigation and adaptation, livability, and resource protection.

Guiding Principle #14: Citywide greening. We recognize the physical and mental health benefits that come from a close connection to nature, and commit to protecting and enhancing East Palo Alto’s natural environment. This will include expanding the urban forest, greening public spaces, and protecting nature and habitat. We will improve our maintenance of the existing tree canopy and shift to drought-tolerant vegetation throughout City facilities.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 20 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
The Parks, Open Space, and Conservation priority area includes the goal of expanding the urban forest on both public and private property, with the purpose to mitigate the impacts of climate change by increasing shaded areas at bus stops, sidewalks, public parks, and plazas. This goal includes the following policy recommendations:
• Urban forestry. Expand the urban forest in East Palo Alto by adding street trees and landscaping throughout the city.
• New tree planting. Prioritize the planting of new trees on sites designated as sensitive receptors (e.g. schools, health centers) or that are in close proximity to sources of air pollution such as freeways and heavily traveled road corridors.
• Fruit trees. Encourage planting of fruit trees and other edible landscaping in private development for food sources for residents and foraging opportunities for wildlife. Plant fruit trees when feasible on public property.
• Urban forestry programs. Support education and outreach programs to inform community members about the benefits of urban trees, including shade, improved air quality, filtration of stormwater, and wildlife habitat.

Educate the community about proper tree maintenance.

Former mayor Pat Foster visits the first soundwall tree planted by the East Palo Alto Tree Initiative. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 21 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
The General Plan also identifies potential policies in other priority areas that can be achieved through strategic tree planting.
• Land Use Policy 9.9: “Tree planting. Encourage the planting and maintenance of appropriate tree species that shade the sidewalk, improve the pedestrian experience throughout the city, and enhance flood protection. Street trees should be selected that do not damage sidewalks, or block views of commercial buildings.”
• Westside Policy 7.1: “Greening and streetscape. Provide additional street trees, landscaping and green space throughout the Westside to improve the area’s visual appeal and increase residents’ connection with nature.” • Parks, Open Space, and Conservation Policy 8.3: “Public realm shading.

Strive to improve shading in public spaces such as bus stops, sidewalks and public parks, and plazas through the use of trees, shelters, awnings, gazebos, fabric shading, and other creative cooling strategies.” The City of East Palo Alto Final Climate Action Plan (KEMA, Inc. & City of East Palo Alto, 2011) shares the common goal to create a beautiful and healthy city that is sustainable by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing public access to trees and the natural environment, which may have a direct or indirect effect on improving mental and physical health, increasing job productivity, and reducing crime. Tree planting is identified in the plan as a medium priority measure.

The Climate Action Plan includes the following tree-related goals:

1. Goal TL-3.1. Wider sidewalks with trees planted as a buffer between pedestrians and traffic.

2. Goal TL-4. Greater tree canopy cover through an ongoing tree planting program to reduce the heat island effect, and lower energy use to cool homes and businesses.

3. Measure TL-4.1. Regular maintenance of the urban forest to prolong the life of trees, with continual investment in the tree inventory to both facilitate removal of carbon dioxide from the air and increase long-term net carbon storage. Through photosynthesis, trees utilize the carbon to form the physical structure of the tree and return oxygen into the atmosphere. An additional perk is realized in GHG reduction credits available under the Climate Action Reserve’s urban forestry protocol.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 22 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
References
Bick, I. A., Santiago Tate, A. F., Serafin, K. A., Miltenberger, A., Anyansi, I., Evans, M., Ortolano, L., Ouyang, D., Suckale, J. (2021). Rising seas, rising inequity? Communities at risk in the San Francisco Bay Area and implications for adaptation policy. Earth’s Future, 9(7), e2020EF001963. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001963 California Coastal Commission. (2018). Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits. California Coastal Commission. Retrieved October 26, 2021 from coastal.ca.gov/climate/ slrguidance.html
[CDC & ATSDR] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, & Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2020). CDC/ATSDR social vulnerability index 2018 California. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention & Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program. Retrieved August 26, 2021 from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ placeandhealth/svi/index.html
City of East Palo Alto. (2017). Vista 2035 East Palo Alto General Plan. City of East Palo Alto. Retrieved August 19, 2021 from https://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/econdev/ page/general-plan-2035-east-palo-alto
City of East Palo Alto. (n.d.). Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan update. City of East Palo Alto. Retrieved September 30, 2021 from https://www. cityofepa.org/planning/page/ravenswood-business-district-4-corners-specificplan-update City of East Palo Alto (2020). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. City of East Palo.

Retrieved August 20, 2021 from https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/ fileattachments/public_works/project/14661/final_epa_uwmp_2020_20210701_w_ attachments.pdf
City of Menlo Park, Gates and Associates, Blue Point Planning. (2019). City of Menlo Park Park & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Update. City of Menlo Park. Retrieved December 30, 2021 from https://www.menlopark.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/ Item/12107
Cooper, W. S. (1926). Vegetational development upon alluvial fans in the vicinity of Palo Alto, California. Ecology 7(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/1929116 Dremann, S. (2018). Officials unveil first phase of San Francisquito Creek flood protection. Palo Alto Weekly. Retrieved January 5, 2022 from https://paloaltoonline. com/news/2018/12/16/officials-unveil-first-phase-of-san-francisquito-creek-floodprotection KEMA, Inc., & City of East Palo Alto. (2011). City of East Palo Alto final climate action plan: Twenty-three actions to address our changing climate. City of East Palo Alto.

Retrieved August 20, 2021 from https://www.cityofepa.org/econdev/page/climateaction-plan-adopted-2011

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 23 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
Layton, F. M., & Johnson, A. A. (2019). From crisis to solutions: a case study of East Palo Alto’s water supply. Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Retrieved September 2, 2021 from https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/sites/default/files/publications/eastpalo-alto-water-report-reader.pdf Hermstad, D., Cayce, K., & Grossinger, R. (2009). Historical ecology of Lower San Francisquito Creek, phase 1. Technical memorandum accompanying project GIS Data, Contribution No. 579. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, California.

Retrieved February 22, 2021 from https://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/biblio_ files/San_Fran_Creek_Hist_Eco_Tech_Memo_final_web_0.pdf Kashiwagi, J. H., & Hokholt, L. A. (1991). Soil survey of San Mateo County, eastern part, and San Francisco County, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Retrieved September 1, 2021 from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/CA689/0/sanmateo.pdf Lapham, M. H. (1903). Soil survey of the San Jose Area, California. Washington: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils.

Michelson, A., & Solomonson, K. (1994). City of East Palo Alto historic resources inventory report. San Mateo County Historical Association and San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board. Retrieved August 13, 2021 from https://www.cityofepa. org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_amp_economic_development/ page/2961/full_report.pdf
Milliken R. T. (1983). The spatial organization of human population on Central California’s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish arrival. Sonoma State University.

Milliken R. T., Shoup, L. H., & Ortiz, B. R. (2009). Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their neighbors, yesterday and today. National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

NRC (National Research Council). (2012). Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Prepared by the Committee on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon, and Washington and the National Research Council Board on Earth Sciences and Resources and Ocean Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies.
[OEHHA] Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2017). CalEnviroScreen

3.0. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Retrieved Aug 26, 2021 from https://oehha.ca.gov/ calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30.

Papendick, H., Sharma, J., Raider, C., Andrade, A., Hashizume, E., Plascencia, M., Prowitt, S., Carter, T., Malinowski, K., Ludy, J., Trahan, A., Sprague, H. (2018). County of San Mateo sea level rise vulnerability assessment. County of San Mateo, Office of Sustainability. Retrieved July 7, 2021 from https://seachangesmc.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/03/2018-03-05-mp-SLR_VA_Report_2.2018_v4_WEB.pdf Plane, E., Hill, K., & May, C. (2019). A rapid assessment method to identify potential groundwater flooding hotspots as sea levels rise in coastal cities. Water, 11(11), 2228. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112228

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 24 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • The City of Palo Alto
Saena, F. V. (2016). Community vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in East Palo Alto. Masters Thesis, Duke University.

San Mateo County. (2021a). Adults with current asthma. San Mateo County: All Together Better. Retrieved September 30, 2021 from http://www.smcalltogetherbetter.org/ indicators/index/view?indicatorId=79&localeId=153985
San Mateo County. (2021b). Poor mental health: 14+ days. San Mateo County:

All Together Better. Retrieved September, 30 2021 from http://www. smcalltogetherbetter.org/indicators/index/view?indicatorId=1835&localeId=153985 Sheyner, G. (2017). The spreading empire. Palo Alto Online. Retrieved December 30, 2021 from https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/31/the-spreading-empire Thomas, P., Bayuk, K., Samai, E., Harrell, B., Saena, F. V., & Clifford, T. (2020). Acterra community-based vulnerability planning pilot project report. Urban Permaculture Institute, Acterra, and Ecology and Environment, Inc. Retrieved September 16, 2021 from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57d1a622d1758e0dfed089fe/t/5ed03 9140d56e8675511258a/1590704409246/Acterra+Pilot+Project+Report+20200422. pdf
[USDA NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2015). Supplement to the soil survey of the Santa Clara Area, California, western part. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved July 13, 2021 from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/santaclaraCAwest2015/Santa-Clara-CA_ West.pdf
US Census Bureau. (2020a). East Palo Alto city, California profile: 2020 American Community Survey 1- year data. US Census Bureau. Retrieved December 30, 2021 from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0620956 US Census Bureau. (2020b). Palo Alto city, California profile: 2020 American Community Survey 1- year data. US Census Bureau. Retrieved December 30, 2021 from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0655282 US Census Bureau. (2020c). San Mateo County, California profile: 2020 American Community Survey 1-year data. US Census Bureau. Retrieved December 30, 2021 from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0500000US06081 [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010). Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. Retrieved August 11, 2021 from https:// esadocs.defenders-cci.org/ESAdocs/five_year_review/doc3221.pdf [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013). Recovery plan for tidal marsh ecosystems of northern and central California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. Retrieved August 11, 2021 from https://fws.gov/sfbaydelta/documents/ tidal_marsh_recovery_plan_v1.pdf

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related SECTION 2:

CURRENT STATUS

IN THIS SECTION
Chapter 3: URBAN FOREST ASSESSMENT............. 25
Chapter 4: TREE MANAGEMENT and PROTECTIONS ............ 59 Chapter 5: COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES............. 72
(above) Brentwood Elementary students happy to plant trees. Photo: Canopy. (below) Never too young to care for trees, at East Bayshore sound wall. Photos: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 26 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Background
To understand the current state of East Palo Alto’s urban forest, we used two approaches: an evaluation of the most recent street tree inventory, and an urban tree canopy assessment.

Most cities maintain an inventory of public trees, which can include the species, size, location, health, and pruning history of each tree owned and/or maintained by the city. A tree inventory is an invaluable asset for a city to be able to manage its urban forest. However, these inventories typically only include public trees, while the majority of urban trees are on private property, such as residential backyards.

Tree canopy cover is the amount of area covered by tree leaves, branches, and stems—the tree’s canopy—when viewed from above (Fig. 3.1). Urban trees provide a wide range of benefits that create more livable and resilient cities, and tree canopy cover is closely related to benefits like the amount of shade provided and the amount of rainfall captured. Measuring tree canopy cover is valuable because it can easily provide a snapshot of how all trees, both public and private, are distributed through the city. This can help identify opportunities for expanding the services generated by the urban forest.

Figure 3.1. Example of a neighborhood street grid with tree canopy cover shown in green.

The neighborhood on the left has a higher percentage of tree canopy than the neighborhood on the right.
3 URBAN FOREST ASSESSMENT

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 27 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment In this section, we review the existing street tree inventory and evaluate the current tree canopy cover in the City of East Palo Alto to understand how the benefits of trees are distributed within the city. The following sections show the tree canopy cover of East Palo Alto compared to neighboring cities, tree canopy cover in different neighborhoods within the city, and tree canopy cover over different types of land use. We also explore how the urban tree canopy has changed since the city was incorporated to find whether tree canopy is being gained or lost over time.

Olive trees (Olea europaea) a few years after planting along the West Bayshore Rd sound wall (along US 101 Highway.) Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 28 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Figure 3.2. Example of 2018 EarthDefine tree urban canopy cover data. Green areas are classified as tree canopies.

Tree canopy assessment
Measuring tree canopy cover
We summarized tree canopy cover within the different neighborhoods and land use zones of East Palo Alto. Our city boundaries were obtained from the US Census Bureau, and neighborhood and zoning boundaries came from the Vista 2035 General Plan (City of East Palo Alto, 2017). Because the Baylands are naturally unforested and situated outside of the urban landscape, the Baylands area was excluded from tree canopy cover calculations.

To measure modern tree canopy cover, we used EarthDefine’s 2018 urban tree canopy cover dataset, which maps tree canopy cover in all census-defined urban areas in California (EarthDefine, 2018). This dataset maps tree canopies across the city at a high resolution (1-meter/3 feet resolution). The data are based on 2018 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data collected by the US Geological Survey.

Tree canopy cover was calculated by adding up the total area covered by tree canopies in the city and dividing this canopy area by the total area of the city, thus representing the percent of land area covered by trees. Using EarthDefine’s urban tree canopy cover dataset, we summarized tree canopy cover in East Palo Alto, excluding the Baylands. For comparison, we used similar methods to

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 29 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Figure 3.3. Close-up view of random sample points classified as either “tree” or “no tree” using 2018 aerial imagery. The inset map to the left shows how these points were classified across the whole city, excluding the Baylands. The same set of points was classified and used to estimate tree canopy cover in 1982 and 2018. Imagery, 2018: National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), courtesy USDA Farm Service Agency.
calculate tree canopy cover in Menlo Park and report Palo Alto’s tree canopy cover as calculated in their 2015 Urban Forest Master Plan (City of Palo Alto, 2019).

Estimating tree canopy cover change over time
To understand how tree canopy cover in the city has changed over time, we compared aerial imagery from 1982 and 2018. The city’s past tree canopy cover has not been mapped in the same way as tree canopy cover in 2018 by EarthDefine, so historical imagery from 1982 was used to estimate tree canopy around the time of the city’s incorporation in 1983. We used a random point classification method to estimate canopy cover in both years (see Appendix I).

We placed 750 random points on a map and determined whether each point landed on a tree or not in 1982 and 2018 (Fig. 3.3). The percentage of points that did land on a tree represents the estimated tree canopy cover.

TREE

NO TREE

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 30 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Figure 3.4. Map comparing canopy
cover among East Palo Alto, Menlo Park,
and Palo Alto. Areas covered by tree
canopy are shown in green.

0.5 miles

E A ST PALO ALTO

13.5%

MENLO PARK
~27%

PALO ALTO
~38%

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
101
82 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 31 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Tree canopy in the city: past and present
As of 2018, East Palo Alto’s urban tree canopy cover was 13.5%. In comparison, East Palo Alto’s neighboring cities have much higher total tree canopy cover. To the west, Menlo Park has roughly two times more tree canopy cover than East Palo Alto (26.8%), and to the south, Palo Alto has almost three times more tree canopy cover (37.6%).

While there are many complex reasons for the discrepancy in tree cover between East Palo Alto and its neighboring cities, one important factor is the history of each city’s development, incorporation, and formal and informal segregationist housing policies and practices. This history drastically impacted the allocation of resources within and between cities towards investment in community amenities, such as creating an urban forest. This legacy of disinvestment in East Palo Alto remains today and is plainly visible through its disproportionately low urban tree canopy cover.

Figure 3.5. Aerial imagery of East Palo Alto and its surroundings in 2018, visibly demonstrating the sharp contrast in greenness between East Palo Alto and its neighboring cities. 0.5 miles
101
84 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 32 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment According to the San Francisco Bay Area State of the Urban Forest Final Report (Simpson & McPherson, 2007), Menlo Park and Palo Alto both increased tree canopy cover between 1982 and 2002, and from examining aerial imagery of the region from 1948, it is clear that these cities have been investing in their urban forests for many decades. In contrast, East Palo Alto remained largely agricultural with very little tree cover until the 1950s, when agricultural land was quickly built up with inexpensive housing. As East Palo Alto urbanized, trees were planted in moderation; however, tree canopy cover remained relatively static, with an increase of less than 5% tree canopy cover between 1982 and 2002 (Simpson & McPherson, 2007).

Extending this comparison through our tree canopy cover change analysis, we found no significant change in tree canopy cover between 1982 and 2018—a span of 36 years. Our sampling methods were only sensitive enough to detect tree canopy cover changes greater than 5%, so there may have been some very small changes, but analysis of aerial imagery in 1982 and 2018 showed tree canopy cover remained close to 14%. While overall changes across the city were small, many individual trees were certainly planted and removed over this time, and it is likely that some streets and blocks experienced overall loss or gain of tree canopy cover.

Figure 3.6. Comparison of approximate tree canopy cover in 1982 and 2018. Bars above and below the estimated canopy cover represent the range of values that we are 95% certain contains the true canopy cover.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 33 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Figure 3.7. Side-by-side comparison of historical imagery from 1982 and current imagery from 2018. Imagery:
1982 imagery is courtesy Historic Aerials (historicaerials.com), and 2018 imagery is from the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), courtesy USDA Farm Service Agency. 1982 2018

0.5 miles 0.5 miles

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 34 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Distribution of tree canopy cover in the city
Tree canopy cover by neighborhood
Levels of tree canopy cover differ drastically among East Palo Alto neighborhoods (as defined in the Vista 2035 General Plan; City of East Palo Alto, 2017). At the low end, the Ravenswood Employment District has only 2% tree canopy cover. The Woodland neighborhood, situated south of the US 101 Highway and directly adjacent to Palo Alto, has the highest tree canopy cover at 28%.

There is a clear pattern that the neighborhoods with the highest levels of tree canopy cover—the Woodland, Willow, and Palo Alto Park neighborhoods— are bordered by the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. In comparison, neighborhoods in Palo Alto had between 13.8% (the municipal golf course) and

55.8% (Old Palo Alto) tree canopy cover in 2010, as reported in Palo Alto’s 2015 Urban Forest Master Plan. It is notable that the neighborhood with the least tree canopy cover in Palo Alto has more tree canopy than East Palo Alto on average.

Figure 3.8. Map of tree canopy cover within each of East Palo Alto’s neighborhoods in 2018.

Areas covered by tree canopy are shown in green. The Baylands neighborhood, a naturally treeless region, was excluded from the canopy assessment. 2%
9%
11%
14%
19%
17%
15%
8%
6%
12%
28%
12%
N/A

13.5%
overall
canopy cover

0.5 miles

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
University
Village
Baylands
(excluded)
Weeks
Gardens
US 101 Corridor
Woodland
Willow
Gateway
District
Universitiy Corridor
Bay Road Corridor
Kavanaugh
Palo Alto Park
Ravenswood
Employment District
4 Corners / 101
84 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 35 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Tree canopy cover by zoning type
Twenty-three zoning designations delineated in East Palo Alto’s Vista 2035 General Plan were grouped into eight broader zoning types for this analysis, and areas outside of zoned parcels were classified as roads and rights-of-way (Table 3.1).

About 25% of tree canopy cover in the city is on public land, while the remaining 75% is on private land. This means that private individuals are currently managing most of the trees in East Palo Alto.

Residential areas have the highest level of tree canopy cover in East Palo Alto, and the largest area of tree canopy cover is located in low density residential areas. On the other hand, the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan area has the lowest level of tree canopy cover. In fact, tree canopy cover levels in all non-residential zones are lower than the city’s average tree canopy cover.

Zones that are primarily owned and/or managed by public agencies tend to have low levels of tree canopy cover, highlighting an opportunity for the City to expand tree canopy cover on City-owned land. Parcels zoned for public institutional uses (e.g., public schools and government buildings) and for parks and recreation both have less than 10% tree canopy cover. Rights-of-way have a higher proportion of tree canopy cover but also cover a significant area of the city, and so have a large role to play in expanding the city’s tree canopy cover.

Planting trees on parcels that are slated for redevelopment is a particularly important opportunity for expanding the urban forest in East Palo Alto. For example, the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan area, which is expected to undergo significant development in the future, has only 6% tree canopy cover. During the area’s redevelopment, there will be a high need to not only protect and maintain existing valuable trees, but also to capitalize on the opportunity to plant new trees.

Figure 3.9. Comparison of tree canopy cover by neighborhood, listed in descending order of acres of tree canopy cover. Percentages indicate the percent of a neighborhood that is covered by tree canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 36 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Figure 3.10. Map of the zoning types used to evaluate levels of tree canopy cover. See Table 3.1 below for classification of zoning types, and a color legend.

Residential, low
density
Residential,
medium density
Residential, high
density Commercial Mixed use
R-LD R-MD-1
R-MD-2
PUD
R-HD-3
R-HD-5
R-UHD
C-G
C-N
C-O
MUC-1
MUC-2
MUH
MUL
Public institutional
zone
Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners
Specific Plan
Parks and
recreation zone
Roads and rightsof-way
Public institutional
zone
4 Corners
Bay Road Central
R-FO
WO
REC
UR
IT
Parks and recreation
zone
Not zoned land
Table 3.1: Categorization of General Plan zoning designations into broader zoning groups for tree canopy cover measurements. Note that the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan area includes commercial, industrial, mixed use, and medium density residential zones, but is grouped together as a specific plan area.

0.5 miles
Baylands
(excluded)
US 101 Corridor

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
101
84 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 37 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Figure 3.11. Comparison of tree canopy cover by zoning type, listed in descending order of area tree canopy cover.

Density of tree canopy cover in the Ravenswood area. Imagery: Google Earth.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 38 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Tree canopy cover in parks and schools
East Palo Alto’s parks and open spaces present important opportunities to plant trees for shade and recreation. However, the Parks and Recreation zone has relatively low tree canopy cover. Much of this area is adjacent to the Baylands, where tidal marsh habitat and species protections influence the ability to maintain high tree canopy cover (see Chapter 2). Outside of the Baylands-adjacent Cooley Landing and small pocket park, three of the four city parks (Jack Farrell Park, Bell Street Park, and Joel Davis Park) have a level of tree canopy cover that far exceeds the city average, ranging from 25% to 36%. Martin Luther King Park, which borders the Baylands, has much lower tree canopy cover, at 7%. In comparison, urban park land in Palo Alto has about 37% canopy cover overall (20% including the golf course).

Figure 3.12. Map of schools and urban parks in East Palo Alto. These spaces generally make up much of the open space in a city, and are therefore good opportunities for expanding the urban forest. 0.5 miles

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
Parks and Schools
101
84 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 39 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Figure 3.13. Comparison of tree canopy cover among four of East Palo Alto’s parks, listed in descending order of tree canopy cover area.

While several city parks have high tree canopy cover relative to the city overall, further increasing their tree canopy would enhance their ability to act as local cooling spaces, mitigating urban heat island effects. Martin Luther King Park will require strategic tree plantings with input from ecological experts due to its location near the Baylands. Of particular interest is restoring native willow groves historically found at this site to create a natural transition, or “ecotone,” between the marsh and upland areas, generating exceptional value for native wildlife.

East Palo Alto is currently pursuing an open space master planning process, which could aim to increase tree canopy in city parks and could also support features such as transitional ecotones.

The Public Institutional Zone, which includes public school grounds, also has below-average tree canopy cover for the city. Tree canopy cover on school grounds is particularly important for providing healthy, shaded places for children to play, yet public schools in East Palo Alto have 7.4% tree canopy cover overall, and all schools have less than 13% tree canopy cover, the city average.

For example, Cesar Chavez Ravenswood Middle School, which has the largest grounds, has only 5% tree canopy cover. In comparison, a survey of over 500 schools in Los Angeles found that schools had 11% tree canopy cover on average, and up to 34.7% tree canopy cover (Moreno et al., 2015). Only one East Palo Alto school — Oxford Day Academy, a small public charter school with a nontraditional campus — minimally surpasses this reported average, with 12% tree canopy cover. In comparison, Palo Alto school grounds have 17.5% tree canopy cover. East Palo Alto schools should be prioritized for future tree planting due to the amount of open, unbuilt area and the important benefits trees can provide for children playing outside.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 40 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Figure 3.14. Comparison of tree canopy cover on school grounds within East Palo Alto, listed in descending order of tree canopy cover area.

Rain or shine, volunteer families plant trees at East Palo Alto Charter School. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 41 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Public tree inventory
The most recent tree inventory for the City of East Palo Alto was prepared in 2013 by ArborPro, Inc., and the East Palo Alto Community Development Department, funded by Cal Fire. This was the first tree inventory conducted for the City. In the years since, the inventory has been used by Canopy to identify numerous empty planting locations and by the City to determine which trees were publicly owned. However, the inventory has not been updated to reflect changes over this time (see Chapter 4).

As part of the development of this plan, the project team collected existing records of new trees planted by Canopy and records of trees currently managed by the City’s tree maintenance contractor. We also evaluated whether large trees over 30 inches in diameter recorded in 2013 still remained in 2020 using Google Street View. The inventory has been updated to reflect these changes, but a new on-the-ground evaluation of the current condition and status of public trees is needed for a full picture of the existing urban forest.

Using the current available information about East Palo Alto’s public trees, we summarized the number of trees and species composition in the public domain.

Trees and acorns in protective tubes along West Bayshore sound wall, shortly after planting in 2007.

Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 42 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Common name Scientific name Number of Trees
London Plane Tree Platanus x acerifolia 427
Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 343
Glossy Privet Ligustrum lucidum 261
Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 238
Italian Cypress Cupressus sempervirens 223
Catalina Cherry Prunus ilicifolia ssp. lyonii 164
Purple-leaf Plum Prunus cerasifera 163
Oak Species Quercus sp. 148
Strawberry Tree Arbutus unedo 138
Queen Palm Arecastrum romanzoffianum 137
Water Gum Tristaniopsis laurina 128
Raywood Ash Fraxinus angustifolia ssp. oxycarpa
‘Raywood’
126
Olive Olea europaea 122
Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 107
Liquidambar Liquidambar styraciflua 105
Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 105
Crape Myrtle ‘Muskogee’ Lagerstroemia x ‘Muskogee’ 96
All other species 2,714
Total, all trees 5,745
Tree composition
The tree inventory shows that the streets and parks of East Palo Alto contain 5,745 trees, with 253 different species and cultivars.

Seventeen very common species made up 58% of the public trees, with more than 100 individuals of each species. These 17 species are common to streets and parks of the San Francisco Bay Area; none are particularly unusual or rare.

They include tall, medium and small species of both deciduous and evergreen types. London plane tree (Platanus × acerifolia) was the most common species, making up 7% of public trees, while Quercus (oak) was the most common genus with 905 individuals (16% of public trees). Many different species of oaks were found in the city, including bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), Canby’s red oak (Quercus canbyi), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), Hungarian oak (Quercus frainetto), interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), island oak (Quercus tomentella), netleaf oak (Quercus rugosa), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii), and southern live oak (Quercus virginiana). Commonly used targets for promoting tree diversity suggest that the urban forest should contain no more than 10% of one species or 20% of one genus, showing that the existing public trees are sufficiently diverse.

This diversity increases the resilience of the forest to future threats such as pests or disturbances that might affect closely related species.

Table 3.2. Most frequently occurring species among public trees in East Palo Alto.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 43 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Among the remaining 236 species were several that are unique or unusual.

Examples include Chinese fringe tree, Douglas-fir, European beech, Japanese tree lilac, Persian ironwood, and silver linden. Overall, 99 of the 253 species (39%) were represented by three or fewer trees, and 167 of 253 species (66%) were represented by 10 or fewer trees.

Fourteen of the 253 species are potentially native to East Palo Alto (Table 3.2).

Together they comprise 565 of the 5,745 trees (10%). Coast live oak was the dominant locally native species and made up 6% of the urban forest alone. An additional 16 species are native to California, with 889 California native trees in the urban forest overall (15%).

Figure 3.15. Proportion of public trees in East Palo Alto that are locally native to the East Palo Alto area, native to California, or not native to California.

Some tree species found in East Palo Alto are considered potentially invasive by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC, 2017). No trees were considered to have high invasive potential, which would have severe ecological impacts.

However, six species were identified as having moderate invasive potential (edible fig (Ficus carica), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), myoporum (Myoporum laetum), red clusterberry (Cotoneaster lacteus), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)), and ten species were noted as having limited invasive potential.

Many of the trees in East Palo Alto were small in size. Just under half of trees were less than 6 inches in diameter with another 30% between 6 and 12 inches.

This reflects the presence of small size trees such as crape myrtle, Catalina

NATIVE TREES IN EAST PALO ALTO

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 44 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment cherry, strawberry tree, and purple-leaf plum among the most frequently occurring species. These trees will remain relatively small throughout their lives.

The size distribution may also reflect recent planting efforts, leading to a large number of young trees that will grow over time.

Among large trees, coast live oak was the most common, followed by coast redwood, California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), Canary Island date palm, southern magnolia, blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), camphor (Cinnamomum camphora), California incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and American sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Each of these species is common to landscapes of the Bay Area. There were 195 trees over 30 inches in diameter in 2013 whose presence we were able to check in 2020 via Google Street View. Of these, only 15 had been removed. Six of those 15 had been classified as being in poor health in the 2013 inventory. Meanwhile, the other 92% of large trees remain in the city today.

Various insects and diseases can threaten urban trees, potentially killing trees and reducing the overall health, value, and long-term sustainability of the urban forest. Different pests tend to target different species, meaning that the potential risk of each pest differs among cities. For East Palo Alto, 36 pests were analyzed for their potential impact and compared with pest range maps. Four of these pests are present in San Mateo County. Among the four pests, only sudden oak death (SOD) is problematic. SOD is a fungal disease with a wide host range. Coast live oak is the most important host and one of the most important species in the city. SOD is present in San Mateo County but has not been reported in East Palo Alto.

Table 3.3. Tree species native to East Palo Alto found in the tree inventory.

Common name Scientific name Number of trees
Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 343
Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 107
California Buckeye Aesculus californica 23
Valley Oak Quercus lobata 23
California Bay Umbellularia californica 12
Arroyo Willow Salix lasiolepis 10
Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum 9
Box Elder Acer negundo 8
Fremont Cottonwood Populus fremontii 8
Willow Species Salix spp. 7
Blue Elderberry Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea 7
Coffeeberry Frangula californica 4
Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia 3
Interior Live Oak Quercus wislizeni 1

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 45 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Photo 3.1. Before tree removal. Imagery: Google Street
View.

Photo 3.2. After removal. Imagery: Google Street
View.

Tree Planting along the US
101 Highway Corridor
A unique aspect of East Palo Alto’s public trees are
plantings along the US 101 Highway sound wall,
located along West and East Bayshore Road on
the east and west sides of the city. These plantings
were part of an innovative project by Canopy,
which was subsequently included in a research
study on establishment success of urban trees
(Roman et al., 2015). 568 trees of 17 different
species were planted in 2007, with an emphasis
on drought-adapted and native species. About
96% of these trees survived 6 years after planting,
showing their suitability for difficult conditions
along the sound wall. Irrigation and young tree
care for the first few years after planting were
particularly important for the great success of
these trees, many of which can still be seen today.

Typical sound wall planting along US 101 Highway. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 46 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Benefits of the urban forest
Understanding an urban forest’s structure, function, and value can promote management decisions that will improve human health and environmental quality. In order to quantify some of the environmental benefits that trees provide, we used iTree Eco, which uses species information from the tree inventory along with scientific research to estimate the benefits provided by public trees. The iTree suite of urban forest analysis and management tools was developed by the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (iTree Canopy, n.d.). iTree can be used to 1) quantify the benefits provided by trees, 2) manage and advocate for the urban forest, and 3) describe potential risks to tree and forest health.

The iTree Eco calculations are based on the species composition, size, and health of the 5,745 trees in the public tree inventory. These trees are estimated to cover about 40 acres of the city, providing about 20% of all tree canopy in the city.

The remaining tree canopy cover in the city results from private trees, including those in residential yards, on school grounds, and in private parking lots. To estimate the benefits provided by the many private trees in the city, we assume that the private trees mirror the species composition, size, and health of the trees in the public tree inventory. Since there is no complete inventory of private trees, this assumption allows us to roughly estimate the important benefits trees are already providing in East Palo Alto.

The iTree analysis was constrained by the lack of cost information and limited tree data. For example, typical iTree analyses consider land use, ground and tree cover, individual tree attributes of species, stem diameter, height, crown width, crown canopy missing and dieback, and distance and direction to residential.

Some of these attributes were not included in the 2013 inventory. In addition, local hourly air pollution and meteorological data were absent.

Although we cannot estimate the quantitative value of some benefits, trees in East Palo Alto undoubtedly provide a wide range of values.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 47 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Urban forest structure and compensatory value
The structure of the urban forest is defined by the number of trees and their species, size, and health. Quantifying the overall value of the existing urban forest structure estimates the cost of having to replace each tree with a comparable tree, also known as the compensatory value. Larger, healthier trees have a higher value, while small, young trees are more easily and inexpensively replaced.

East Palo Alto’s 5,745 public trees have an estimated compensatory value of approximately $15 million. Assuming private tree composition is the same as public tree composition, we estimate that there are about 27,500 trees total in the city, with a total value of about $71.5 million. This indicates that the average tree in the city would cost about $2,600 to replace. This high value reflects the high value of large trees remaining in the city.

Planting new trees and maintaining tree health throughout the life of each tree are both important for growing the compensatory value of the city’s urban forest.

Figure 3.16. Although East Palo Alto’s current urban forest is relatively small, trees in the city currently provide the community with a wide array of benefits and values, some of which can be quantified monetarily.

Compensatory value
$71,500,000
Carbon sequestration
$3,000,000
Air pollution
removal
$95,000
Fruit
production
Biodiversity
support
Human health
and wellbeing
Heat
mitigation &
building energy
use
Children’s
academic
performance
Carbon storage
$1,700,000
Avoided
stormwater
runoff
$6,000
Oxygen
production
BENEFITS and VALUES OF CURRENT URBAN FOREST

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 48 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Carbon sequestration and storage
Carbon sequestration refers to how much carbon dioxide trees can capture from the atmosphere over time and convert into tree biomass through the process of photosynthesis. Carbon storage refers to the quantity of carbon stored in the tree’s woody matter, including its trunk, branches, leaves, and roots. Carbon sequestration and storage are critical benefits generated by the urban forest, as they remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere and mitigate climate change.

In East Palo Alto, approximately 38 metric tons of carbon are sequestered by public trees each year with an associated value of $654,000, while private trees sequester an additional 140 metric tons of carbon per year. The city’s entire urban forest is estimated to store over 10,000 metric tons of carbon, with a value of approximately $1.7 million. 2,140 metric tons of carbon are stored in public trees alone.

Tree maintenance is particularly important for supporting the urban forest’s ability to store carbon, although there is a tradeoff in that tree maintenance activities can emit greenhouse gasses (Horn et al., 2014). In order to promote carbon storage throughout the lifecycle of a tree, the City can create systems that make use of dead and dying trees after their removal, including as longterm wood products.

Air pollution removal
East Palo Alto is burdened with poor air quality, which is linked to high community rates of asthma, among other public health and ecological issues.

The urban forest can play a role in directly filtering out harmful air pollutants, in addition to cooling buildings and encouraging active transportation, which reduce energy consumption and resultant air pollutant emissions (Nowak, 2002).

Pollution removal by trees in East Palo Alto was estimated using field data and recent available pollution and weather data. The 5,745 public trees are estimated to remove 1.1 metric tons of air pollution, including ozone (O3 ), carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2
), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5),
and sulfur dioxide (SO2
), per year. The estimated value of air pollution removal is $20,000 per year. The entire urban forest is estimated to remove between 5 and 6 metric tons of air pollution per year, a service valued at about $95,000.

However, trees also release naturally-occurring pollutants known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Nowak, 2002; Calfapietra et al., 2013). VOCs are precursor chemicals to ozone formation. In 2021, public trees in East Palo Alto will emit an estimated 1.7 metric tons of VOCs. Emissions vary among species based on species characteristics and amount of leaf biomass. Some genera such as oaks emit higher levels of VOCs.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 49 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Oxygen production
Through the process of photosynthesis, trees produce oxygen—a critical component of the air that we all need to breathe. Trees in East Palo Alto are estimated to produce about 490 metric tons of oxygen per year. However, compared to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere overall, the production of oxygen by urban trees is not considered to be a highly valuable benefit.

Avoided stormwater runoff
Cities like East Palo Alto are typically heavily built up with impervious surfaces, such as buildings, sidewalks, and pavement, that prevent water from infiltrating into the ground. During rainfall, water runs off the surface of these impervious surfaces, creating risk of flooding and carrying contaminants into water bodies, such as rivers, lakes, and the ocean.

Trees play a role in infiltrating stormwater into the ground and slowing down its flow across the urban landscape. Trees in East Palo Alto reduce runoff by intercepting about 700,000 gallons of water per year, generating a value of about $6,000. The value of this benefit is directly tied to the annual amount of precipitation in East Palo Alto, which was 3.5 inches in 2016.

Heat mitigation
Trees help keep cities cool by providing shade and generating evaporative cooling. 30-40% tree canopy cover across the city is needed to achieve significant cooling (Ng et al., 2012; Ziter et al., 2019), though there are benefits for energy conservation, comfort, and health from even a single tree. Shade on playgrounds and in parks can protect children from heat and UV exposure (Olsen et al., 2019). Furthermore, trees also help reduce building energy consumption by shading buildings in the summer and sheltering buildings from cold winds in the winter.

The heat mitigation benefits of trees in East Palo Alto could not be quantified, but they likely reduce heating and cooling costs in buildings. They also likely reduce healthcare costs by reducing the number of heat-related illnesses and deaths (Graham et al., 2016).

Food production
Planting urban fruit trees can provide numerous benefits for cities. Fruit trees can help with food security and public health by providing a source of fresh, local produce; additionally, they give residents a stronger attachment to their city and increase their connection to nature (Colinas et al., 2019). In a more practical sense, fruit trees often take up less space than other trees, making them easier to plant on both private and public property. While their smaller size means they provide less shade, capture fewer air pollutants, and catch less rainfall, they can be a good addition to the urban forest for small spaces and where food production is especially valued. Maintenance costs, however, are the main

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 50 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment consideration for urban fruit trees. Fruit trees can present some challenges, such as higher water use, pests, ground littering, and presence of rotting food.

The city has 366 public fruit trees. The most common species are loquat, plum, peach, and avocado (Fig. 3.17). Public fruit trees are largely located along streets, and many additional fruit trees are likely found in private yards. While this benefit could not be quantified, these trees can provide fruit to local community members if they are adequately cared for and if the fruit is harvested when ripe.

Figure 3.17. Breakdown of East Palo Alto’s 366 public fruit trees by tree species.

The urban forest also provides healthy fruit. Photo: Mbtrama, courtesy of CC 2.0.

EAST PALO ALTO PUBLIC FRUIT TREES

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 51 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Why are large, old trees important?
Large trees have the greatest positive environmental effects per tree of all urban trees (Nowak, 2002). They act as keystone structures for supporting biodiversity in urban parks, providing food, shelter, and habitat for wildlife (Stagoll et al., 2012). In particular, cavities found in large, old trees are critical for cavity-nesting birds. Large trees remove more air pollution and sequester more carbon than small trees, create more shade, and can also intercept more rainfall, protecting water quality (Berland et al. 2017). Due to their size, they can also be particularly notable and appreciated by urban residents for their beauty and shade provision, especially in densely populated areas (Cox et al., 2019).The positive environmental effects of trees grow with the tree, which is why larger trees should be granted special protections to ensure that they can continue to provide important ecosystem services.

Biodiversity support
Biodiversity is the variety of life present in a place, including both animals and plants. Urban forests can harbor relatively high levels of biodiversity (Alvey, 2006). Native urban trees in particular support insects, which in turn support predators like birds (Helden et al., 2012). The biodiversity support provided by trees increases with tree size, as large trees provide more food for wildlife, such as flowers, pollen, and nectar, and are more likely to have hollows and cavities that give animals places to nest or hide (Stagoll et al., 2012). Beyond supporting individual species, urban trees play a central role in fostering a diverse urban ecosystem that is resilient to stressors and a changing climate (Spotswood et al., 2019). Biodiverse urban landscapes are also better environments for people:
studies show that people derive greater health and wellbeing benefits from biodiverse greenspaces (Sandifer et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2018).

East Palo Alto has 565 native public trees, including 367 native oaks, which are a keystone resource for a variety of fauna and flora and were historically found in this area (Grivet et al., 2007; Spotswood et al., 2017). Oaks produce acorns that are consumed by acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus), scrub jays (Aphelocoma californica), and California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), with cascading effects on the broader ecosystem (Tietje et al., 2005).

Although the number of animal species supported by trees in East Palo Alto is difficult to estimate, the city’s large native trees, and its large oaks in particular, are likely providing food and refuge for a number of native species. According to iNaturalist, a dataset generated through community science, more than 150 native species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians and more than 200 species of native invertebrates have been recorded in East Palo Alto.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 52 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Health and wellbeing
Research shows that urban trees can benefit human health and wellbeing in a number of ways. First, many of the environmental benefits summarized above also lead to better health outcomes for people. Trees reduce air pollution that is associated with cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases (McDonald et al., 2016).

A 10% increase in tree canopy cover can result in a 10% reduction in asthma (Ulmer et al., 2016). The urban forests’ cooling effect also improves human thermal comfort and reduces the risks of heat injury (McDonald et al., 2016), especially during heatwaves (Graham et al., 2016), which are increasingly likely as global climate change accelerates.

Trees can also increase the walkability of neighborhoods and encourage greater physical activity, which leads to numerous health benefits, including reduction of obesity rates and associated health conditions (Ulmer et al., 2016, Eisenman et al., 2021). For example, research has shown that 10% more tree canopy cover increased the odds of recreational walking by 55% (Nehme et al., 2016).

Urban trees also promote mental wellbeing, including stress reduction and cognitive restoration (Wolf et al., 2020). Exposure to the urban forest has been linked with lower measures of anxiety, depression, anger, confusion, and fatigue Figure 3.18 These images of a street in East Palo Alto were edited to show how trees can change the look and experience of a place. Photo 2 shows the addition of small trees in every other yard, photo 3 has large trees, and photo 4 has large trees in every yard. Imagery: Google Street View.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 53 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment (Wolf et al., 2020), fewer mental health complaints (Akpinar et al., 2016 ; Gascon et al., 2018), and fewer prescriptions for antidepressants (Taylor et al., 2015).

At the street level, studies have shown the highest stress reduction benefits between 25% and 50% tree canopy cover, far higher than currently present in East Palo Alto (Jiang et al., 2014, An et al., 2004).

While difficult to quantify, the health benefits of East Palo Alto’s urban forest make it an essential component of the urban infrastructure to protect and expand.

Other benefits
Research suggests that increased tree canopy cover on school grounds can boost academic performance, leading to higher test scores, particularly for schools that serve socioeconomically disadvantaged students (Kuo et al., 2018; Sivarajah et al., 2018). In East Palo Alto, tree canopy on school grounds likely improves student performance to a modest degree, but greater tree canopy cover on school campuses could produce a more meaningful impact.

Urban trees can also increase property values and business success. Trees— either private trees located on a residential lot or public trees located in front of the home—are associated with higher home values (Wolf, 2007), as well as slightly higher monthly rent rates. In commercial areas, trees in front of businesses can give shoppers a more favorable impression of the business and increase their willingness to travel, pay for parking, and even pay higher prices for goods (Wolf, 2005). Shoppers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike prefer streets with trees along them (Lusk et al., 2020; Wolf, 2005). While these benefits can support East Palo Alto communities, increasing tree canopy cover can risk further destabilizing and displacing vulnerable populations through the process of green gentrification, compounding significant existing threats of gentrification due to current real estate and economic pressures in the region. East Palo Alto residents consistently raised concerns about the cost of housing and the need for housing security in a 2020 community vulnerability planning pilot project (Thomas et al., 2020). Certain measures (such as tenant protections and housing stabilization strategies) should be adopted prior to or in tandem with urban forest expansion to help ensure the current communities can benefit from improvements to the urban forest (Gibbons et al., 2020).

The list of benefits from the urban forest goes on—from reducing crime to extending the life of pavement on roads and parking lots (McPherson & Muchnick, 2005; Troy et al., 2012). While all of these benefits cannot be quantified and translated into dollar values, it is important to recognize the broad portfolio of values contributed to the city by its urban forest.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 54 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Conclusions
East Palo Alto’s tree canopy cover is much lower than that of its neighboring cities, and these differences are rooted in the complex history of this area including the legacy of racist housing policies and practices and disinvestment in East Palo Alto. While overall tree canopy cover has not changed significantly since the city’s incorporation in 1983, there is evidence of both tree removal and tree planting that suggest the urban forest has not been static. Tree canopy within the city is not equally distributed: some neighborhoods, especially those closest to Menlo Park and Palo Alto, have much higher levels of tree canopy cover.

The urban forest contains a diversity of species, but a few trees dominate.

Protecting diversity in the urban forest can increase resilience to future threats like pest infestations, drought, or extreme weather. Expanding the palette of native species can help support animal biodiversity, while evaluating the outlook for different species and adjusting planting plans can improve climate resilience.

Urban trees are already providing substantial benefits in the city, and maintaining the urban forest will protect existing benefits, while increased planting can expand benefits further. An updated on-the-ground tree inventory can help assess the current health of trees in the city, which impacts their ability to provide benefits.

These findings suggest that East Palo Alto has a strong need to invest in and expand its urban forest city-wide. Because of the unequal distribution of the city’s tree canopy cover, some neighborhoods and land use types will need special attention to improve their tree canopy cover levels and create more equitable access to the benefits generated by trees. Understanding the distribution of tree canopy cover in East Palo Alto historically and today can help the City identify realistic tree canopy cover targets and develop a strategic plan to expand and maintain an urban forest that supports the health and well being of the city’s communities.

Volunteers at 2019 MLK Day tree planting at San Francisquito Creek. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 55 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment References
Akpinar, A., Barbosa-Leiker, C., & Brooks, K. R. (2016). Does green space matter? Exploring relationships between green space type and health indicators. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 407-418.

Alvey, A. A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(4), 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003 An, K. W., Kim, E. Il, Jeon, K. S., & Setsu, T. (2004). Effects of forest stand density on human’s physiopsychological changes. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 49(2), 283–291. https://doi.org/10.5109/4588
Berland, A., Shiflett, S. A., Shuster, W. D., Garmestani, A. S., Goddard, H. C., Herrmann, D. L., & Hopton, M. E. (2017). The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 162, 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.017 Cal-IPC. (2017). The Cal-IPC Inventory. California Invasive Plant Council: Berkeley, CA.

Retrieved September 30, 2021 from https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory Calfapietra, C., Fares, S., Manes, F., Morani, A., Sgrigna, G., & Loreto, F. (2013). Role of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC) emitted by urban trees on ozone concentration in cities: A review. Environmental Pollution, 183, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envpol.2013.03.012
City of East Palo Alto. (2017). Vista 2035 East Palo Alto General Plan. City of East Palo Alto.

Retrieved May 10, 2021 from https://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/econdev/page/generalplan-2035-east-palo-alto City of Palo Alto. (2019). Sustaining the legacy: Palo Alto Urban Forest Management Plan.

City of Palo Alto. Retrieved March 9, 2021 from https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/ assets/public/public-works/tree-section/ufmp/urban-forest-mp-after-adoptionreduced-2-25-19-complete.pdf Colinas, J., Bush, P., & Manaugh, K. (2019). The socio-environmental impacts of public urban fruit trees: A Montreal case-study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 45, 126132. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.05.002
Cox, D. T. C., Bennie, J., Casalegno, S., Hudson, H. L., Anderson, K., & Gaston, K. J. (2019).

Skewed contributions of individual trees to indirect nature experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 185, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.01.008 EarthDefine. (2018). Urban Tree Canopy 2018. Earthdefine. Retrieved March 9 2021 from https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/communityforests/?cid=fseprd647385 Eisenman, T. S., Coleman, A. F., & LaBombard, G. (2021). Street Trees for Bicyclists, Pedestrians, and Vehicle Drivers: A Systematic Multimodal Review. Urban Science, 5(3), 56. https://doi. org/10.3390/urbansci5030056
Gascon, M., Sánchez-Benavides, G., Dadvand, P., Martínez, D., Gramunt, N., Gotsens, X., Cirach, M., Vert, C., Molinuevo, J. L., Crous-Bou, M., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2018). Long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces and anxiety and depression in adults: A cross-sectional study. Environmental Research, 162, 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envres.2018.01.012

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 56 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Graham, D. A., Vanos, J. K., Kenny, N. A., & Brown, R. D. (2016). The relationship between neighbourhood tree canopy cover and heat-related ambulance calls during extreme heat events in Toronto, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.005
Gibbons, A., Liu, H., Malik, F., O’Grady, M., Perron, M., Palacio, E., Trinh, S., Trinidad, M. (2020). Greening in place: Protecting communities from displacement. Audubon Center at Debs Park, Public Counsel, SEACA-LA, and Team Friday. Retrieved May 14, 2021 from https://www.greeninginplace.com/s/GG-2020-ToolKit-FINAL.pdf Grivet, D., Sork, V. L., Westfall, R. D., & Davis, F. W. (2007). Conserving the evolutionary potential of California valley oak (Quercus lobata Née): A multivariate genetic approach to conservation planning. Molecular Ecology, 17(1), 139-156. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03498.x
Helden, A. J., Stamp, G. C., & Leather, S. R. (2012). Urban biodiversity: Comparison of insect assemblages on native and non-native trees. Urban Ecosystems, 15(3), 611- 624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0231-x
Horn, J., Escobedo, F. J., Hinkle, R., Hostetler, M., & Timilsina, N. (2014). The role of composition, invasives, and maintenance emissions on urban forest carbon stocks.

Environmental Management, 55(2), 431-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014- 0400-1
i-Tree Canopy. i-Tree Software Suite v6. (n.d.). Retrieved August 5, 2021 from http://www. itreetools.org
Jiang, B., Chang, C. Y., & Sullivan, W. C. (2014). A dose of nature: Tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 26-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.005
Kuo, M., Browning, M. H. E. M., Sachdeva, S., Lee, K., & Westphal, L. (2018). Might school performance grow on trees? Examining the link between “greenness” and academic achievement in urban, high-poverty schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1669. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01669
Lusk, A. C., da Silva Filho, D. F., & Dobbert, L. (2020). Pedestrian and cyclist preferences for tree locations by sidewalks and cycle tracks and associated benefits: Worldwide implications from a study in Boston, MA. Cities, 106, 102111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2018.06.024
McDonald, R., Kroeger, T., Boucher, T., Longzhu, W., & Salem, R. (2016). Planting healthy air: A global analysis of the role of urban trees in addressing particulate matter pollution and extreme heat. The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved April 23, 2021 from https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/20160825_PHA_ Report_Final.pdf
McPherson, E.G., & Muchnick, J. (2005). Effects of shade on pavement performance.

Journal of Arboriculture, 31, 303-310.

Moreno, A., Tangenberg, J., Hilton, B.N., & Hilton, J.K. (2015). An environmental assessment of school shade tree canopy and implications for sun safety policies:

The Los Angeles Unified School District. ISPRS International Journal of GeoInformation, 4, 607-625. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4020607

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 57 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Nehme, E. K., Oluyomi, A. O., Calise, T. V., & Kohl III, H. W. (2016). Environmental correlates of recreational walking in the neighborhood. American Journal of Health Promotion, 30(3), 139-148. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.130531-quan-281
Ng, E., Chen, L., Wang, Y., & Yuan, C. (2012). A study on the cooling effects of greening in a highdensity city: An experience from Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 47(1), 256-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.014
Nowak, D. J. (1994). Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chicago’s Urban Forest. In E. G.

McPherson, D. J. Nowak, R. A. Rowntree (Eds.), Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project (pp. 83-94). Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Nowak, D. J. (2002). The effects of urban trees on air quality. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., & Dwyer, J. F. (2002). Compensatory value of urban trees in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture.

Olsen, H., Kennedy, E., Vanos, J. (2019). Shade provision in public playgrounds for thermal safety and sun protection: A case study across 100 play spaces in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 189, 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2019.04.003
Parmehr, E.G., Amati, M., Taylor, E.J., & Livesley, S.J. (2016). Estimation of urban tree canopy cover using random point sampling and remote sensing methods. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 160-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.011 Roman, L. A., Walker, L. A., Martineau, C. M., Muffly, D. J., MacQueen, S. A., & Harris, W. (2015).

Stewardship matters: case studies in establishment success of urban trees. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 1174-1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.11.001 Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Liveright, New York.

Sandifer, P. A., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Ward, B. P. (2015). Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, 12, 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007
Simpson, J. R., & McPherson, E. G. (2007). San Francisco Bay Area state of the urban forest final report. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Sivarajah, S., Smith, S.M., & Thomas, S.C. (2018). Tree cover and species composition effects on academic performance of primary school students. PLoS One, 13, 1-11. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193254
Spotswood, E., Grossinger, R., Hagerty, S., Bazo, M., Benjamin, M., Beller, E., Grenier, J.L., & Askevold, R. A. (2019). Making Nature’s City. SFEI Contribution No. 947. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA. Retrieved February 8, 2021 from https://www.sfei.org/ documents/making-natures-city.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 58 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Urban Forest Assessment Spotswood, E., Grossinger, R., Hagerty, S., Beller, E.E., Grenier, J.L., & Askevold, R.A. (2017). ReOaking Silicon Valley: Building Vibrant Cities with Nature. SFEI Contribution No. 825. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA.

Stagoll, K., Lindenmayer, D. B., Knight, E., Fischer, J., & Manning, A. D. (2012). Large trees are keystone structures in urban parks. Conservation Letters, 5(2), 115-122. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00216.x
Taylor, M. S., Wheeler, B. W., White, M. P., Economou, T., & Osborne, N. J. (2015). Research note:

Urban street tree density and antidepressant prescription rates—A cross-sectional study in London, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 174-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2014.12.005
Thomas, P., Bayuk, K., Samai, E., & Harrell, B. (2020). Acterra Community-based Vulnerability Planning Pilot Project Report. Prepared for the Office of Sustainability, County of San Mateo and Caltrans. Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/57d1a622d1758e0dfed089fe/t/5ed039140d56e8675511258a/1590704409246/ Acterra+Pilot+Project+Report+20200422.pdf
Tietje, W., Purcell, K., & Drill, S. (2005). Oak woodlands as wildlife habitat. In G. A. Giusti, D.

D. McCreary, & R. B. Standiford (Eds.), A planner’s guide for oak woodlands (pp. 15-31).

University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Richmond, CA.

Troy, A., Grove, J. M., & O’Neil-Dunne, J. (2012). The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban – rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 262-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.010 Ulmer, J. M., Wolf, K. L., Backman, D. R., Tretheway, R. L., Blain, C. J., O’Neil-Dunne, J. P., & Frank, L. D. (2016). Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription. Health and Place, 42, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. healthplace.2016.08.011
Wolf, K. L. (2005). Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. Journal of Forestry, 103(8), 396-400. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/103.8.396 Wolf, K. L. (2007). City trees and property values. Arborist News, 16(4), 34-36.

Wolf, K. L., Lam, S. T., McKeen, J. K., Richardson, G. R. A., van den Bosch, M., & Bardekjian, A. C. (2020). Urban trees and human health: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph17124371
Wood, E., Harsant, A., Dallimer, M., de Chavez, A. C., McEachan, R. R. C., & Hassall, C. (2018). Not all green space is created equal: Biodiversity predicts psychological restorative benefits from urban green space. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(NOV), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2018.02320
Ziter, C.D., Pedersen, E.J., Kucharik, C.J., & Turner, M.G. (2019). Scale-dependent interactions between tree canopy cover and impervious surfaces reduce daytime urban heat during summer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 7575–7580. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1817561116

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 59 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections Overview
The City of East Palo Alto tree management program includes activities and protections pertaining to street trees, trees in other public places, and private trees. To gain an understanding of the activities involved in the City’s tree management, the team met with staff from the Public Works Department and Planning Division (within the Community and Economic Department), employees from the nonprofit Canopy, and the current contracted tree pruning consultant. In this chapter, we outline the current management program, including an overview of ordinances currently in place that relate to trees, and compare the program to precedents and best practices from other cities.

Public tree management and protections
Care and maintenance of public trees
Management of the tree program is divided between the Public Works Department and the Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division. City trees are managed with public funds and overseen by Public Works whereas the Planning Division manages the bulk of the private tree protections through the evaluation and review of tree removal permits.

The care and maintenance of public trees is the responsibility of the Public Works Department, which primarily performs an administrative role. The total budget of the public tree program is $150,000, with approximately $30,000 allocated for staff time and $120,000 budgeted for contract services. Personnel funded for tree care includes two maintenance staff and the Maintenance Division Manager. Due to limited staff availability, pruning and removals are performed on an as-needed basis mainly under contracted services. This is considered a “reactive” rather than a “proactive” approach to tree management, the latter of which would include a program of inspection, scheduled pruning cycles, removals, and replacement. Consequently, the response to outside requests for pruning and removal is administrative and only reactive inspections and minor tree work are accomplished with City resources.

Service requests for tree maintenance are received from the public via the City’s website through their internal iWorQ work management system. In responding to requests, the existing tree inventory is used to determine if the tree is a public or private tree (for more details on the tree inventory, see Chapter 3). The tree inventory is available to the City through an ArborPro database, which can be accessed by City staff. As the City does not employ an in-house arborist, after CURRENT TREE MANAGEMENT 4 and PROTECTIONS

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 60 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections confirming tree status, the Maintenance Division Manager conducts a field inspection to confirm the reported disposition of the tree(s) and determine the appropriate course of action to be taken. Most tree pruning needs and all removals are turned over to contract maintenance service for resolution. None of this work is recorded in the ArborPro tree inventory. Public Works employees who regularly access the tree inventory have noted that there are several areas of public trees missing from the current data.

Tree care statistics
Information from service requests, budget reports, and monthly logs was compiled to provide a snapshot of maintenance activities. The following data reflects annual average tree-related maintenance activities completed and program expenditures over the past three to five years. • 100-120 trees planted by Canopy volunteer efforts
• 100 trees pruned by an on-call tree service
• 5-10 trees removed by an on-call tree service
• 40 tree removal permit applications processed
• $120,000 budgeted for tree contract services
• Expenditure per tree serviced was:
• $95 for a tree with a 0-6” diameter*
• $150 for a tree with 7-12” diameter*
• $250 for a tree with 13-18” diameter*
• $300 for a tree with 19-24” diameter*
• $550 for trees > 24” in diameter*
*Measured at 54” above grade
Tree planting and community participation
A sustainable urban forest requires diversity in tree species composition and age, and a planting program that can keep pace with tree removals. Tree planting is not a planned element in the City’s tree management program. For the last decade, the Palo Alto-based nonprofit Canopy has provided all of the tree planting services for the City.

In 2005, Canopy launched a multi-year initiative to plant at least 1,000 trees in East Palo Alto. In collaboration with City leadership, and to address air pollution from US 101 Highway, Canopy identified priority planting zones along the four stretches of the highway on East and West Bayshore Road, totaling 2.1 miles of roadway between Embarcadero Road and Willow Road. These efforts have contributed to the planting of over 3,000 trees in East Palo Alto. Canopy’s planting efforts in the city continue, largely funded through Cal Fire grants and Canopy’s fundraising efforts, and carried out with Canopy staff and volunteers.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 61 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections Canopy also leads current work to involve the community in urban forestry. In 2007, Canopy created the Teen Urban Foresters (TUF) program to involve high school students from various high schools in East Palo Alto. The program offers part-time employment to underserved youth to encourage leadership and tree stewardship. Youth staff assists with growing trees from seedlings, tree planting, tree maintenance (including irrigation systems), and creation of public outreach campaigns, among other programs. The TUF program continues to employ 8-16 youth every year.

This type of partnership is not uncommon. In many cities, local community organizations or nonprofits take on much or all of the tree planting responsibilities. This model is used locally in San Jose with Our City Forests and in San Francisco with Friends of the Urban Forest, and Canopy provides these services for the Cities of Menlo Park, Mountain View, and Palo Alto as well as East Palo Alto and unincorporated areas of Redwood City. Cities may also partner with multiple organizations for work on the urban forest. For example, the City of Los Angeles partners with several different organizations including Koreatown Youth and Community Center, Los Angeles Conservation Corps, TreePeople, the Hollywood Beautification Team, and North East Trees.

Nobel Peace Laureate Wangari Maathai with mayor Ruben Abrica, former mayor Pat Foster, and members of the community. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 62 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections Codified public tree protections and maintenance
The City does not have a comprehensive stand-alone tree ordinance within the municipal code. Rather, there are two ordinances that contain provisions for activities regarding public trees; one addressing tree pruning in Title 12: Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places, and the other in Title 13: Public Services, which provides specifications for tree planting.

Title 12 encompasses requirements for park and public space use under the coordinated umbrella of the Public Works Department and the Planning Division and includes Chapter 12.16 “Cutting and Trimming Trees on City Streets and Public Places.” This chapter focuses on regulations including the conditions, prohibitions, and permissions required to trim or remove any tree located in the public right-of-way or in a public place, or any private tree overhanging a public right-of-way or public place. Written consent for any person other than City staff to perform these activities is required from the Public Works Director for public trees. The Public Works Director has the authority to override the refusal of a private property owner.

Title 13, Chapter 13.24, Article VII. Section 13.24.410 “Street Trees” gives authority to the Public Works Director to perform tree planting functions for development projects with standard detail specifications for the planting of street trees including:
• Container size, tree spacing, and distances from utilities such as light poles, fire hydrants and sewer lines.
• Planting standards for basin size, staking, backfill, and tree ties. • Standard landscaping areas in parking lots and around model homes.

Planting standard details for the purpose of safety and maintenance specify that trees should be at least:
• Twenty feet from curb returns at street intersections. • Ten feet from light standard poles.
• Ten feet from fire hydrants.
• Five feet from sidewalks, driveways, buildings, walls and permanent structures.
• Ten feet from water and sewer lines.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 63 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections East Palo Alto Municipal Code definitions
Private trees: Trees located on commercial, industrial, or residential property outside the boundaries of public rights-of-way, easements, and public places.

Protected trees: Defined in Section 18.28.040 as (1) any private tree with a trunk circumference of 24 inches or greater at a height of 40 inches above grade, (2) any public tree within a public street or right-of-way regardless of size, (3) trees planted and/or preserved as a condition of development, and (4) any tree planted as a requirement for an unlawfully removed tree.

Public trees: Street trees and trees located on other public properties such as in parks, along trails, in landscaping around City offices and within public parking lots.

Remove: Tree removal includes (1) complete removal, such as cutting to the ground or extraction, or (2) taking any action foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health, including but not limited to: excessive pruning, cutting, girdling, poisoning, over-watering, underwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation, or trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the dripline. (per Chapter 18.28.040)
Street trees: Trees located within the right-of-way or easement along every street within the city.

Tree:
• Any fruit, shade, ornamental or other tree of any kind or nature (per Chapter 12.16) • A woody perennial plant characterized by having a main stem or trunk, or a multiplestemmed trunk system, with a more or less definitely formed crown, and usually over 10 feet high at maturity. This definition does not include trees planted, grown, and held for sale by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting of trees as part of the operation of a licensed nursery business. (per Chapter 18.28.040) Trim: the cutting off or removal of any limbs or branches of trees (per Chapter 12.16) The public tree ordinances provide staff with direction to follow in response to tree service requests. Currently, if it is determined that service is required to remove a dead or declining public tree, one of two approaches are typically pursued:
• The Maintenance Division Manager forwards the request to an on-call tree service company who completes the work and maintains a record of their service call.
• As per Chapter 12.16.020, the requestor must obtain written consent from the Public Works Director for approval to prune or remove the tree in compliance with the provisions of the chapter. If the request pertains to a private tree that overhangs public property, written consent must first be obtained from the private property owner. If the property owner denies consent, the requestor can apply for written consent from the Public Works Director.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 64 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections How do public tree management and protections compare with other cities?
In order to understand how tree management practices and protections in East Palo Alto compare to other municipalities, we conducted a benchmarking survey of urban forest programs in ten local cities (Table 4.1). Selected cities shared one or more commonalities with East Palo Alto, including factors such as climatic conditions and population size, or were adjacent neighboring cities with common borders. For each City in the benchmarking survey, questions about tree care operations and ordinance regulations were answered by phone survey, from urban forest master plans, or from department operational data. The municipal codes of each City were reviewed for ordinance provisions regarding both public and private trees. Findings from our local survey were compared with results of a published 2014 survey of municipal tree management practices from 667 cities across the US (Hauer and Peterson, 2016).

Population Number of
Public Trees
City Tree
Ordinance?
Private Trees
Protected?
Atherton 7,187 1,565 Yes Yes
Atwater 28,168 7,922 Yes Yes
East Palo Alto 29,314 5,745 Yes Yes
San Pablo 30,000 Unknown Yes Yes
Foster City 32,000 Unknown No No
Menlo Park 34,698 19,500 Yes Yes
Palo Alto 65,364 46,000 Yes Yes
Richmond 110,567 22,000 Yes Yes
Berkeley 121,485 38,000 Yes Yes
Vallejo 121,692 53,000 Yes Yes
Hayward 159,203 30,000 Yes Yes
Table 4.1. Characteristics of cities used to benchmark East Palo Alto’s tree program and determine best practices.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 65 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections East Palo Alto currently has 13.5% tree canopy cover which is below the national average of 27%. Other benchmark cities with low tree canopy cover include Richmond (12.7%), Atwater (9%) and Hayward (1% of total land area; 23% of sidewalk area covered). Richmond has a stated goal to reach 15% by 2020, and 25% by 2030. Atwater has identified a tree canopy cover potential for the city of 31%. Nationally, the mean tree canopy cover goal is 44% (Hauer & Peterson, 2016).

Ordinances regulating public trees are very common among cities. Nine of ten local benchmark cities surveyed have a street tree ordinance that regulates public trees to varying degrees, with seven of the cities having a robust street tree ordinance. This reflects national trends, where over 90% of cities have at least one tree ordinance (Hauer & Peterson, 2016). Menlo Park, Vallejo, Richmond, and Atwater specifically refer to their tree management or tree master plan as governing tree maintenance operations. The ordinances consistently identify trees in the street, right-of-way, and public places as City trees, with policies that range from maintenance responsibility to protection, permits, violations, and appeals.

Nationally in cities that are similar in size to East Palo Alto, Public Works departments are most often responsible for public trees, with Parks and Recreation, Forestry, Urban Forestry, or Planning departments sometimes taking responsibility (Hauer & Peterson, 2016). 79% of these similar cities have the staff responsible for tree management attend tree care workshops, while only 13% provide no formal training. 60% have an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist on staff. On average, these cities employ 4-5 full timeequivalent staff members as part of public tree management programs.

Seven of the ten benchmark cities surveyed maintain trees in the public rightof-way. Similarly, 64% of cities nationally are responsible for trees in the rightof-way (Hauer & Peterson, 2016). Exceptions include Atherton, where most trees in the public right-of-way are private trees and the responsibility of the property owner. The Town maintains a list of tree care providers as a resource for property owners to promote the use of best management practices. They also have a heritage tree ordinance that applies to trees over 15.2” in diameter with standards and specifications for their care and protection. In Vallejo, residents are responsible for maintenance activities for City trees on their property. A permit is required for trimming, pruning and removal approval. In the case of tree removal, a permit fee is required at the time of application and used by the City to purchase and plant a replacement tree on the property.

Five benchmarked cities prune City trees on a regularly set pruning cycle.

However, Berkeley and Foster City, like East Palo Alto, prune on an as-needed basis to clear obstructed views of blocked streetlights and signs, usually in response to a request for service. The as-needed approach is reactionary, managing problems as they arise. Responding to service requests can be disruptive to maintenance schedules and more costly if contracted service-on8.1.b Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 66 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections demand is required. Conversely, proactive maintenance can prevent issues from developing by projecting maintenance needs based on past activity and setting priorities.

In eight of ten benchmarking cities, tree pruning and removals either were contracted out entirely or were performed by a combination of in-house and contracted crews. With a hybrid arrangement, assistance was most often contracted for removals and emergency response.

Budgets allocated for tree management vary. Nationally, the mean annual tree management budget for cities similar to East Palo Alto in size was about $340,000 in 2014 (Hauer & Peterson 2016). Given its location in one of the most expensive regions of the US, East Palo Alto might be expected to require a higher budget. About 86% of cities nationally rely on the General Fund to support tree maintenance activities. Among local benchmarking cities, annual budgets for tree management ranged from $1.1M in Hayward to $2.4M in Palo Alto. For smaller-sized cities such as Foster City, which only maintains trees in medians and parkways, and Atherton, which does not prune trees in the rightof-way, budgets ranged from $90,000-95,000 respectively, slightly lower than but comparable to East Palo Alto at $150,000.

Table 4.2: Tree management program information for ten local benchmarking cities.

City
Has tree
inventory?
Has urban
forest
master
plan?
City
maintains
right-ofway trees?Pruning
approach
$ budgeted
per City
tree
% tree
canopy
cover
Atherton Yes No No N/A Unknown Unknown
Atwater Yes Yes Yes Proactive Unknown 9%
East Palo
Alto Yes In progress Yes As needed $26 13.5%
San Pablo No Yes* Yes Proactive Unknown Unknown
Foster City No No Yes** As needed Unknown Unknown
Menlo Park Yes No Yes Proactive $74 26%
Palo Alto Yes Yes Yes Proactive $71 38%
Richmond Yes Yes Yes Proactive Unknown 12.7%
Berkeley Yes No No As needed $65 22%
Vallejo Yes In progress No Proactive Unknown 13%
Hayward Yes Yes*** Yes Proactive $51 1%
*Master Landscape Plan contains tree provisions for planting, maintenance and protection **In medians only
***Resource Analysis includes the existing nature of the urban forest.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 67 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections Private tree protections
Codified protections for private trees
The City of East Palo Alto has protected trees on private property since July 17, 1989, showing a commitment to tree protection. This commitment is a good foundation for supporting the City’s urban forestry goals. Currently, the City protects trees on private property through Chapter 18.28 - Landscaping and Trees, within the Development Code. The goal of the code is to carry out the policies of the City’s Vista 2035 General Plan (City of East Palo Alto, 2017).

Authority for carrying out the provisions of the code resides with the Community and Economic Development Director. Chapter 18.28 states support for policies regarding the use of landscaping and trees, including preserving trees for the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and using trees to preserve scenic beauty, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain climatic balance, and decrease wind velocities.

Preservation measures regulating the removal of protected trees are in Section

18.28.40. Protected trees are defined as

1. Any private tree with a trunk circumference of 24 inches or greater at a height of 40 inches above grade;

2. Any public tree within a public street or right-of-way regardless of size;

3. Trees planted and/or preserved as a condition of development; and

4. Any tree planted as a requirement for an unlawfully removed tree.

The ordinance also requires tree protection during construction.

A tree removal permit is required if a tree owner wants to remove a protected tree, unless an exemption applies. To secure a permit, the property owner must obtain an arborist report to show that the tree or trees meet one or more criteria for removal laid out by the ordinance:

1. The tree is dead or infected with a terminal disease.

2. The tree is structurally unsound and cannot be corrected or the risk cannot be significantly reduced by traditional pruning, cabling, or bracing.

3. The tree is causing visible damage to property, which cannot be corrected without destroying the tree canopy or root system.

The applicant submits the arborist report along with a tree removal permit application and tree removal permit fee as specified in the City’s fee schedule.

The most recent Comprehensive Fee Schedule adopted on July 1, 2021 sets the permit fee for removal of one or two trees at $356 per tree and removal of three or more at $762 per tree (City of East Palo Alto, 2021). The Planning Division then reviews and processes tree removal applications to determine whether the tree meets the criteria for removal.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 68 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections Property owners are required to notify abutting property owners and tenants of their intent to remove a protected tree both when the permit application is submitted and again 48 hours prior to removal. Removals can be appealed, and permits can be denied if the Planning Division determines that the tree provides particularly important benefits to the community, contributes substantially to the appearance of an area, or is part of a mutually dependent group of trees. The ordinance does not state who can make an appeal. If the permit is approved, the tree owner is required to either plant one or more replacement trees or pay an in-lieu fee, as determined by staff reviewing the application.

There are four situations delineated by the ordinance in which a tree removal permit is not required for removal of a protected tree.

1. Emergencies, where a tree presents an immediate hazard to life or property.

2. Trees on public property may be removed by City employees where necessary for safety.

3. Public utilities may remove trees to comply with safety regulations.

4. Projects where the removal of trees has been authorized as part of a development approval granted by the City.

The fourth situation exempts development projects with a design review permit from filling out an application for tree removal, as the review is included in the total project review. These applicants do not follow a normal tree removal process.

If a protected tree is removed without a permit in any other circumstances, penalties can include replacement on site with three or more new trees or a mitigation fee where on-site replacement is not feasible, as determined by staff. The City can also revoke the business license of any person or business who violates the tree protection ordinance with an unpermitted removal. A tree violation, including unpermitted removals or trimming, is considered an administrative penalty, and the cost is set at no less than $100 by East Palo Alto Municipal Code 1.14.030. If a constituent receives a violation for the removal of a protected tree, they are required to retroactively apply for a tree removal permit. Through this process, they are required to pay both the penalty and the permit application fee. Violations are processed by code enforcement officers, though community members perceive little enforcement of current tree protections (see Chapter 5).

Each year, the City processes about 40 tree removal permit applications. About half of these applications are typically for trees that have already been removed.

An unknown number of protected trees are removed by development projects approved through the design review process.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 69 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections How does East Palo Alto’s private tree protection compare to other cities?
Private tree ordinances in other local benchmarking Cities were either standalone ordinances that designate heritage trees by size and species (Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Berkeley, San Pablo, Hayward), or were provisions within street tree ordinances (Atwater) or other development ordinances to protect private trees during construction (Richmond). Seven of ten benchmarking cities compared had specific criteria for tree protection in their ordinances, including protecting any tree with a trunk diameter of greater than 6” (San Pablo), specific native trees with a trunk diameter greater than 4” and all trees with a trunk diameter greater than 8” (Hayward), or all trees that are larger than 25’ height and diameter of 10” (Vallejo).

Eight of ten benchmarking Cities surveyed required a permit to remove a protected tree. Permit fees ranged from $54 in Vallejo on the low end to $662 in San Pablo on the high end. With a fee of $356 for 1-2 trees, East Palo Alto is comparable to the average fee of $312 and is above the high end at $762 each for 3 or more trees. Outliers included Berkeley which does not charge a fee, and Atherton with a fee of $2,100 for the removal of a designated heritage tree. Fees were generally included in the City’s master fee schedule and approved by city council, as in East Palo Alto.

Arborist reports are a requirement for a tree removal permit in most Cities. Six of ten benchmarking Cities surveyed required an arborist report to accompany the tree removal permit request. In Atwater, City staff prepare a tree report for review by the Community Development and Resources Commission rather than requiring an independent arborist assessment.

Criteria for private tree removal were similar across Cities. Eight of ten benchmarking Cities surveyed cited criteria that would qualify a tree for removal if it is dead or hazardous, has high probability of failure, impedes progress or vision, overhangs the street, causes infrastructure damage such as sidewalk raising (Hayward), or hinders reasonable use or enjoyment of the property (Atherton). These criteria are similar to the current removal criteria in East Palo Alto.

Which trees are protected?
East Palo
Alto

7.6"
24"
4" 8" 10" 15.2"
Trunk
circumference
Tree diameter
Hayward:

Select
natives
Hayward:

Other trees Vallejo Atherton

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 70 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections Seven of ten benchmarking Cities had an appeals process associated with tree removals. Appeals were submitted to and reviewed by the department issuing the permit, generally the Planning Department. In two Cities, appeals were directed to a community advisory board such as the Beautification Advisory Board (Vallejo) or the Planning Commission (Atherton).

Conclusions
Unlike neighboring cities, East Palo Alto’s public tree management program is not well defined by a robust public tree ordinance. The City lacks a comprehensive street tree ordinance that designates responsibility and authority to make decisions and establish policies for tree planting, maintenance, preservation, and removal. The current maintenance program responds to emergency needs, but is largely administrative and unable to proactively address tree care needs. Canopy is a key partner in East Palo Alto, raising awareness of the value of trees and supporting the City with tree planting.

Ordinance provisions for protection of trees on private property are largely in alignment with benchmark Cities. However, the code does not use industry standards for some criteria, and application review and enforcement are difficult. Protecting trees within the scope of available resources will be a continuing challenge, which can be made easier by clarifying the criteria, scope, and process for tree removal permitting.

Volunteers holding fresh mulch. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 71 • URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN • Current Tree Management and Protections References
City of East Palo Alto. Title 12, Chapter 12.16 - Cutting And Trimming Trees On City Streets And Public Places. Retrieved January 25, 2022 from https://library.municode. com/ca/east_palo_alto/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12STSIPUPL_ CH12.16CUTRTRSTPUPL
City of East Palo Alto. Title 13, Chapter 13.24, Article VII. Section 13.24.410 - Street trees. Retrieved January 25, 2022 from https://library.municode.com/ca/ east_palo_alto/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT13PUSE_CH13.24WASY_ ARTVIILAIRST_13.24.410STTR
City of East Palo Alto. Title 18, Chapter 18.28 - Landscaping and Trees. Retrieved January 25, 2022 from https://library.municode.com/ca/east_palo_alto/codes/code_of_or dinances?nodeId=EAPAALDECO2018EDCUORNO09-2020ADDE152020_ TIT18DECO_ART3REAPALZO_CH18.28LATR
City of East Palo Alto. (2010). Title 1, Chapter 1.14, Section 1.14.030 - Amount of administrative penalties. Retrieved January 25, 2022 from https://library. municode.com/ca/east_palo_alto/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT1GEPR_ CH1.14ADRE_1.14.030AMADPE
City of East Palo Alto. (2017). Vista 2035 East Palo Alto General Plan. Retrieved May 10, 2021 from https://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/econdev/page/general-plan-2035- east-palo-alto
City of East Palo Alto. (2021). City of East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule.

Retrieved January 25, 2022 from https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/ fileattachments/finance/page/4461/east_palo_alto_comprehensive_fee_schedule_ eff.01.2021_0.pdf
Hauer, R., & Peterson, W. D. (2016). Municipal Tree Care and Management in the United States: A 2014 Urban & Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities. Special Publication 16-1, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 72 • EAST PALO ALTO • Community Perspectives
Approach
As part of the Urban Forest Master Plan development process, the authors engaged with over 350 community members to understand community perspectives on trees and to gather input about urban forestry needs in the city.

The engagement approach included several different components. • Steering Committee: A standing group of community members participated throughout the process in goal setting, vision setting, community engagement interpretation, and policy recommendations. • Online Survey: A public survey was online during the summer of 2021 to gather input from the community on attitudes toward trees, perceived benefits and problems, and tree protection and planting efforts. • Project Website: Information about the project was made available in a dedicated project website, which was linked from the City’s planning website. The project website also hosted the online survey. • Focus Groups: A mix of online and in-person, discussion-based meetings were held to gain perspective from specific groups of stakeholders. • City Meetings: The project team attended public City Council, Planning Commission, and Senior Advisory Committee meetings to share updates on project progress and planned outcomes.
• Tablings: Informational booths at community events aimed to spread awareness and gain participation in the online survey.
• Interviews: Conversations with individual key stakeholders helped gather detailed insights into potential opportunities, barriers, and needs for the urban forest.

Steering committee
The project steering committee was composed of nine members, including residents, representatives from City bodies, and other key stakeholders. This group met four times over the course of the project to review and comment on project materials.
5 COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 73 • EAST PALO ALTO • Community Perspectives
Online survey and project website
To gain broad feedback from the community on attitudes and priorities around trees in East Palo Alto, we distributed an online survey. The survey was available from April 28 through August 18, 2021 and was provided in English, Spanish, Samoan, and Tongan. The survey was available through the project website, and was shared via the City newsletter, posts and newsletters from community organizations including Nuestra Casa, Canopy, Fresh Approach, and YUCA, and social media posts on Facebook and Nextdoor. All survey respondents were entered into a raffle for Visa gift cards and a fruit tree.

We received a total of 208 unique responses to the online survey. 92% of respondents completed the survey in English, and 93% lived in East Palo Alto.

To understand the ability of these survey results to represent the community of East Palo Alto, we compared reported survey demographics with US Census data. Survey respondents broadly matched the overall city composition by age, income, and gender. 45% of survey respondents were Hispanic/ Latino, compared to 66% from census demographics. The survey somewhat overrepresented homeowners compared to renters (53% of respondents were homeowners, compared to 40% from census data), and respondents were more highly educated than city demographics, with 83% of respondents having at least some college experience compared to 42% of residents overall.

The survey included three free response questions:

1. In a few words, tell us what you like or dislike about trees in your neighborhood.

2. Are there other benefits or problems associated with trees that you think are important? If so, please tell us here.

3. If you have other ideas, thoughts or questions about how the City is or should be investing in or protecting trees, please share them here.

Responses to these questions are used in the following sections to give exemplary quotes relating to different themes.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Canopy’s Teen Urban Foresters planting a lemon tree given as a prize to a survey respondent. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 75 • EAST PALO ALTO • Community Perspectives
Focus groups, city meetings, and tabling events
To gain a more detailed understanding of the priorities and concerns around tree planting, we held five focus group meetings with community members.

In these meetings, we asked participants to explain their attitudes toward tree planting and any barriers they may face. Some groups also responded to specific prompts. Some meetings were held virtually and some in person due to shifting public health considerations and group preferences. Participants who were not public employees were compensated for their participation.

Focus groups were organized with the following themes:

1. Youth, hybrid meeting - included discussions of how East Palo Alto could look in the future and development of the vision statement (5 student participants)

2. Polynesian and Latinx communities, in-person meeting (15 participants)

3. Faith community, in-person meeting (4 participants)

4. Business and development community, hybrid meeting (9 participants)

5. Residents who have applied for tree removal permits, virtual meeting - focused on the permitting process (3 participants)
We also attended a City Planning Commission meeting on May 24, 2021 and a Senior Advisory Committee meeting on October 6, 2021 to share project information and gain perspective from these groups. Additionally, we presented at City Council meetings on June 15, 2021 and November 16, 2021 to share information and gain feedback from the Council and the public.

While public health considerations limited in-person engagements, the team was able to interact with nearly 100 residents in person through several events.

These included tabling at a local farmers market, a community open house, an art show, and a shopping center. Tabling engagements included talking with passers-by to share information and encouraging participation in the online survey. In addition, we held a pop-up event on July 31, 2021 to provide information and hold conversations with interested residents.

Interviews
In addition to the above community-focused engagement efforts, we also held individual conversations with 18 key stakeholders to better understand their perspectives and priorities around tree planting. These conversations included City staff, land owners, and community leaders.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 76 • EAST PALO ALTO • Community Perspectives

1. Strong commitment to stewarding the land and
growing the urban forest
Overall, the community members we spoke with were enthusiastic about growing East Palo Alto’s urban forest.

Community members responded strongly to tree canopy cover maps showing the disparity between tree canopy cover in East Palo Alto and neighboring cities, remarking that these maps looked similar to other maps of environmental hazards and socioeconomic disadvantage in the area. Upon seeing the low existing tree canopy cover, nearly all community members we spoke with expressed a wish to see more trees planted to reduce the gap between East Palo Alto and its neighbors.

Many residents felt that trees in the city had declined over the time they had lived there, and recalled experiences of large trees shaping community character in the past. Community members felt ties to historic agricultural land uses in the area as well as personal connections to caring for the land, and saw urban forest protection and growth as a way to provide stewardship to the local environment. Trees were also seen as a way to connect with cultural roots, both indigenous local cultures and the cultures of current immigrant residents.
40 of the 208 survey respondents wrote that the city or their neighborhood needed more trees.

Community members were interested in finding ways to support tree planting efforts through existing community groups and grassroots action.
“The more trees
the better!
There just aren’t
enough.”
“Some of my
neighbors have
big trees that I
love, but most
houses don’t have
trees at all, or not
many!”
“I love the green
our trees add to
the landscape. I
dislike that there
are so few.”
Community themes
We identified seven themes emerging across our community engagement efforts.

Community youths tending to trees. Photo: Canopy

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 77 • EAST PALO ALTO • Community Perspectives

2. Need for better communication and partnership between the City and the community
Residents expressed a desire to pursue community-based strategies to expand the urban forest, rather than relying on action from the City. Both City staff and residents emphasized the need for action to originate from and be driven by the local community, rather than external partners.

One barrier that was identified through focus group conversations was the lack of materials and guidance around tree planting, maintenance, and removal in the city for non-English speakers.

Residents noted that City tree removal permitting guidance and materials were not available in commonly spoken languages such as Spanish and Pacific Islander languages, and that outreach efforts often were conducted only in English.

With much of the city made up of privately owned land, private landowners and residents are a key part of the path toward growing the urban forest, and improved communication and collaboration is essential.

3. Positive attitudes toward trees and the
services they provide
Overall, people in the community like trees and see value in having them in the city. Only 2% of survey respondents said they disliked trees, and comments about trees were largely positive.

When asked about the potential benefits and drawbacks of having trees, respondents overall ranked benefits as more important than problems, showing the high perceived value of trees (Fig. 5.1). The most highly rated benefits of trees from survey respondents were air quality improvements
(94% rated very important) and heat mitigation and
shading (89% rated very important). These benefits were also mentioned by focus group participants, and are tied to health outcomes for residents. Many survey respondents
mentioned birds and providing places for wildlife as a
benefit of urban trees. This was supported by 57% of
respondents who said that whether or not a tree was native to the region was a very important trait to consider when choosing a new public tree. Residents also often brought up enjoyment of fruit trees and the feelings of community from gathering and sharing fruit during focus group
conversations, and 41% of survey respondents considered fruit-bearing to be a very important trait to consider for public trees.
“I love that they provide
habitat for all kinds
of life. They keep my
apartment nice and
cool in the summer.

The [sight] and sound of
them blowing in the wind
is comforting.”
“They are beautiful.

Provide habitat for
birds and wildlife. They
dampen the sound of
the highway and provide
cleaner air given how
close we live to the
freeway.”

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 78 • EAST PALO ALTO • Community Perspectives
Increasing property values was the lowest-ranked benefit of trees for this community, with 46% of respondents ranking it as very important, and 23% considering it to be not at all important.

Negative aspects of trees were also mentioned, but overall were considered to be less important than the benefits. The biggest concern was for their potential to cause root damage to underground utilities, foundations, or walkways, which 39% said was very important and an additional 50% said was slightly important. Conflict with overhead utility wires and the cost of maintenance, pruning, and removal were the next greatest concerns, with 83% of respondents very or slightly concerned about utility conflicts and 73% very or slightly concerned about costs.

Figure 5.1. Responses from 208 community members to two survey questions. The first asked how important each of several benefits of trees are for East Palo Alto, considering trees planted in parks, along streets, and in private yards. The second asked which of the listed problems associated with trees respondents were concerned about.
“Trees add so much to a
neighborhood - they provide
shade and cooling on hot
days, they provide a place for
birds, and they just look nice. A
neighborhood without trees
looks barren.”
“I love the trees that remain in my
neighborhood. There used to
be many more oaks, walnuts,
figs, and plum trees that I
remember growing up.”

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 79 • EAST PALO ALTO • Community Perspectives

4. Concern over tree maintenance and
management
The top concern mentioned by survey respondents
was tree maintenance, with 20% of respondents
bringing up maintenance concerns in at least one
of their three free response answers. Community
members were concerned about improper pruning
and maintenance, particularly of City trees, which
could lead to increased safety risk and poor tree
health. They also saw maintenance needs as an
issue for residents, particularly lower-income
households and seniors on fixed incomes who
may be less physically or financially able to provide
necessary tree maintenance to prevent hazards and
maintain tree health.

Conversations with landowners and City staff
also cited maintenance as a key concern, and in
particular raised questions about how to fund
continued maintenance of trees as they grow
older and larger. While some landowners saw
the benefits of trees and wished to plant more,
planning for future maintenance was seen as a
major barrier to growing the urban tree canopy.

Landowners, homeowners, and City staff felt that
they could access new trees for planting through
Canopy and appreciated the young tree care
provided over the first 3-5 years after planting,
but maintenance following this initial period was a
serious concern. In particular, East Palo Alto schools
working with limited landscaping budgets found
continuing tree maintenance to be the primary
barrier to more tree planting on school grounds.
“Maintenance plan, make sure
they are being trimmed on
a schedule and not just when
complaints are received”
“The City does not
maintain our trees or
meadows properly. Many
trees that have been taken
out because of drunk
drivers or speeding are not
replaced. Why?”
“El peor problema es que el
vecindario y la ciudad no
mantienen y cuidan nuestra
ciudad. Y cada vez que arreglan
al poco tiempo dejan secar
y destruir, y se tira todo lo
que se invierte y se trabaja.”
(Translation: The worst problem
is that the neighborhood and
the City do not maintain and
take care of our city. And every
time they fix it in a short time
they let it dry and destroy, and
everything that is invested and
worked for is thrown away.) “Not enough trees and the ones we do have are not well taken
care of.”

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 80 • EAST PALO ALTO • Community Perspectives

5. Concern for future resilience, adaptation to climate change, and water availability
81% of survey respondents considered newly planted public trees’ ability to adapt to future climate change to be very important, and 16% said it was slightly important. In particular, water availability is a major concern for residents, who felt constrained by both current and possible future water restrictions. People were concerned that future drought would lead to restrictions that would prevent tree irrigation, and felt that adding more trees might lead to unsustainable water costs.

6. Concern about knowledge, enforcement, and
process of the existing Tree Protection Ordinance
Many residents were not aware of the existence of a tree protection ordinance in East Palo Alto, with 10% of survey respondents saying they thought the City did not have such an ordinance, and 50% saying they didn’t know.

Residents who had experienced applying for a tree removal permit described different pathways with varying information, cost, and difficulty for obtaining a permit. Applicants worked with different staff members and were provided with different materials to support their applications. The process was sometimes long, with unexpected requirements and costs. Survey write-in responses echoed these difficulties, with complaints that the current process is too complicated and expensive.

Survey respondents and focus group participants frequently shared stories of unpermitted tree removals and lack of enforcement, and expressed frustration that the existing tree protection ordinance was not very effective.

Community members expressed concern that for many households, the cost of applying for a tree removal permit and hiring an arborist to submit the associated report would be prohibitively high. Survey respondents and focus group participants agreed that the costs for permitted tree removals likely discouraged people from following the legal process.

Some expressed a desire for greater flexibility for private property owners, with developers and City trees more firmly controlled by tree protections. 57% of survey respondents felt that the City should protect trees on private residential property, and 75% thought the City should protect trees on commercial property.
“There is the
East Palo Alto
ordinance about
removing trees
of a certain size.

I got a permit
once but it took
months to get
approved due to
the inefficiency
of the East Palo
Alto Planning
Department. That
was a real turn off
and would really
encourage people
to do things
unpermitted.”
“The City needs
to enforce the
tree ordinance it
already has!”
“Make the
process simple
to remove
trees, the more
complicated/
costly, the less
permits issued.”

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 81 • EAST PALO ALTO • Community Perspectives

7. Desire for developers to be responsible for additional planting With redevelopment occurring in the Ravenswood Employment District in particular, some community members hoped redevelopment efforts would create opportunities for more tree planting and investment in the local environment. Members of the business community supported these wishes, but were concerned about the feasibility of tree planting in the Ravenswood Employment District due to possible saltwater intrusion and poor physical conditions. Community members were interested in the possibility of supporting in lieu planting, either physically planting or providing funds for planting and maintenance of trees outside the development area.

Survey respondents largely agreed that new construction and redevelopment projects should be required to protect existing trees (79%) and to plant new trees (75%). “There are trees that are REMOVED on the weekends,
undercover [or] absent of discovery? Give out
rewards for the reporting of trees being
chopped down. Also the rule of the tree being
41 inch in diameter doesn’t protect the trees that
mature that can’t reach that size. For instance “palm
trees”. Corporate developers don’t care about
trees.”
“People are always
doing illegal
tree trimming
or cutting
them down on
the weekends
when nobody is
checking. Don’t
police people
unnecessarily, but
have someone
available or a
hotline to call”
“I’m concerned about lower income
property owners being able to afford to
legally deal with trees.”
“While I believe trees on private property should be protected as well, I do worry about the cost burden for residents that may need to remove trees. In order to enforce the ordinance on private properties, there should be a source of funds that can provide financial support”

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 82 • EAST PALO ALTO • Community Perspectives
Conclusions
East Palo Alto residents at large are committed
to growing and stewarding the urban forest,
and they believe in this work being driven
through grassroots initiatives and community
empowerment. While the community generally
feels that the benefits from trees outweigh the
costs, these costs, particularly related to tree
maintenance, have real impacts on the health of
trees and individuals’ willingness to plant a tree.

While the community wants to take ownership
over urban forest stewardship efforts, there are
also a variety of ways the City can support this
work. The community expressed a strong need
for improving pathways for communication
and collaboration between the City and
the community. There are opportunities for
improvement by increasing awareness and
enforcement of the Tree Protection Ordinance
and by promoting a clear and equitable tree
removal permit application process. There are
also areas where the City can promote tree
plantings through redevelopment projects,
promote planting climate-resilient species,
and implement proper maintenance and
management regimes for public trees. Each
of these initiatives should be collaborative,
considering how residents, community groups,
and organizations can provide input on the
updated processes and work in tandem to
strengthen the health of the urban forest.

Planting trees. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related SECTION 3:

PLAN FOR THE FUTURE
(above) Former Mayor Larry Moody’s ceremonial tree planting in Jack Farrel Park on MLK Day 2017. (below) Park design charette flier. Photos: Canopy.

IN THIS SECTION
Chapter 6: STRATEGY and ACTION PLAN ........ 84
RESOURCES ...... 121

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 84 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Challenges, Benefits, and Recommended Steps
As a vibrant but socioeconomically disadvantaged community working to address systemic inequities in urban infrastructure and resources, East Palo Alto faces a number of challenges with regards to the urban forest. However, with proactive planning and care, these challenges can be overcome and lead the city toward the greener, healthier future imagined by the community. The many benefits provided by urban trees today will be compounded by future growth, if the urban forest can be continually supported through City policy, resources, and community action.

The following sections detail the recommended steps that East Palo Alto can take to reinforce its commitment to growing the urban forest. These recommendations are summarized in Table 6.1.

Lack of Tree Canopy
The overall tree canopy cover
in the city is much lower than
in surrounding communities.

Both protection of existing
trees, particularly large ones,
and expansion of the urban
forest are needed to increase
the equitable distribution of
this important type of urban
infrastructure.

Reactive Approach to
Tree Maintenance
The City’s current approach to
tree maintenance responds to
hazards and emergencies as
they arrive, which can be inefficient, increase liability, and be detrimental for long-term
tree health.

Water Availability &
Climate Change
Portions of the city have high
groundwater and are projected to see increased flooding and sea level rise with climate
change, which will impact
the potential for trees. Future
drought and limited water for
irrigation make low water use
an important parameter for
guiding tree species selection.

Effectiveness of
the Tree Protection
Ordinance
While the current tree protection ordinance provides some protection for existing trees,
lack of enforcement, unclear
requirements, and high fees
are concerns for residents.

Legacy of Urban
Design
Existing urban design does
not facilitate the growth of the
urban forest, with few parks,
small residential parcels, and
narrow streets without space
for tree planting.

Lack of Trust Between
City & Community
There is a lack of trust in the
City’s ability and willingness
to provide the resources and
maintenance needed to cultivate a healthy urban forest.

Unclear Authority &
Responsibility
Responsibilities for tree
maintenance and permitting
are not clearly defined in City
code, reducing the City’s
ability to expand the urban
tree canopy, to set consistent
standards for tree care and
maintenance, or to protect the
existing tree canopy.

Limited Resources
The current resources
available for management of
public trees limit the ability of
the City to maintain a healthy
urban forest.
6 STRATEGY and ACTION PLAN

CHALLENGES FOR URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT IN EAST PALO ALTO

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 85 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Goal 1: Grow a healthy, extensive, vibrant, and diverse urban forest to provide 20% tree canopy cover by 2062 and 30% by 2122.

Objective Action Key Point

1. Grow the
urban forest.

1. Develop a city-wide tree planting
strategy to increase equity with
neighboring cities.

1. Plant 200-250 public trees per year

2. Plant 150-200 private trees per year

3. Measure city-wide and zone-specific tree canopy cover every 10 years to track progress

2. Plant climate-adapted species
with the intention of planting
the right tree in the right place
to maximize benefits for public
health, wildlife, and resilience.

1. Plant appropriate trees for each habitat zone in the city

2. Plant the right species for the specific planting location

3. Maintain species and age diversity within the urban forest

3. Integrate trees into future urban
design.

1. Set standard sizes for tree wells and planting strips to allow for healthy tree growth

2. Enact a parking lot shade ordinance

3. Review development plans for tree protection and planting

2. Define
responsibilities
and support
improved
maintenance
practices and
protections
for public and
private trees.

4. Codify responsibility and set
standards for proactive public tree
maintenance and protection.

1. Codify the City’s authority and responsibility for street tree maintenance

2. Take a proactive grid pruning approach to public tree maintenance

3. Condense the City code regulating public trees into a single ordinance with all key components, including standards of care for public trees

5. Revise the tree protection
ordinance and implementation
process to provide strong
protection for private trees.

1. Revise the definition of a protected tree

2. Revise the criteria for protected tree removal

3. Require development projects to apply for tree removal permits

4. Increase staff capacity to manage the tree protection ordinance by hiring or contracting with a certified arborist

5. Review and clarify fees and requirements for tree removal permit applications

6. Create a more robust appeals process with community input

7. Publicize and enforce tree protections

6. Seek opportunities for additional
funding.

1. Identify opportunities to obtain additional funding to support urban forestry programs
Goal 2: Connect with an engaged and informed community to provide stewardship of the urban forest.

Objective Action Key Point

3. Connect with
the community
around tree
stewardship.

7. Design a cohesive and inclusive
public outreach program focused
on building awareness of the
benefits of trees and how and why
trees are protected in the city.

1. Engage with local community groups in urban forest stewardship activities

2. Partner with Canopy to identify opportunities to expand current community outreach programs

3. Provide up-to-date information about tree protections and management on the City website

4. Translate tree information into common non-English languages spoken in East Palo Alto

5. Designate a forum for the public to engage with tree management and protection actions

6. Identify ways for the City to celebrate trees

8. Become a Tree City USA.

1. As in Action 4, update the public tree ordinance to set standards of care

2. As in Actions 5 and 7, designate or create a public body to review tree removal applications and appeals, and to serve as a public forum for treerelated issues

3. As in Action 7, plan celebratory activities for Arbor Day Table 6.1. Actions and key points to meet the City’s urban forestry objectives and goals.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 86 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Goals
GOAL 1: Grow a healthy, extensive, vibrant, and diverse urban forest to provide 20% tree canopy cover by 2062 and 30% by 2122.

In order to achieve a more equitable distribution of tree canopy across the region and to secure the health, biodiversity, and environmental quality benefits of a healthy urban forest, the City of East Palo Alto should aim to grow the urban tree canopy. Trees should be planted strategically to address current inequities in the distribution of tree canopy cover in the city. In addition to increasing the overall tree canopy cover, this expansion should aim to maintain high species diversity, support a varied age structure, and select species that can provide the greatest benefit. Positive, proactive maintenance practices and protections can ensure the long-term health and vibrancy of the urban forest. This goal balances feasibility with the desired outcome of closing the “Green Gap” and reaching a similarly high tree canopy cover to what is seen in neighboring cities.

GOAL 2: Connect with an engaged and informed community to provide stewardship of the urban forest.

Successfully growing and stewarding the urban forest requires a strong partnership between the City, residents, involved organizations including Canopy, and developers. Community input showed that while many members of the community are eager to protect and plant trees, these partnerships are not yet solidified. Providing community members with accessible information about tree care and protections in the city can improve private tree stewardship.

The City can provide leadership by effectively stewarding and championing public trees.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 87 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Objective 1: Grow the Urban Forest
ACTION 1. Develop a city-wide tree planting strategy to increase equity with neighboring cities.

A strategic tree planting effort is necessary in order to reduce the disparity in tree canopy cover between East Palo Alto and surrounding cities. With the overall goal of achieving 20% tree canopy cover in the city by 2062, more trees will be needed particularly in places that currently have very low tree canopy cover and in places with more plantable area.

The amount of tree canopy cover created by a tree can vary widely depending on the tree species chosen and how good the conditions are where it is planted.

Some tree species, such as crape myrtle, will remain small their entire life, making them suitable for locations with overhead utility conflicts or other space limitations, but less useful for creating tree canopy cover. Additionally, trees planted in small tree wells or strips without much soil volume will never grow as large as trees planted in large open areas like parks or yards. Existing trees will also grow and die over time, leading to further complexity in predicting how many new trees are needed to reach a tree canopy cover goal.

Assuming that the tree size distribution and planting conditions of future trees will match the existing public tree sizes (where, on average, tree canopies are about 19.6 ft in diameter), then we can estimate that about 15,100 new trees will need to be planted in the city to reach the goal of 20% tree canopy cover.

If all planted trees were large trees in open conditions, as few as 2,000 new trees could be enough to meet the goal. However, if all of the new trees are small trees, it could take as many as 58,000 new plantings to reach 20% tree canopy cover.

Key Points
• Plant 200-250 public trees per year
• Plant 150-200 private trees per year
• Measure city-wide and zone-specific tree canopy cover every 10 years to track progress

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 88 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Tree planting goals
Goal: 20% tree canopy cover by 2062
• Plant 15,100 new trees
• Plant 350 to 400 new trees per year
• Plant 8,000 new trees along roads, in parks, and on
other public lands
• Plant 2,800 new trees on residential land
• Plant 1,000 new trees on commercial and mixed
use land
• Plant 3,300 new trees in the Ravenswood Business
District /4 Corners Specific Plan area
Based on current land use distribution in the city and the amount of pervious (plantable) area in each zone, we suggest tree canopy targets for each land use zone in order to add up to 20% tree canopy cover city-wide (Table 6.2). The highest targets are set for parks and schools, because the open space in these areas offer greater opportunities for planting healthy trees, and because the benefits of trees for park users and school children are particularly valuable.

Residential parcels, mixed use areas, and roads are recommended to reach 20% tree canopy cover. These areas tend to have less open space for planting, but reaching higher levels of tree canopy can provide important benefits (see Chapter 3). Commercial areas have less opportunity currently as about 85% of these areas are paved or covered by buildings. Future changes to the way these spaces are designed will be important to further increase tree canopy (see Action 3). Finally, the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan area currently has the lowest tree canopy cover in the city, but redevelopment offers an opportunity to expand the resource. The tree canopy cover target for this area is set at 20% to balance the opportunity of redevelopment with the feasibility of maintaining healthy trees along the edge of the marsh.

To meet these targets, the City should aim to plant about 200 trees per year in public areas (along roads, in parks, on school grounds, and on other public property) over the next 40 years. The City should also work to support planting of an additional 150-200 trees per year on private property and in the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corners Specific Plan area. The City can foster growth of the urban forest on private land by supporting tree plantings through local organizations and community groups (see Action 7).

Creating a berm ensures water will irrigate this young tree’s root ball. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 89 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Table 6.2. Tree canopy cover targets for 2062 by land use zone, set based on available pervious area to achieve 20% tree canopy cover city-wide.

Zone Current
canopy cover
Available
pervious
area
Target
canopy cover
Approx.
number of
new trees
needed*
Percent of all new trees
needed**
Commercial 9% 15% 15% 300 2%
Mixed use 12% 22% 20% 700 5%
Residential
(high density) 18% 22% 20% 200 1%
Residential
(medium
density)
18% 34% 20% 300 2%
Residential
(low density) 17% 43% 20% 2300 15%
Ravenswood
Business
District/4
Corners Specific
Plan area
6% 44% 20% 3300 22%
Parks and
recreation zone 8% 86% 30% 2700 18%
Public
institutional
zone
9% 43% 30% 2000 13%
Roads and
rights-of-way 13% 19% 20% 3300 22%
City total 13.5% 37% 21% 15,100
* Assuming new planted trees match the size distribution of existing trees, reported to the nearest hundred trees.
** This percentage is the percent of all new trees planted that should be located in this zone in order to work toward tree canopy cover targets.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 90 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Figure 6.1. Intermediate milestones for city-wide tree canopy cover. Regular updates to the tree canopy cover assessment should check whether these milestones have been achieved to determine if the city is on track to meet goals for 2062 and 2122.

The City should monitor progress against these targets by evaluating the number of public trees in the public tree inventory and by periodically inspecting tree canopy cover across the city. An on-the-ground update to the existing public tree inventory should occur as soon as possible, in collaboration with the City’s tree pruning contractor. In the future, the contractor should continuously update this inventory as services are performed (see Action 4). We recommend repeating a tree canopy cover analysis every 10 years to check whether tree canopy is expanding and the City is on track to meet the 40-year goal (Fig. 6.1).

Residential streets of East Palo Alto. Imagery: Google Earth.

TARGET TREE CANOPY COVER BY YEAR
28%

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 91 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
ACTION 2. Plant climate-adapted species with the intention of planting the right tree in the right place to maximize benefits for public health, wildlife, and resilience.

Increasing the number of trees in the city’s urban forest is important, but which kinds of trees make up the urban forest is also key to its long-term resilience and the benefits it can provide. Choosing the right tree for the right place is key for maintaining urban forest health over time and allowing trees to reach their full potential.

Key Points
• Plant appropriate trees for each habitat zone in the city • Plant the right species for the specific planting location • Maintain species and age diversity within the urban forest

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 92 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Incorporating a diversity of trees to address these needs is an important goal for the urban forest. Particular drivers should be prioritized where they are most important in the city. For example, air pollution mitigation is key near the US 101 Highway, heat mitigation is especially important for playgrounds and active transit corridors, and protecting wildlife is a priority near the Baylands and around parks that can serve as habitat patches. The best locations for each type of tree also depend on the local conditions: some trees are better able to tolerate saltwater intrusion, which might occur near the Baylands, while some are more likely to thrive in well-drained upland soil types. Small tree wells might only be able to accommodate smaller-sized trees, which provide fewer benefits but are better than having no tree at all. Meanwhile, big open planting areas in parks or on public grounds are great locations for larger trees that need more space, and can provide exceptional habitat, beauty, and shade.

Different trees can be prioritized in parts of the city with different needs and constraints. Tree planting zones in East Palo Alto were developed by considering historical, present, and projected future conditions in East Palo Alto, including the city’s native vegetation types, hydrology, soils, and climate (Fig. 6.2). There are three core objectives driving the planting zone map: adapting to sea level rise, mitigating impacts of the US 101 Highway, and supporting local native biodiversity. In addition, priority areas highlight locations where people spend time outdoors: in parks, in schoolyards, and along bike routes. In all zones, trees planted should be drought-tolerant to suit local climate conditions. Habitat zones can guide tree choice broadly across the city, but specific site conditions are crucial for determining a tree’s future success. Table 6.3 describes each of these habitat zones and offers a sample list of native trees that are generally suitable in each zone. A qualified arborist can help further identify tree species that are suitable for sites with different types of constraints.

Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) leaves and acorns. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 93 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Figure 6.2. Map of habitat zones and special priority areas for strategic tree planting.

Identify habitat zone
Use the habitat zone and priority area map to identify
high-level strategic priorities and constraints for selecting a species or planting palette.

Determine local planning conditions
Consider the local planting conditions to choose the right tree for the right place. An arborist can help identify the most important parameters to consider.

Consider additional benefits and concerns
What else is important to you? Identify the values and traits you are interested in. For example, this could include selecting to support birds, create shade, or produce beautiful flowers.

US 101 Highway Corridor
Oak woodland habitat zone
San Francisquito Creek
riparian zone
Tolerant of high water table
Salt tolerant
Baylands
Habitat Zones
Priority Areas
Active Transit Corridors
Bicycle path
Bicycle lane
Bicycle route
Park
School

SAN FRANCISCO BAY

0.5 miles

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 94 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Table 6.3. Descriptions of broad habitat zones in East Palo Alto, each of which was developed based on the zone’s unique physical conditions, objectives, and opportunities. Examples of recommended native species suitable for these habitat zones are also included, although this list is not comprehensive.

Zone Description Example Recommended Native Species

HABITAT ZONES
US 101
Highway
corridor zone
Along the US 101 Highway-corridor,
trees provide important services,
acting as a sound wall and filtering
air pollution. Surrounding the US 101
Highway-corridor, the tree planting
palette should prioritize species with
the potential to capture pollutants
and insulate sound, while also having
low emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). In addition,
these trees should be able to tolerate
vehicular pollutants such as ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.

Where planting areas are more
spacious along this corridor, large
trees should be selected.
• Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
• Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii)
• California ash (Fraxinus dipetala)
• Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)
• Gray pine (Pinus sabiniana)
• Hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia)
• Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
• California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica)
Oak woodland
zone
Before the city’s development, 40%
of the city’s landscape was dominated
by oak woodlands and savannah. The
city can support a highly functioning
urban forest by prioritizing native
trees, especially oaks, in more upland
locations where they once thrived.
• Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
• Canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis)
• Blue oak (Quercus douglasii)
• Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana)
• California black oak (Quercus kelloggii)
• Valley oak (Quercus lobata)
• Interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni)
• Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii)
• California buckeye (Aesculus californica)
• Hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia)
San
Francisquito
Creek riparian
zone
The San Francisquito Creek is an
important corridor for both people
and wildlife. This zone can support
riparian trees that are naturally found
along waterways, and that provide
ample shade for recreation and active
transit, improve the health of the
creek, and host local biodiversity.
• Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
• California boxelder (Acer negundo var. californicum)
• White alder (Alnus rhombifolia)
• Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)
• Pacific wax myrtle (Morella california)
• Western sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
• Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp.
trichocarpa)
• Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii ssp.
fremontii)
• Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
• Valley oak (Quercus lobata)
• Red willow (Salix laevigata)
• Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis)
• Yellow willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra)
• California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 95 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Zone Description Example Recommended Native Species

HABITAT ZONES
Salt
tolerant
zone
Planting salt-tolerant and highgroundwater-tolerant trees in the zone most immediately
threatened by sea level rise
and related saltwater intrusion
will support the growing urban
forest’s resilience to a changing
climate. Tree planting should be
avoided in and directly adjacent
to tidal marsh areas, where no
trees were historically found.
• Western sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
• Pacific wax myrtle (Morella californica)
• California boxelder (Acer negundo var. californicum)
Tolerant
of high
water
table zone
The region beyond the
immediate shoreline will also
be impacted by sea level rise—
at first, by rising groundwater
levels, and in the long-term,
by increased flooding and
inundation. Trees tolerant of
a high water table will be best
adapted to rising groundwater
levels.
• Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
• California boxelder (Acer negundo var. californicum)
• White alder (Alnus rhombifolia)
• Brown dogwood (Cornus glabrata)
• Creek dogwood (Cornus sericea ssp. sericea)
• Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)
• Pacific wax myrtle (Morella californica)
• Western sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
• Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) • Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) • Red willow (Salix laevigata)
• Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis)
• Yellow willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra)
• California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica)

PRIORITY AREAS
Active
transit
corridors
Active transit corridors, including current and planned bicycle lanes, routes, and paths, are important areas for prioritizing street tree plantings. Properly maintained, large shade trees benefit pedestrians and bicycles by cooling, improving roadside aesthetics, calming traffic, and creating more appealing routes for biking and walking. Forested streets also create corridors for wildlife to move through the city, increasing connectivity.

Park Parks are important opportunity areas for tree plantings. Trees in parks promote physical and mental health benefits for park visitors, create shade and cool down nearby neighborhoods, and provide habitat to support local biodiversity. The city can maximize benefits from park trees by planting large, native trees that provide plentiful shade, aesthetic value, and habitat. In addition, prioritizing tree planting around neighborhood parks can increase the effective park size by creating more habitat for wildlife.

School Trees provide a diversity of benefits for schools, not only by generating shade and mental and physical health benefits, but also by offering opportunities for experiential learning, nutrition, and social connections. Planting, maintaining, and harvesting from fruit trees creates opportunities to learn, builds community outdoors, and fosters a connection with healthy foods. Large, native shade trees also create cooler spaces for outdoor recreation and opportunities to learn about and connect with local plants and wildlife.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 96 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
ACTION 3. Integrate trees into future urban design.

Redevelopment and construction projects present important opportunities to design trees into the urban fabric. Projects should aim to maximize tree planting in open space areas and along streets to gain the benefits of tree canopy in these newly built areas. In addition to protecting the most valuable existing trees, projects should design sufficient space to support healthy new trees in order to achieve long-term tree canopy growth. Review of development plans for tree planting sites is one way to support this goal, and adding shading requirements to City tree ordinances is another. Embedding tree planting into future urban design is essential to enable East Palo Alto to expand the urban tree canopy and reach the 100 year goal of 30% tree canopy cover.

Design roadways and building sites that incorporate tree planting areas During redevelopment projects, incorporating space for trees along the street and within the site is crucial to achieving tree canopy cover goals. Incorporating large planting areas helps streets and private landscapes support more tree canopy.

Trees are more likely to survive in larger planting areas, making planting in these areas a better long-term investment (Lu et al., 2010). In addition, trees can reach a greater size in larger planting areas, generating more tree canopy cover (Sanders & Grabosky, 2014; North et al., 2018; Dahlhausen et al., 2016). Street and private development design choices such as including structural soils, pervious pavement, and larger planting spaces can prevent conflict between trees and infrastructure and help promote healthy trees (Mullaney et al., 2015; Berland et al., 2017).

The City could set standards for planting areas, like making a 4x6 foot planting strip or 4x6 foot tree well an absolute minimum. Soil depth is important too, and trees should be provided with soil that is at least 3 feet deep, and ideally 4 or 5 feet deep. The US Environmental Protection Agency recommends a minimum of 500 ft3
per tree and suggests 600 ft3 for small trees, 1,000 ft3 for medium trees, and 1,500 ft3
for large trees (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

Require shading over parking lots
In the municipal code, Chapter 13.24.430 (Parking areas) currently defines landscaping requirements for parking areas, and Chapter 18.28.030 (Landscape requirements) sets development standards for tree planting. Enhancing either of these sections to require tree planting in parking lots would improve tree canopy cover in areas where the shade is most needed. Several cities in the Central Valley, Key Points
• Set standard sizes for tree wells and planting strips to allow for healthy tree growth
• Enact a parking lot shade ordinance
• Review development plans for tree protection and planting

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 97 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
where summer temperatures are often over 100°F, have added shade ordinances or shade components to cool these spaces. In addition to reducing heat and solar radiation for cars and pedestrians, studies have found that tree shade extends the life of pavement by protecting it from solar damage (McPherson & Muchnick, 2005), and keeping parked vehicles cooler reduces the passive emission of air pollutants caused by gasoline evaporation (Scott et al., 1999).

A shade requirement could consist of a certain percentage of parking lot area covered by tree canopy by 15 years after construction or adoption of the ordinance. Both Davis and Sacramento require 50% of parking lots to be covered within 15 years. This approach also aligns with the California Green Building Code Section A4.106.7, which requires 50% shade coverage over parking lots within 15 years, and 20% shade over landscape and hardscape such as driveways and walkways in landscape areas (International Code Council, 2019).

To add this provision to City code, the City would need to:
• Set a tree canopy cover target for parking lots
• Define which parking lots would be required to comply • Define the surface areas to be included in the calculation (e.g., parking stalls, drive aisles, maneuvering areas)
• Indicate if public trees or trees on neighboring properties could be included in the calculation
• Define a process to review plans for compliance
The City could support developers by producing shade tree guidelines to simplify the process for calculating parking lot shade, as has been done by the City of Pleasanton (City of Pleasanton, 2020). The guidelines could provide a list of approved trees and their canopy sizes, recommended tree planting practices that encourage the use of structural soil systems such as Silva cells, and guidance for choosing an appropriately diverse mix of trees.

Set clear processes and goals for development project review Redevelopment is an important opportunity to expand tree canopy cover over time. As redevelopment plans are approved by the City, staff should develop regular procedures to confirm tree protection and preservation are carried out, and tree removals should be approved following the standard process (see Action 5).

In addition to adding and reviewing for tree well sizing and parking lot shading as described above, the City should set ambitious tree canopy cover targets or planting requirements for development projects, following from the targets outlined in Action 1. Development plans should be reviewed by a certified arborist to ensure that tree protections during construction are sufficient and the site has been designed to support healthy trees.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 98 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Objective 2: Clarify and codify responsibilities,
maintenance practices, and protections for
public and private trees.

ACTION 4. Improve public tree maintenance and protection The City code that governs public trees, Chapters 12.16 and 13.24.410, does not define who is responsible for the maintenance of public trees, what condition City trees are to be maintained to, how trees are to be planted, when trees are to be removed, who will maintain the inventory of public trees, who will maintain the street trees on each block, and who will maintain a budget for such activities. City staff are currently maintaining trees with a “reactive” maintenance approach: trees are pruned and removed on an as-needed basis, which often results in poorer tree health, more emergency tree removals, and increased spending for tree care.

This recommended action contains two elements: clarify authority for public tree maintenance and move the City to a proactive maintenance approach.

Success of these actions hinges on both parts being implemented together and reflected in updated City code. Designating the City’s responsibility for public tree maintenance without moving to a proactive maintenance program will leave the City with liability beyond what can be handled with current staffing and processes.

Moving to a proactive maintenance program without defining staff’s roles and responsibilities will not give staff the authority to complete the necessary work.

Clarify authority for street trees
The City’s public tree ordinance should state who is responsible for the care and maintenance of trees in the right-of-way. It is generally understood that trees in the area between the curb and the sidewalk (typically called street trees, parkway trees, or trees in the public right-of-way) are considered City trees. In most cities, the responsibility for maintenance and care of street trees is defined by City code. Defining the roles of the City and adjacent property owners can help avoid misunderstandings and can alleviate the City of liability.

In general, cities allocate the responsibility for street tree maintenance with two different strategies. One strategy has adjacent property owners maintain Key Points
• Codify the City’s authority and responsibility for street tree maintenance. • Take a proactive grid pruning approach to public tree maintenance. • Condense the City code regulating public trees into a single ordinance with all key components, including standards of care for public trees.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 99 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
the street tree in front of their home. Using this strategy, the property owner can choose an arborist to assist with maintenance and care of the street tree.

The property owner also takes on the cost of any necessary tree maintenance, releasing the City from fiscal responsibility at the expense of the property owner.

In this scenario, the municipality does not control tree care but does maintain liability, and lack of care can lead to failures for which the City can be held liable.

This strategy is used in San Jose and Vallejo. In San Jose, the City has five municipal inspectors who ensure that maintenance of trees in the right-ofway is performed in accordance with City standards. Code enforcement staff are responsible for citing anyone who fails to comply with the City standards.

In Vallejo and San Jose, property owner-maintained trees are also supported by City crews or contract crews who prune street trees within Landscape Maintenance Districts. Landscape Maintenance Districts are special districts formed to provide benefitting property owners the opportunity to pay for enhanced landscaping improvements, maintenance, and services beyond those generally provided by the City. This model can work with an investment in public oversight, but can also lead to disparities among different areas of a city.

The second strategy is for the City to maintain trees in the right-of-way, which is a proven tactic for both maintaining and growing the urban forest through proprietary oversight. Nearby cities such as Palo Alto and Menlo Park use this approach, which also is currently performed in East Palo Alto, though authority is not set by the City code. With this approach, the City directly invests in the maintenance of street trees, which requires staffing and budget. The City gains the insurance that trees are well maintained by skilled, certified professionals, and are poised to take action to limit tree-related liability. Taking this approach will best enable East Palo Alto to appropriately maintain public trees.

Staking provides stability to young trees. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 100 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Transition to a proactive cycle pruning program
With the City responsible for public tree management, maintenance can be either proactive or reactive. A reactive maintenance program is a program that responds to tree failure, complaints, and hazards, as opposed to a proactive program with a regular inspection cycle that identifies trees in need of care before they become a hazard, fail, or are a public nuisance. In reactive maintenance programs, trees are left to grow and fail without intervention from the tree managers. This leaves the tree manager, in this case the City, open to liability. In the eyes of the law, lack of knowledge of a hazard does not relieve or alleviate the tree owner of responsibility to address the hazard.

We recommend that the City transition to a proactive approach, in which public trees are inspected and pruned on a regular cycle (“grid pruning”). Maintenance costs in a proactive program are often less onerous once trees are being regularly maintained. This approach also reduces the risk of tree failure and associated liability. A major added value is that the community sees the City taking positive action for trees.

Per-tree pruning costs in East Palo Alto have been high in comparison to surrounding cities in part because of deferred maintenance. In a literature review, researchers showed that overall, the costs of not maintaining urban trees were greater than the cost of maintenance applied at the right time (Vogt et al., 2015). Small trees can be pruned inexpensively to fix structural issues, which become much more costly, difficult, and potentially harmful to the tree’s health when left until the tree is large. With a regular pruning cycle, structural issues can be identified and resolved when the tree is young. Trees that are properly pruned when young will be more successful street trees for the long term than trees that are left with structural problems.

Information gathered from other municipalities (including Vallejo, Newark, Santa Clara, Holister, Gilroy, and Palo Alto) indicates that with grid pruning in place, the cost to prune any tree would be about $140, as opposed to the $280 per tree on average the City is paying now. Taking a grid pruning approach would move the City from pruning about 300 trees annually to 700 trees, and for half the cost per tree.

Effective urban forest management requires the ability to prioritize work, document activity, and map the current tree inventory for strategic planning.

Access to the current composition of the urban forest is a critical element in achieving these goals. Best practice requires that East Palo Alto maintain an up-to-date tree inventory that tracks these items. There are a variety of dynamic tree management software systems available for this purpose which are designed to create work orders and reports, develop maintenance schedules, store work histories and related documents for each site, create GIS overlays with sewer lines and other potential infrastructure conflicts, generate vacant

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 101 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
planting sites, and calculate tree canopy cover, tree valuation and benefits.

Tree maintenance contractors typically have software with these capabilities available, and future contracts could include management and upkeep of the tree inventory. Alternatively, City staff can use any non-dynamic program (including a spreadsheet of any kind) to manage data. The goal is for the tree manager to easily access information on tree species, condition, location, and maintenance history.

To move to a proactive maintenance program, the City will need to:
• Update the public tree ordinance to set the maintenance standard. • Set the goals of the program and policies for maintenance that describe who is responsible for what and where the funding for the program will come from.
• Draft a standard of care statement where the appropriate and acceptable care for trees is defined.
• Define record keeping protocols to ensure that the same information is collected every time maintenance occurs.
• The contractor hired to conduct grid pruning can also update tree inventory information as part of the scope of work, and provide the City with an up-to-date inventory of all public trees to reference.
• Assess and prioritize. Put all public trees on a grid pruning schedule, prioritizing streets with the most pedestrian traffic or in downtown areas. • Set the budget and pruning cycle. Currently, $120,000 is allocated annually for tree pruning and removal contract services. Based on the tree inventory and the current pruning costs for grid pruning, the project team estimates that moving to a 7-year grid pruning cycle would require an annual budget allocation of $120,000 for contracted pruning and an additional $30,000 for emergencies, out-of-cycle pruning, and tree removals. These estimates do not include East Palo Alto staff time.

Revise the City code governing public trees
The two ordinances (Chapters 12.16 and 13.24.410) that currently govern public trees should be revised into a single public tree ordinance (Chapter 12.16) with all necessary components (see box text).

The public tree ordinance should reference City tree maintenance guidelines and strategies, setting a standard for City staff to follow, as described previously.

It should also set criteria and processes for removal of public trees. These criteria and processes may be the same as for the removal of protected private trees, or may be different (see Action 5). The public tree ordinance should also set replacement requirements for when public trees are removed. Replacement

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 102 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
requirements could be planting 2 or 3 trees for each tree removed in order to grow the urban tree canopy over time.

In addition to requiring replacement plantings for public trees that are removed, the City could also create a fund specifically for street tree maintenance activities, to which the City could contribute if a situation arises where a replacement tree cannot be planted. Covered activities could include planting, watering, small tree care, and pruning, but not removals or park maintenance activities unless specifically related to tree care. This fund can help to offset costs of a more robust program. In-lieu fees should be set considering both the cost of planting and young tree maintenance.

Finally, the public tree ordinance should set planting standards and processes.

If the City wishes to maintain a street tree management plan identifying species to be planted on individual streets, then it will need to delineate a process for residents to request changes to the plan. Tree planting and maintenance standards and specifications should be in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards. If East Palo Alto ties the City standards for tree care to the ANSI standards, the City standards will remain up to date as changes to best practices arise without further action by the City.

Drawing by Kevin P. of the tree that Luzy, Ofa, Luiz, Kevin, Ivan, and George planted. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 103 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Components of a street tree ordinance
A meaningful street tree ordinance includes the following:
• A title - A clear concise title should set the stage for the document • The intent and purpose of the code - This section needs to outline the values that led the City to codify this provision
• Definition of terms - Terms like “tree,” “City tree,” and “public right-ofway” need to be defined in this section and consistent with terms in the tree protection ordinance
• Authority - This section defines who is responsible for what actions under what circumstances
• Policies and procedures - In this section the City has the opportunity to set the work plan and standards of care for the urban forestry team.

The team will be accountable to the City Council for these actions being accomplished as laid out. Additionally, this section should include:
• Noticing requirements for pruning, planting, and removal • Applications process for removal of trees on public property and appeals process
• Tree replacement noticing, planting standards, and process for requests not to have a tree planted
• Applications for pruning on public property, standards for pruning, noticing in advance of pruning, appeals process for denied tree pruning applications
Trees along US 101 Highway remove harmful pollution from the air. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 104 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
ACTION 5. Revise the tree protection ordinance and
implementation process to provide strong protection for private trees.

The existing private tree protections within Chapter 18.28 of the City’s Development Code could be made more effective through improvements in two areas:

1. Revising the ordinance to update tree removal criteria, clarify requirements for development, and add new measures to support increased tree canopy cover; and

2. Standardizing the processes associated with tree removal permit application, review, and enforcement.

Ordinance revisions
As with the public tree ordinance, the private tree protection ordinance should include a clearly stated goal, authority and responsibilities, and policies and procedures. Terms should be consistently defined in both the public and private tree ordinances. The purview of this ordinance would be to protect trees during the development process, determine appropriate mitigation for trees removed, and enforce criteria for private tree removal permits. Street trees and trees in public places would be under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department as defined by the public tree ordinances (Action 4).

Key Points
• Revise the definition of a protected tree
• Revise the criteria for protected tree removal
• Require development projects to apply for tree removal permits • Increase staff capacity to manage the tree protection ordinance by hiring or contracting with a certified arborist
• Review and clarify fees and requirements for tree removal permit applications • Create a more robust appeals process with community input • Publicize and enforce tree protections

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 105 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Revise the definition of a protected tree
Under the current ordinance, a “protected tree” includes all of the following:

A. Any tree having a main stem or trunk that measures 24 inches or greater in circumference at a height of 40 inches above grade;
B. Tree within a public street or public right-of-way, regardless of size; C. Any tree that was required to be preserved as a condition of a development approval granted by the City;
D. Any tree required to be planted as a condition of a development approval granted by the City; and
E. Any tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree.

In the handout used by the City to inform the public of tree removal permit requirements, Protection A is given as, “Any tree with a main stem or trunk that measures forty (40) inches or greater in circumference at a height of twenty-four (24) inches or two (2) feet above natural grade.” This is the definition currently applied by City staff resulting in fewer trees protected in practice than by the ordinance text.

These classes of protection require revisions to match best practices and the specific needs of East Palo Alto.

Tree ordinances often use size thresholds to define which trees should be protected. These thresholds are typically based on tree diameter measured at a standard height of 54 inches above grade. Protection A should be revised to use this metric. We recommend protecting trees over 8 inches in diameter at this standard height, which will be similar to the current ordinance protection of trees 24 inches in circumference (7.6 inches diameter).

If this ordinance is to focus on private trees while the ordinance in Chapter 12 pertains to public trees, the protection classes should be revised to remove reference to public trees (i.e., remove Protection B and specify “any private tree” in other classes).

Protections C, D, and E show the City’s interest in protecting trees planted as replacements or as part of development agreements. In practice, protecting these trees requires staff to track all trees that meet these conditions and to enforce rules pertaining to their removal. With current staffing and procedures, it is very difficult for the City to adequately enforce these protections. The City could consider removing these protection criteria if they cannot be enforced, or should plan to allocate staff time toward tracking these trees in the tree inventory and enforcing penalties for unapproved removals.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 106 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Revise the criteria for removal
Having tree removal criteria that reflect the values of tree preservation and growth of the urban forest, yet are flexible enough that applicants can navigate the implementation without intervention, is crucial. The criteria should be simple and clear, such that there is little room for conflict. Currently, protected trees may be removed if they meet one of three criteria:

1. The tree is dead or infected with a terminal disease.

2. The tree is structurally unsound and cannot be corrected or the risk cannot be significantly reduced by traditional pruning, cabling, or bracing.

3. The tree is causing visible damage to property, which cannot be corrected without destroying the tree canopy or root system.

The current criteria do not clearly address removals associated with development or with removals by governmental agencies, leaving these removals outside the scope of the tree protection ordinance. Review is included in the total project review.

An added criterion related to development should seek to allow removal of protected trees only in circumstances where protected trees would stop the applicant from developing the property, which would be considered under the law as a “taking of real property.” Healthy protected trees should be preserved in all other circumstances. The goal of this criterion would be to remove ambiguity around the requirements for an allowable removal during development, and to require a high level of evidence that no feasible alternatives to removal exist.

Additionally, a criterion should be added to allow for the removal of protected trees that interfere with an existing or planned public utility, transportation facility, wildlife habitat restoration project, or other governmental agency project. This criterion should be written such that the onus is on the applicant agency to provide proof of the tree’s interference with existing or planned public infrastructure and to show that preservation of the tree would add unreasonable cost to the project.

Remove the exemption for development projects
Currently, no tree removal permit is required if tree removal has been authorized as part of a development approval granted by the City. However, to adequately provide protections, public notice and documentation of tree removals, and an appeals process during development, development projects should be subject to at least the same level of requirements as nondevelopment removals. We recommend that development projects be required to submit a tree removal permit application for trees removed in addition to a development permit application. Many other cities, including Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Hayward, and Berkeley, require separate permits for trees removed with development projects.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 107 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Tree protection processes
Hire, train, or contract with a certified arborist
Municipalities most effective in administering urban forest master plans across city departments have a credentialed arborist on staff, who can be responsible for all tree-related activities and have the authority to carry them out.

Alternatively, a qualified outside consultant can provide support for necessary functions.

A certified arborist should be responsible for reviewing all tree removal permits, including those for redevelopment projects, and all tree protection plans for construction. Currently, 15 to 25 permit applications are submitted annually prior to tree removal. An additional 20 or so applications per year are submitted for trees that have already been removed, which cannot be evaluated with the same level of detail. An unknown number of additional removals are associated with development, which do not currently go through the same tree removal permit application process. An arborist will have the skills and knowledge to determine whether a tree is a good candidate for protection or when removal should be permitted. Additionally, a certified arborist can contribute to development and oversight of public tree management plans and City tree planting efforts.

Community members share their wishes for the Bayshore Christian Ministries park. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 108 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Clarify requirements for arborist reports
As a requirement for the removal of private trees, tree owners must obtain a report from a certified arborist describing the general characteristics and health of the tree to be removed to ensure that the tree meets the criteria for allowable removal. This can be an important step to prevent removals of trees that are mistakenly believed to be dead or in poor health.

Tree removal permit applicants are sometimes told to select a consulting arborist from a list of approved arborists provided by the City. This restricts tree owners’ ability to choose an arborist that best fits their budget and needs, and requires the City to maintain an up-to-date list of contractors. In practice, the City requires arborist reports to be written by an ISA certified arborist, which is a sufficient and less burdensome requirement. The requirements for an arborist report should be easily available on the City website.

Consider reducing fees to increase compliance
Based on discussion with permit applicants, we found that the costs of complying with the tree removal permitting process were onerous and likely to result in non-compliance. If the cost of a removal permit can be lowered in cases where the non-development criteria are met (i.e., the tree is dead, dying, or hazardous), it would likely encourage applicants to follow the process and plant more trees. Review of protected tree removal applications being performed by a certified arborist would likely decrease staff time spent. Development-related permit fees could be increased to cover costs for the condition-based removal permit fees.

Strengthen the appeals process and include community voices Based on feedback received from other communities and from the residents of East Palo Alto, a public appeals process should be enacted to hear appeal requests from members of the community who are not satisfied with the result of their application or neighbors who are unhappy with the removal of any regulated tree, public or private, from a property in close proximity to theirs.

We recommend that a public body be asked to review the list of approved public and private tree removals quarterly and that the authority for appeals be associated with this body. This body can be an existing public body or a newly created public body. Both the authority and responsibilities of this body should be clearly stated and incorporated into the private tree protection ordinance.

Additional staff time will be needed to staff the commission or committee that is identified as the public body that will review tree issues. It would be best if a staff person involved with this committee was responsible for review of development plans, review of arborist reports, applications for removal, outreach materials, championing ordinance revisions, and working to smooth out the application process for tree removals. The staff person should be familiar with trees, planning, plan review, City process, and permit applications and should prepare the staff report for the oversight body.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 109 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Enforce tree protections
Enforcement of tree protection policies is crucial to the success of the ordinance. Many cities struggle with how best to enforce a tree preservation ordinance. These struggles can arise from a lack of public education on how to follow the policies, processes that are difficult for applicants or staff to follow, or when enforcement capacity is lacking.

Pleasanton provides an example of a successful, comprehensive enforcement strategy. Information posted online is accurate, clear, and easy to follow. Staffing of the urban forestry group meets the needs of the City, and code enforcement assists with writing citations which lead to penalties. Code enforcement citations have led to violators being charged the maximum penalty ($5,000), which has had the impact of dissuading future violations.

Currently, East Palo Alto code enforcement staff write citations for violations to the tree ordinance only if they are reported by community members.

Shifting code enforcement staffing such that some hours are spent checking for violations over the weekend would help identify and reduce illegal tree removals on the weekend. Additionally, we recommend that there be a dedicated line and email address for community members to call or email to report a violation. Increased enforcement should be coupled with a robust community information program and enhanced educational materials to ensure that community members are aware of the protections in place and the penalties for unpermitted removal of a protected tree (see Action 7). (left) Former Mayor Regina Wallace Jones and her ceremonial tree MLK Day 2020. (right) Former mayor Carlos Romero planted a Silver Linden (Tilia tomentosa) on MLK Day 2021. Photos: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 110 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Action 6. Seek opportunities for additional funding
Canopy has partnered with the City to seek and raise funding for forestryrelated projects in East Palo Alto, including a tree inventory grant, numerous tree planting grants, and funding for the development of this Urban Forest Master Plan, all from Cal Fire. The City could seek additional funding for forestry-related projects, specifically for education programs. Grant funds can offset costs for new program initiatives.

Cal Fire is not the only agency that disseminates grant funds. Funding is available through the federal government in the form of the EJ4 Climate grant program which seeks “to foster climate resilience by improving the capacity of communities to prepare for, withstand, respond to, and recover from hazardous events or disturbances related to climate change, which poses risks to human health, the environment, cultural resources, the economy, and quality of life.” Growth and maintenance of the urban forest can be considered an important component of climate resilience, as trees provide services such as heat mitigation and carbon storage. Private foundations can also provide funding for tree-related programs in underserved communities facing major threats from climate change, such as East Palo Alto.

Applying for funding for these programs requires staff time to seek opportunities and to coordinate efforts to carry projects from application to completion. It is fair to say that the greater the investment in staffing, the greater the outcomes in funding are likely to be. The City has been successful in partnering with nonprofits and non-governmental organizations. However, implementation of grants regardless of who the applicant is will result in additional need for staffing resources.

Key Points
• Identify opportunities to obtain additional funding to support urban forestry programs

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 111 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Objective 3: Connect with the community
around tree stewardship.

Action 7. Design a cohesive and inclusive public outreach program focused on building awareness of the benefits of trees and how and why trees are protected in the City
Community survey results showed less than half of respondents knew that the City protects trees on private and public property. During the public outreach process, community members repeatedly expressed concern over a lack of culturally sensitive materials and a lack of materials available in common languages spoken in the community. These statistics show the need for a Cityled outreach campaign to increase awareness of and engagement with the urban forestry program.

A more robust education and outreach program is essential to increasing the community participation needed to reach tree canopy cover goals and to enforce laws that protect trees while also creating an inclusive city that celebrates diversity. Most trees in the city, as well as most opportunities for additional tree planting, are on private property, making private residents a key partner in growing and stewarding the urban forest.

Key Points
• Engage with local community groups in urban forest stewardship activities • Partner with Canopy to identify opportunities to expand current community outreach programs
• Provide up-to-date information about tree protections and management on the City website
• Translate tree information into common non-English languages spoken in East Palo Alto
• Designate a forum for the public to engage with tree management and protection actions
• Identify ways for the City to celebrate trees

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 112 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
What does a more robust program look like for East Palo Alto? The City could take a four part approach:

1. Engage with active community groups,

2. Enhance informational materials,

3. Create a public forum for community members to be heard on tree issues, and

4. Find ways to celebrate trees.

Engage with community groups
Canopy is currently leading several community programs, including most of the tree planting work occurring in East Palo Alto. As a part of tree planting efforts, Canopy initiated a “tree champions” program, which community members and Canopy staff report has been incredibly successful. Tree champions are residents who are excited about tree planting, who can lead the way and reach out to their neighbors about receiving free trees. These volunteers are involved in planning planting events and recruiting local volunteers. As residents sign up to receive trees, Canopy’s trained staff or volunteers visit each home to conduct a site assessment and work directly with each resident to select appropriate planting sites and tree species, coordinate planting day logistics, and offer follow-up tree care information.

Additionally, Canopy is already running and could expand Youth-Led Community Engagement Days and Community Surveys, through a paid internship program with East Palo Alto youth (the Teen Urban Foresters, or TUFs, program). Canopy’s paid teen interns design and lead two community engagement days per year, with a goal of gathering survey responses from residents and building greater presence and trust in the community.

Massaging a root ball before planting prevents girdling roots. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 113 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Canopy is a valuable partner for East Palo Alto. The City should seek to enhance and grow this partnership. However, the City should also look for opportunities to develop new partnerships with other local organizations. The following groups are essential points of contact for the City:
• Anamatangi Polynesian Voices
• Canopy
• Climate Resilient Communities
• East Palo Alto Community Alliance and Neighborhood Development Organization (EPACANDO)
• El Comite
• Ecumenical Hunger Program
• Faith communities & churches
• Fresh Approach
• Nuestra Casa
• Ravenswood School District
• Ravenswood Business District
• Youth United for Community Action (YUCA)
Providing information to and at community gatherings where these organizations are meeting with staff who are well versed on tree protections and tree canopy goals is an effective strategy to build trust and take action on tree canopy goals. It is an opportunity to educate the community on the benefits of trees, how and why trees are protected, and the role individuals can play in building the urban forest. These opportunities were highlighted by the faith community, whose Sunday services are very well attended. For example, if an East Palo Alto staff member or volunteer were to speak at Sunday services about the need for planting, care and maintenance of trees, and how and when they are protected, this information could reach thousands of residents.

Additionally, there is an opportunity to work with Canopy to host educational opportunities for contractors and landscapers (people who perform work within the dripline of a tree or on a tree) on tree care, the importance of planting, and best management practices. These programs could be designed to be low or no cost to residents. Workshops for community members and landscape professionals on pruning techniques and tree care could be offered by the City in conjunction with Canopy and/or the Cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto with the goal of raising the level of tree care in the area.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 114 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Enhance informational materials
The materials currently available online to provide community members with information about trees and tree protections are lacking. The City website hosts one document pertaining to the tree protection ordinance, which directs community members on how and when trees are protected, how to obtain the necessary materials needed for tree preservation, and how to apply for a tree removal permit. However, the content of this document is different from the body of the tree protection ordinance in Chapter 18.28, and should be corrected to reflect accurate information. Additionally, the document is only available in English. Languages commonly spoken by East Palo Alto residents include Spanish, Tongan, and Samonan. Translating all materials into these languages is crucial for the success of any public outreach campaign.

Information on City trees, the benefits of trees, and the tree preservation ordinances deserves a full webpage on the City website. This page should have information on whom to contact about public tree maintenance and policies, best management practices, tree protection policies, general tree care information, and links to request tree planting from Canopy. The page should also host this Urban Forest Master Plan and any updates on its implementation after adoption. The website should be translated into the common languages spoken in East Palo Alto. Any old materials with inaccurate information should be removed. In the future, content could be added to further engage with website visitors, such as videos in which staff describe the processes of the tree protection ordinance or how to avoid damaging tree pruning practices.

Designate a public forum for tree issues
At community meetings, community members expressed frustration with the lack of opportunities to engage with the City around tree care and protection.

These frustrations reflected a lack of communication between the City and the community.

The urban forest management program needs a forum for the public to engage with the City regarding tree issues. The success of the program hinges on how effective it is in reflecting the interests and values of the community.

The forum can take the form of a tree board, or a select standing committee with administrative functions such as setting goals, developing policies, and evaluating the success of the program.

One way the interests of the community could lend support and exercise their voice is through the private tree removal permit appeals process. In other cities, public participation is achieved through tree removal permit appeal review and adjudication by the Planning Commission (Atherton) or another advisory board such as a Beautification Advisory Commission (Vallejo) or Heritage Tree Board of Appeals (Pleasanton).

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 115 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
The recommended revisions to the private tree protection ordinance (Action 5) include designating a public body to review tree removal applications as well as any appeals that arise. This body could also serve as a place where community members can voice their concerns and learn about community planting efforts.

Celebrate trees!
Canopy hosts an Arbor Day celebration annually in East Palo Alto. Expanding on this event and adding other tree planting and tree education days to the City calendar will demonstrate the City’s commitment to trees. These events don’t have to be focused on trees alone, but could also take the form of having a staff person attend a block party or asking Canopy to do a tree planting demonstration at another City function.

Trees are a great conversation starter. Trees are important to the residents of East Palo Alto and can provide a pathway to a more engaged community.

Ravenswood City School District Superintendent Gina Sudaria with Costaño Elementary students. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 116 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Action 8. Become a Tree City USA
Community members felt a lack of commitment to the urban forest from the City and wished to see the community more strongly protect and grow trees.

In addition to clearly identifying responsibilities and procedures for stewarding public trees within the municipal code, the City should also find ways to show leadership in urban forest stewardship and set an example for the community.

One of the most effective ways for a community to show a dedication to trees is to become a Tree City USA. This program, run by the Arbor Day Foundation, recognizes cities across the country which are investing in and stewarding their urban forests. Most cities near East Palo Alto have acquired Tree City USA status, including Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, Atherton, Newark, and Fremont.

Four requirements must be met for the City to become a Tree City USA:
• Form a tree board or urban forestry department
• Create a tree care ordinance
• Have a community forestry program with an annual budget of no less than $2 per capita
• Observe Arbor Day
The City would submit an application showing that they meet the qualifications above by the annual deadline each year in order to be approved.

The four requirements to become a Tree City USA will be met if the recommendations from Actions 4, 5, and 7 are followed.

Key Points
• Following guidance in Action 4, update the public tree ordinance to set standards of care
• Following guidance in Actions 5 and 7, designate or create a public body to review tree removal applications and appeals and to serve as a public forum for treerelated issues • Following guidance in Action 7, plan celebratory activities for Arbor Day

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 117 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Form a tree board or urban forestry department
Arbor Day recommends establishing a tree board or urban forestry department in order to clearly assign responsibility and accountability for tree work conducted in a city. Currently, the Public Works maintenance division is responsible for tree care, with no designated urban forestry department. If the public tree ordinance is updated to designate the division currently responsible for urban forestry management as an “Urban Forestry” section, then the City will be able to meet this qualification. No change is needed to the work performed.

Additionally, Action 5 of this Plan includes a recommendation for revising the tree protection appeals process, and Action 7 recommends using the forum for this appeals process as an opportunity for public dialogue and oversight of urban forestry activities in the city. Designating a public body such as the Planning Commission to handle all tree-related issues and to serve as a public forum for engagement with urban forestry issues would also meet this requirement.

Create a tree care ordinance
To become a Tree City USA, East Palo Alto will need to update both the public tree ordinance and the private tree ordinance to set tree care standards for trees on public and private property, as described in Actions 4 and 5.

Community forestry program budget
The current tree maintenance budget is about $120,000 annually for contracted tree care operations, plus approximately $30,000 per year for City staff time.

The dollars already budgeted more than meet the requirement for $2 dollars per capita on tree care, or roughly $60,000.

Arbor Day celebration
An annual Arbor Day Proclamation is required for the City to qualify as a Tree City. In Action 7, we recommend holding an Arbor Day celebration as a way to positively connect with the local community around trees. Since 2006, Canopy has hosted tree planting events with the City. These events are publicized through the City and in many cases have been recognized as Arbor Day celebrations. These events can be held by Canopy and/or in conjunction with Canopy, continuing the current practice.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 118 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
Next Steps
The development of this Urban Forest Master Plan is an important step to evaluate where the City is now and how it can work to grow the urban forest. While ideally the City will pursue all actions described above, constraints of budget, time, and staffing will make some actions simpler and faster to achieve than others. The City should regularly revisit this Plan and evaluate progress against the suggested actions. Review should take place as a part of the budget process. Progress will require an investment, but the long term benefits of trees in the City will be realized over time, moving East Palo Alto closer to the community vision of a greener and more resilient future.

Fr. Goode, Mayor Abrica, Assemblymember Marc Berman, and other members of the community at the 2018 MLK Day of Service tree planting at Rich May Memorial Field. Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 119 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
References
Berland, A., Shiflett, S. A., Shuster, W. D., Garmestani, A. S., Goddard, H. C., Herrmann, D. L., & Hopton, M. E. (2017). The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 162, 167–177. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.017
City of East Palo Alto. Title 12, Chapter 12.16 - Cutting And Trimming Trees On City Streets And Public Places. Retrieved January 25, 2022 from https://library.municode.com/ca/east_palo_alto/codes/code_of_ ordinances?nodeId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.16CUTRTRSTPUPL
City of East Palo Alto. Title 13, Chapter 13.24, Article VII. Section 13.24.410 - Street trees. Retrieved January 25, 2022 from https://library.municode.com/ca/ east_palo_alto/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT13PUSE_CH13.24WASY_ ARTVIILAIRST_13.24.410STTR
City of East Palo Alto. Title 13, Chapter 13.24, Article VII. Section 13.24.430 - Parking areas. Retrieved January 25, 2022 from https://library.municode. com/ca/east_palo_alto/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT13PUSE_ CH13.24WASY_ARTVIILAIRST_13.24.430PAAR
City of East Palo Alto. Title 18, Chapter 18.28 - Landscaping and Trees. Retrieved January 25, 2022 from https://library.municode.com/ca/east_palo_alto/ codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=EAPAALDECO2018EDCUORNO09- 2020ADDE152020_TIT18DECO_ART3REAPALZO_CH18.28LATR
City of Pleasanton. (2020). City of Pleasanton Shade Tree Guidelines for Commercial Properties. Retrieved January 19, 2022 from http://www. cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34981 Dahlhausen, J., Biber, P., Rötzer, T., Uhl, E., & Pretzsch, H. (2016). Tree species and their space requirements in six urban environments worldwide. Forests, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/f7060111
International Code Council. (2019). 2019 California Green Building Standards Code California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. ISBN: 978-1-60983-895-9 Lu, J. W. T., Svendsen, E. S., Campbell, L. K., Greenfeld, J., Braden, J., King, K. L., & Falxa-Raymond, N. (2010). Biological, social, and urban design factors affecting young street tree mortality in New York City. Cities and the Environment, 3(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1201/b21179-13
McPherson, E. G., & Muchnick, J. (2005). Effects of Shade on Pavement Performance. Journal of Arboriculture, 31(6), 303–310.

Mullaney, J., Lucke, T., & Trueman, S. J. (2015). A review of benefits and challenges in growing street trees in paved urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.013

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related 120 • EAST PALO ALTO • Strategy and Action Plan
North, E. A., D’Amato, A. W., & Russell, M. B. (2018). Performance metrics for street and park trees in urban forests. Journal of Forestry, 116(6), 547–554. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvy049
Sanders, J. R., & Grabosky, J. C. (2014). 20 years later: Does reduced soil area change overall tree growth? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 13(2), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.12.006
Scott, K. I., Simpson, J. R., & McPherson, E. G. (1999). Effects of tree cover on parking lot microclimate and vehicle emissions. Journal of Arboriculture. 25(3), 129-142.

Vogt, J., Hauer, R. J., & Fischer, B. C. (2015). The costs of maintaining and not maintaining the urban forest: a review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 41(6), 293–323.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Stormwater Trees Technical Memorandum. Tetra Tech, Inc. Retrieved September 20, 2021 from https://www. epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/final_stormwater_trees_ technical_memo_508.pdf

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Arbor Day: Information on the Tree City
USA program. https://www.arborday.org/
programs/treecityusa/
Canopy: Local information on tree
planting and care, access to events,
tree planting opportunities, and other
resources. https://canopy.org/
California ReLeaf: Statewide program
support community urban forestry,
resources for grants, programs, and
information.
https://californiareleaf.org/
International Society of Arboriculture:

Tree care materials and resources. https://
www.treesaregood.org/treeowner
SelecTree: Online tool to identify
and search for trees with particular
characteristics, to support tree planting.
https://selectree.calpoly.edu/
Shade Tree Guidelines, Example from
City of Pleasanton: http://www.
cityofpleasantonca.gov/documents/
landscape/Shade%20Tree%20
Guidelines%20for%20Commercial%20
Developments%202020.pdf
Tree Care Information (in Spanish): Tree
care information and resources from the
International Society of Arboriculture
available in Spanish. https://www.
treesaregood.org/treeowner/spanish

RESOURCES
When we plant trees, we plant the seeds of peace and the seeds of hope. Wangari Maathai, 1940-2011.

Photo: Canopy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: East Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, draft (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Amendments to Related Key Discussion Points from the November 16, 2021 City Council Meeting The following summarizes outstanding questions from City Council and provides responses:

1. What all is included in the City’s urban forestry program? Who is responsible for this work?
➢ The program includes planting, maintenance, and removal of public trees, and review of applications to remove private protected trees. This work is accomplished by a combination of City staff in the Planning and Public Works departments, Canopy staff and volunteers, and contracted tree care services.

In addition, the future program will ideally include more outreach and engagement around tree care and protection issues.

2. Council agreed that the City should take responsibility for maintaining public trees, rather than having private property owners take on responsibilities. The main concern was whether City staff can manage the increased workload, and what the overall staffing and budget implications of the recommendations add up to? ➢ City staff suggest hiring an on-call arborist to supplement City staff capacity and lack of this expertise on staff.
➢ After surveying other cities in San Mateo County, most other cities that didn’t have an in-house arborist who does both plan review, as well as site inspections, suggested hiring a consultant that could be on-call and billed directly to the private property owner.
➢ For tree removal permits and landscaping plans for larger developments, we could consider asking the applicant to hire a certified arborist and provide a report to the City (almost like an affidavit) that states that the project landscape plans conforms to our UFMP and Development Code.

3. The City used to have a staff member in the Planning Department who had an arborist certification. What is the cost and feasibility of training up existing staff to have the appropriate expertise?
➢ City staff education on tree care issues and standards is common - 79% of cities nationally that are similar in size to East Palo Alto have staff attend tree care workshops, and 60% have an ISA certified arborist on staff (via Hauer & Peterson, 2016, Municipal Tree Care and Management in the United States:

A 2014 Urban & Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities). Some education and training of current City staff is needed to ensure understanding of the protections and responsibilities included in the tree ordinances, though it would likely be less efficient for the City to train existing staff in arboriculture

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Key Discussion Points from the November 2021 City Council meeting (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and than to hire a staff arborist or work with a qualified consultant. Investing in a certification for existing staff leaves the City open to losing access to this expertise if the staff member chooses to leave, as happened previously.

4. If the City doesn’t have an arborist on staff, who can help with questions and with the urban forestry workplan?
➢ The City could include consulting services in the current pruning contract to ensure expert review is available when City staff have a question about tree removal permit approvals or workplan details. Alternatively, the City could pursue a small contract or other relationship with an arborist independent of the pruning contract.

5. Does the City’s urban forestry budget include funds for sidewalk repair related to tree root damage?
➢ No not currently. The Public Works Department is taking into account repairs and maintenance in the public right-of-way, and things like creating a grid pruning schedule will help avoid the overgrowing of some public street trees that up root the sidewalk.

6. There are already three ordinances related to tree maintenance and protection in the city, and there is confusion about them. How will this process improve the current situation?
➢ In response to this concern, we propose combining two of the ordinances pertaining to public trees into a single ordinance, and expanding each of the ordinances to include all important components.

7. How would parking lot shading requirements apply and how would they impact existing parking lots?
➢ The proposed ordinance language in Chapter 18.30.090 will help refine parking lot design standards with the addition of a new section (under “D” Landscaping), added to cover Parking lot shade. This new part will be revised to read: “4) Parking lot shade. No less than 50% of a paved parking lot shall be shaded with tree canopies within 15 years of obtaining a building permit or certificate of occupancy.” Further specifications on the plantings are outlined in the proposed ordinance update. These provisions would not apply retroactively, and would be implemented during the design review process.

8. The current tree protection ordinance does not seem to be well followed or enforced.

Could the City shift resources to allow for code enforcement on the weekends? Could the City educate police officers such that they can record any tree ordinance

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Key Discussion Points from the November 2021 City Council meeting (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and violations they observe on the weekends and report it to the code enforcement office?
➢ Shifting code enforcement to weekends is a promising approach to reduce violations of the tree protection ordinance. This will require staff to evaluate available overtime for code enforcement officers and how other priorities beyond trees should be addressed during this weekend enforcement time.

One option is to set a private, rotating schedule for enforcement on select weekends to reduce the total number of hours required while increasing enforcement.
➢ In our experience and research, use of police officers to enforce tree protection policies has not been successful in other communities. Police are generally focused on crime, not on tree issues. Additionally, in many places officers have an adversarial relationship with community members, which leads to a lack of trust and degrades the community relationship with the City, an issue the project team is working to resolve with this project. ➢ We do not support the use of police officers for assistance with tree related issues. The project team recommends increasing code enforcement staffing or increasing staff capacity to write citations for tree related issues on weekends and during the week. Additionally, we recommend that there be a dedicated line and email address for community members to call or email to report a violation.
➢ Before enforcement can increase, a community engagement effort is needed to ensure that community members are aware of the protections in place through the current or revised tree protection ordinance. Accurate information should be readily available through the City website.

9. How can the community get involved in tree planting efforts? ➢ Canopy is currently involved in tree planting in East Palo Alto, and works with volunteers to plant trees locally. Community members can volunteer, or can sign up to receive a tree to plant on their property via the Canopy website:
https://canopy.org/our-work/tree-planting/branching-out/

10.Is becoming a Tree City USA something the City can afford to prioritize given limited resources? Planting and maintenance of trees could be a better priority right now, without adding additional administrative burden.
➢ The requirements for becoming a Tree City USA will be met if other recommendations are followed, without needing substantial additional action or investment. Therefore, we see obtaining this designation as a good option for the City to show a commitment to the urban forest.

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Key Discussion Points from the November 2021 City Council meeting (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and ■ Standard 1 - A Tree Board Or Department. The recommended updates to the public tree ordinance will designate responsibility for public trees as held by the Department of Public Works, meeting this requirement.

A tree board would be an additional, but optional, action. ■ Standard 2 - A Tree Care Ordinance. The recommended updates to the public tree ordinance will set standards of care.
■ Standard 3 - A Community Forestry Program With an Annual Budget of at Least $2 Per Capita. The current budget is already sufficient. ■ Standard 4 - An Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation. An Arbor Day proclamation can be issued to note activities already conducted with Canopy.
➢ Applying to become a Tree City USA and maintaining this status is not expected to take very much staff time. We would expect a needed 40 hours per year to gather and report out on tree care and removal information, fill out required forms, and coordinate with the program.
➢ It may be most appropriate to adopt changes to the urban forestry program over the next year, and then re-evaluate at that time whether the City wishes to pursue Tree City USA status in recognition of its work.

11.What does forming a tree board mean? Could it be part of an existing public body, how much time would it take, and what are the requirements? Who would be part of these meetings and when would they happen?
➢ ArborDay defines this requirement for becoming a Tree City USA as follows:
■ “STANDARD 1: A Tree Board or Department
Someone must be legally responsible for the care of all trees on city- or town-owned property. By delegating tree care decisions to a professional forester, arborist, city department, citizen-led tree board or some combination, city leaders determine who will perform necessary tree work. The public will also know who is accountable for decisions that impact community trees. Often, both professional staff and an advisory tree board are established, which is a good goal for most communities.

The formation of a tree board often stems from a group of citizens.

In some cases a mayor or city officials have started the process.

Either way, the benefits are immense. Involving residents and business owners creates wide awareness of what trees do for the community and provides broad support for better tree care.” ➢ The proposed hearings and appeals processes recommended in the revised ordinance text designates the Director’s Hearing as a forum for sharing treerelated information and issues with the public. It also designates Planning

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Key Discussion Points from the November 2021 City Council meeting (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Commission as the body responsible for hearing appeals of the Director’s decision. Director’s Hearings would be an additional meeting to plan and schedule, but would occur only when requested. Over the first year of implementing these changes the City will be able to evaluate their impact on staff time and make any adjustments necessary. At this time, it is unknown how often tree removal permit applications will be appealed or questioned, triggering these meetings.

12.The City is working to address issues about water security and flooding, which should be recognized in the Plan. First reach has been completed to protect the Gardens area. Purchased rights from Mountain View and Palo Alto gave rights for water, and have access to well water. The City does have enough water. ➢ We have added text in Chapter 2 to address the City’s work on sea wall construction to address flood risk, and on water rights and options to address future water availability.

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Key Discussion Points from the November 2021 City Council meeting (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban Forest Master Plan and Palo Alto Menlo Park San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo South San Francisco Vallejo Hayward Berkeley Richmond Atherton San Pablo Ordinance MC Chapter 8.10 Tree
Preservation and Management Regulations
Current HTO implimented 7/1/2021. Street Tree Ord. Implimented 2006 Municipal Code Chapter 8.24.090
Municipal Code Chapter 18.18.020
Protected Tree Ordinance MC 13.40
Municipal Code Chapter 13.30
Municipal Code Chapter 10.12 Trees
MC Chapter 10 Article 15 Tree Preservation
BMC Chapter 12.44 Trees and Shrubs
MC Chapter 10.08 Trimming, Pruing, Care, Planting, Removal and Moving of Trees Shrubs or Plants Chapter 8.10 Removal and Damage to Heritage Trees
Chapter 12.16 Trees, Shribs and Plants in Public Places Authority approval Urban Forester (Public
Works)
Director Director Director Director Director Director Landscape Architect City Manager or his designee
Superintendent (Recreation and Parks Director)
Planning commission appealed to city council. Inspection report required if tree is reported to be dead or dangerous. 3 or fewer trees require zoning administrator's approval. 4 or more require planning commission design review.

Application fee Yes, a filing fee $145
($125 application fee $20 records mgmt)
$210 per tree Tree removal fee: $105;
tree replacement deposit: $415
$210 processing fee; $500 initial deposit fee
Tree work on privately owned heritage tree is $100; tree removal requires an additional refundable tree replant deposit of $483 - $740 $107 per tree; $350 refundable planting deposit required for each tree removal $52 $490 No fee No fee The fee is $261 for the first
tree and $103 for each additional tree, for the staff review level of effort. The fee is refunded for dead trees. The planning cost is $2,100.
$621
Appeals process Yes --> Urban Forestry. Final authority is the City Council based on reccomendation by staff and Enviornmental Quality Commision.

Community Services Director
Planning Commission Planning Director Parks and Recreation Commission
Beautification advisory commission.

Planning Director. No. City Council Planning commission decision may be appealed to the city council.

DC decision may be appealed to CC
On-call arborist Yes Yes Unknown Yes Yes Unknown No No Yes No PW & Planning share an arborist
Unknown

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Benchmarking Summary of Approvals Appeals and Fees (2212 : Adoption of the Final Urban

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Patrick Heisinger, Assistant City Manager
Greg Henry, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution adopting the Comprehensive Fee Schedule to become effective July 1, 2022.

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

Priority No. 2: Enhance Economic Vitality
Priority No. 3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Priority No. 5: Improve Communication and Enhance Community Engagement Background
Cities collect user and regulatory fees and charges at rates generally intended to recover costs associated with the related City services and oversight; including building, planning, public works, regulatory oversight, and community and administrative services. The City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule discloses fees charged for the following purposes:

User/Regulatory fees are charged by the City to the public for a service-related or regulated activity. User-fees are developed for specified services provided or required due to the request or action of an individual/entity, while regulatory fees are those charged to recover costs associated with the City’s power to govern certain activities, such as building code or environmental compliance.

User and regulatory fees for services and activities are imposed by California municipalities through provisions of the State Constitution. Cities may perform broad activities related to local policing power and other service authority as defined in California Constitution Article XI,

8.2 Packet Pg. 245
Sections 7 and 9. Cities also establish fees for service through the framework defined in Article XIIIC, Section 1. Under Article XIIIC, §1 fees for service may not exceed the estimated, reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the activity. Fees must relate to a service or activity under the control of the individual/entity on which the fee is imposed.

Development Impact fees are collected by the City to fund capital infrastructure project costs attributable development impacts. These development impact fees are typically due at the time of building permit issuance.

The purpose of these fees is to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project. The legal requirements for enactment of an impact fee program are set forth in Government Code Sections §66000 - 66025 (the "Mitigation Fee Act"). The Mitigation Fee Act is commonly referred as “AB 1600”.

Primarily, a local government bears the burden of proving that a levy, charge, or other fee is not a tax, and that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity.

In July 2020, the City Council passed Resolution No. 108-2020 adopting the first major revision of the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, effective September 20,2020. The Fee Schedule was first adopted in 2012 with minor amendments, including periodic adjustments for inflation, and minor changes to parks, recreation, and housing fees.

Development impact fees are studied and adopted separately from user and regulatory fees and are generally amended annually by the change in a “construction cost index” or CCI.

On April 20, 2021, the City Council passed Resolution No. 60-2021 revising the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, effective July 1, 2021. This update was mostly to adjust for inflation.

Analysis – User and Regulatory Fee Update
Independent fee studies are costly and time-consuming. In the interim periods between comprehensive studies, staff recommends the City review and compare regional price change indicators (i.e., consumer price index) to relevant General Fund cost changes to support cost updates and changes in user and regulatory fees on an annual basis.

Staff recommends the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CA, CPI-U twelve-month as the regional price change indicator. The February 2021, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CA, CPI-U is 5.2%, and staff is recommending the Council increase most user and regulatory fees by this amount, with the following fees excepted:
• Photocopy Fees
• Ellis Act Withdrawn Property Administrative Fee
• Returned Check Fees
• Overdue Invoice Fee
• Business License – First Time Application Fee
• Repossession Verification Fee
• Proof of Correction Citation

8.2 Packet Pg. 246
• Clearance Letter
Planning Fee Changes
The Planning Division is requesting minor changes and additions to certain planning fees.

New Fees (each are hourly at $308/hr):
• Initial SB 35 Pre-Application (hourly, 5 hr. minimum) o Explanation: SB 35 requires cities to quickly approve multi-family or mixed-use developments that meet objective zoning standards using only a ministerial review process.
o Reason: Fee is not provided in Fee Schedule for preliminary review for SB 35 projects, which are otherwise exempt from planning entitlements. o Staff Activity: Thorough review of complex applications, including coordination with other departments and outside agencies, similar to entitlement review process. Following the review, staff would issue a letter that would authorize the submittal of a building permit if deemed eligible.
• Initial Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (hourly, 2 hr. minimum) o Explanation: Consistent with the Municipal Code, new ADUs are required to obtain a zoning clearance to determine compliance with the Municipal Code and to deem eligibility to submit a building permit.
o Reason: There is no fee identified for the ADU Zoning Clearance Process. It takes staff approximately 2 hours to process a zoning clearance for ADUs.

Approval of the fee will facilitate the process.
o Staff Activity: Thorough review of complex applications, including coordination with other departments and outside agencies, similar to entitlement review process. Following the review, staff would issue a letter that would authorize the submittal of a building permit if deemed eligible.
• Zoning Clearance – Initial Administrative Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (hourly, 2 hr. minimum)
o Explanation: Consistent with the Municipal Code, new ADUs are required to obtain a zoning clearance to determine compliance with the Municipal Code and to deem eligibility to submit a building permit.
o Reason: There is no fee identified for the ADU Zoning Clearance Process. It takes staff approximately 2 hours to process a zoning clearance for ADUs.

Approval of the fee will facilitate the process.
o Staff Activity: The fee will enable staff to review proposed ADUs for compliance with the Municipal Code.
• Zoning Clearance – Additional Administrative Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (hourly, 2 hr. minimum)
o Explanation: Consistent with the Municipal Code, new ADUs are required to obtain a zoning clearance to determine compliance with the Municipal Code and to deem eligibility to submit a building permit.
o Reason: There is no fee identified for the ADU Zoning Clearance Process. It takes staff approximately 2 hours to process a zoning clearance for ADUs.

Approval of the fee will facilitate the process.

8.2 Packet Pg. 247
o Staff Activity: The fee will enable staff to review proposed ADUs for compliance with the Municipal Code.
• Zoning Clearance – SB9 (hourly, 3 hr. minimum)
o Explanation: SB 9 is a new state law that requires ministerial review for the certain types of development in the RLD zoning district. The State requires ministerial review for proposals be developed with two units and to be subdivided into two parcels, irrespective of local standards. In short, the law allows for two new types of development activities that must be reviewed ministerially without any discretionary action or public input.
o Reason: There is no fee identified for the Zoning Clearance Process. It takes staff at least 3 hours to process a zoning clearance. Approval of the fee will facilitate the process.
o Staff Activity: The fee will enable staff to review proposed developments otherwise exempt from planning entitlements for compliance with the Municipal Code.

Fee Updates:
• Appeal to the City Council – Update from current fee of $4,831 to $8,394 o Explanation: The purpose of this fee is to pay for staff time to prepare a project for a hearing for the appeal of a permit in front of the City Council. Based on a recent appeal for the Glory Mobilehome park, the $4,831 was not adequate to fund the work.
o Reason: The process for a City Council appeal is identical to the process for the Planning Commission review. So, it is proposed to make the fee the same.

Analysis – Development Impact Fees Update
In accordance with authorizing resolutions and ordinances for the development impact fees listed in the table below, staff is proposing an annual cost change to update impact fees based upon the reference price index indicator – in this case the Construction Cost Index (CCI). The impact fees, as increased by current year CCI, are incorporated as a separate chapter of the City Comprehensive Fee Schedule.

Resolution 108-2020, adopted July 30, 2020, increased the City’s impact fees by 1.6% in accordance with the April 13, 2020 CCI published by Engineering News Record.

Resolution 60-2021, adopted April 30, 2021, increased the City’s impact fees by 3.1% in accordance with the March 2021 CCI published by Engineering News Record.

Staff are recommending an 8.9% increase for FY 2022-23 in accordance with the March 2022 CCI published by Engineering News Record. The following table reflects the referenced authorizing code and resolutions:

8.2 Packet Pg. 248
Fee Type
Authorizing
Municipal
Code
Authorizing Fee
Setting and
Annual Increase
Parks & Trails

13.28.040 Reso - 5093 &
MC – 13 .28.100
Public Facilities
Storm Drainage:

Inside Ravenswood Business District
Outside Ravenswood Business District
Transportation
Water Capacity 13.24.100 Reso – 5004
Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage 18.40.010 Reso – 118-2020 Fiscal Impact
User and service fee revenues are expected to increase per 5.2% per activity across most divisions and programs. Impact fees will increase 8.9%, if collected.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this agenda item by publishing a notice of the hearing dates in the “San Mato County News” on April 9th and April 14th, sending notice to the Building Industry Association, and posting the proposed Comprehensive Fee Schedule update on the City website.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022

8.2 Packet Pg. 249
1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. – 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022 WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto (“City”) periodically modifies its Comprehensive Fee Schedule to account for program changes and other costs, ensure existing fees and charges do not exceed the costs of service, and re-align fees with desired cost recovery policies; and WHEREAS, the user and regulatory fee changes incorporated herein do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services in accordance with Government Code sections 66013 and 66014; and
WHEREAS, the user and regulatory fee changes may be increased annually in order to maintain parity with increasing City costs; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Trails, Public Facilities, Storm Drainage, and Transportation Infrastructure Impact fees authorized by East Palo Alto Municipal Code (”EPAMC”) Section 13.28.040, the Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage fees authorized by Section 18.40.010, and the Water Capacity fees authorized by Section 13.24.100 are stated to be increased annually “by a percentage equal to the change in the Construction Cost Index as more recently published by the Engineering News Record” and such fees are incorporated as a separate chapter of the Comprehensive Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Construction Cost Index increase provided by the March 2022 Engineering News Record equals 8.9% and is applied to the impact fees referenced in EPAMC Sections 13.28.040 and 13.24.100; and
WHEREAS, the February San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CA, CPI-U equals 5.2% and is applied to the user and regulatory fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on April 19, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the referenced changes are in the interest of the City and are necessary to recover the costs of providing various municipal services, regulatory functions, and development impacts.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Resolution (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) 2 of 2

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY adopts the Comprehensive Fee Schedule, as set forth as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, to be become effective July 1, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, Acting City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, Interim City Attorney

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Resolution (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) Exhibit A

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Comprehensive Fee
Schedule
Effective
July 1, 2022

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Miscellaneous Fees
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit

MISCELLANEOUS FEES
1 Photocopy [1]

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

8.5" x 11" (color single side) each $0.25
2 Ellis Act Withdrawn Property Administrative Fee
Per Unit
Application
Units
$405
[Notes]
[1] Includes copies, traffic police reports.

City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Miscellaneous, Page 3 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Finance Department
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit

FINANCE FEES
1 Checks Returned by Bank or Financial Institution Due to Insufficient Funds per check [1]
First Returned Check $25
Each Additional Check $35
2 Overdue Invoices [2]
$10 or 10% per
annum,
whichever is
greater
3 Business License - First Time License Application Fee each $35 [Notes]
[1] Fee amount set by State. First returned check: $25, each additional: $35. [2]
Unless otherwise specified in the City of East Palo Alto's Municipal Code, $10 or 10% per annum, whichever is greater; An invoice becomes delinquent one (1) business day following the due date.

City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Finance, Page 4 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Planning Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
PLANNING FEES [1]
1 Pre-Application Fees
Hourly Pre-Application (1 hr. minimum) per hour $308
Pre-Application Services for Projects Subject to
City's Pre-Application Ordinance deposit [8] $10,781
Hourly SB 35 Pre-Application (5 hr. minimum) per hour $308 2 Appeals
Appeals to City Council
(if initiated by City Council - no charge) each $8,394
Appeals to Planning Commission each $8,394
3 Subdivision
Certificate of Compliance each $4,774
Condominium Conversion each [2,8] $37,581
Final Maps (4 lots or less) -
Planning Review of Engineering Application each $4,620
Final Maps (5 - 25 lots) -
Planning Review of Engineering Application each $5,236
Final Maps (>25 lots) -
Planning Review of Engineering Application each $5,853
Lot Line Adjustment each $4,929
Lot Line Merger each $4,929
Tentative Maps (4 lots or less) each [8] $15,402
Tentative Maps (5 - 25 lots) each [8] $21,563
Tentative Maps (>25 lots) deposit [8] $41,893
Tentative Map Extension each [8] $9,241
Tentative Map Modification each [8] $9,857
4 Design Review
Administrative each $4,313
Minor Modification to Conditions each $3,080
Planning Commission Review each $13,862
Garage Conversions / Minor ADR (120 s.f. or less) per hour $308 5 Legislative Actions
General Plan Amendment deposit [8] $20,023
Planned Unit Development deposit [8] $20,023
Zone Change deposit $20,023
Zoning Text Amendment deposit $19,714
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Planning, Page 5 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Planning Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
6 Tree Removal
1-2 trees each $375
3 or more each $802
7 Signage
Master/Common Sign Program each $3,696
Permanent Sign Program (per sign) each $802
Temporary Sign (per sign) each $214
8 Business License
Zoning Review for Business License each $462
9 Use Permit
Extension - SFD each $2,672
Extension - Other than SFD each $8,702
Modifications to Conditions - Major each $9,241
Modifications to Conditions - Minor each $3,080
Public Utility Tower - Major each $11,474
Public Utility Tower - Minor each $3,080
Use Permits each $11,474
Filing Fees - Public Convenience/Necessity Application each [6] $11,474 Temporary Use Permit, 1-6 days in 30 days each $267
Temporary Use Permit, 15-45 Consecutive Days in 1 year each $2,618 Temporary Use Permit, 7-45 Days in 1 Year each $5,545
Temporary Use Permit, 7-45 Days in 1 Year Renewal each $360 Temporary Use Permit, 1 Year Approval each $11,474
Temporary Use Permit, 1 Year Approval Renewal each $1,728 Administrative Use Permit (AUP) each [4] $3,696
10 Zoning Relief
Parking Exception - SFD each $2,672
Parking Exception - Non SFD each $11,474
Variance each $11,474
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Planning, Page 6 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Planning Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
11 Environmental
Categorical Exemption
a) Standard each $1,540
b) Infill/Other
Staff Management & Review each [1] $7,701
Consultant Cost deposit Actual Cost
Initial Study
a) Staff Management & Review each [1] $24,643
b) Consultant Cost deposit Actual Cost
Initial Study - Negative Declaration
a) Staff Management & Review each [1] $24,643
b) Consultant Cost deposit Actual Cost
Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration
a) Staff Management & Review each [1] $24,643
b) Consultant Cost deposit Actual Cost
Environmental Impact Studies (EIR)
a) Staff Management & Review each [1] $9,241
b) EIR Report - Consultant Cost deposit Actual Cost
Mitigation Monitoring - one-time each $3,604
Notice of Determination (NOD) - CEQA Filing each [5] per State 12 Zoning Clearance (Administative Review)
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) per hour $308
NEW - SB 9 (3 hr. minimum) per hour $308
Other Accessory per hour $308
13 Other Administrative Fees
Building Permit Review - Minor Res. Improvement each $647 Building Permit Review - Tenant Improvements each $2,618 Building Permit Review - Addition of s.f. each $2,095
Building Permit Review - New SFD each $1,387
Building Permit Review - New Multifamily each $5,699
Building Permit Review - New Commercial each $5,699
Re-Noticing or Special Noticing each $615
Written Determination by City Planning Manager each $1,540 Research / Document Review each $3,619
Planning Hourly Fee (1 hr. minimum) per hour $308
Address Assignment each $615
Refund Administrative Fee [3] per Policy
Noticing Fee each $615
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Planning, Page 7 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Planning Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
[Notes]
[1]
[2] Refer to Section 7109 of the City Subdivision Regulations. [3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
A surcharge of 25.3% for the General Plan Update also applies. For large projects, the City requires a cost recovery agreement, whereby the fee amount becomes an initial deposit. To determine the initial deposit amount, the City estimates either the required City direct planning labor or has or planning project consultant labor. In these cases, the adopted General Plan Surcharge will be applied one-time to the initial amount of estimated project planning labor hours multiplied by the hourly City planning rate.

At the discretion of the City Planning Manager, multiple permits may be covered by the fee for the highest permit if additional substantial staff time is not required.

Refund shall be calculated as follows:
a) If application has been routed to another division, refund 60% of the permit fee. b) If Planning Commission has been notified or project is considered "complete", refund of 40% of the permit fee.

AUPs will be processed at a staff level, unless written protest is filed, at which point, legal advertisement and public noticing plus staff time to prepare a staff report will be charged to the applicant”.

All fees shall be treated as minimum fees. If service exceeds the minimum fee amount, the Planning Department shall forward a bill for the full amount of the cost to process the permit.

Fee as set by State Fish and Game Department; may be adjusted from time-to-time to reflect State revisions.

This fee shall be waived if processed concurrently with a Use Permit Application.

City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Planning, Page 8 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Engineering Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit

ENGINEERING FEES
1 Grading - Plan Review [1]
< 50 Cubic Yards each $2,678
50 - 100 Cubic Yards each $2,678
101 - 500 Cubic Yards each $5,357
> 501 Cubic Yards deposit [2] $16,070
2 Grading - Inspection
< 50 Cubic Yards each $2,678
50 - 100 Cubic Yards each $4,018
101 - 500 Cubic Yards each $16,070
> 501 Cubic Yards deposit [2] $21,377
3 Public Improvements - Plan Review [1]
$ 10,000 base fee up to
$10,000 $2,678
$ 10,001 base fee at
$10,001 $2,678
each add'l
$10,000 or
fraction thereof
$2,678
$ 50,001 base fee at
$50,000 $13,391
each add'l
$10,000 or
fraction thereof
$1,606
$ 100,001 base fee at
$100,000 $21,426
each add'l
$10,000 or
fraction thereof
$268
$ 500,001 deposit [2] $32,139
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Engineering, Page 9 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Engineering Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
4 Public Improvements - Inspection
$ 10,000 base fee up to
$10,000 $1,339
$ 10,001 base fee at
$10,001 $1,339
each add'l
$10,000 or
fraction thereof
$669
$ 50,001 base fee at
$50,000 $4,018
each add'l
$10,000 or
fraction thereof
$1,875
$ 100,001 base fee at
$100,000 $13,391
each add'l
$10,000 or
fraction thereof
$469
$ 500,001 deposit [2] $32,139
5 Encroachment Permit [1]
Minor Frontage Improvements such as sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway each $482
Utility connections, excavations, potholing each $804
Temporary closure of sidewalk, bike/vehicle lane(s), street each $804 Any other work encroaching into the public right-of-way each $804 Street Cut Fee each $804
6 Encroachment Permit - Other [1]
Debris Box / Temporary Storage per week $1,071
Traffic Control Plan Review per street $1,071
Traffic Control Field Inspection/Monitoring per day $1,071 7 Final Parcel Map / Tract Map
Parcel Map (4 Lots or Less) - City Admin Cost (consultant costs are passed through to applicant) each $4,018
Tract Map (5 or More Lots) - City Admin Cost (consultant costs are passed through to applicant) each $5,357
8 Certificate of Compliance / Street Right-of-Way (ROW) Vacation Certificate of Compliance each $4,018
Street ROW Vacation each $4,018
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Engineering, Page 10 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Engineering Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
9 Transportation Permit
Single Trip per trip $17
Annual yearly $96
10 Administrative Fees
Request for Letter (e.g. Flood Hazard Letter) each $268 Bond Administration and Release each $268
Job Card Replacement each $268
4th and Subsequent Plan Review Fee each $804
Re-inspection Fee each $804
After-Hours Inspection (minimum 4 hours) hourly $302
Planning Application Review / Support [1]
1 Tentative Maps (4 lots or less) each $2,678
2 Tentative Maps (5 lots or more) each $4,018
3 Tentative Map Extension / Modification each $1,339
4 Design Review - Administrative each $1,339
5 Architectural Supervision each $535
6 Second Unit Permit each $535
7 General Plan Amendment each $1,606
8 Planned Unit Development each $4,018
9 Zone Change / Text Amendment each $535
10 Tree Removal Permit each $535
11 Use Permit (all types) each $535
12 Zoning Relief (all types) each $535
13 Initial Study each $1,339
14 EIR each $2,678
15 Mitigation Monitoring (per measure) each $535
16 Hourly Pre-Application each $268
17 Lot Line Adjustment each $4,018
18 Lot Line Merger each $4,018
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Engineering, Page 11 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Engineering Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Building Plan Review / Support [1]
1 Minor Residential Improvement each $322
2 TI (Tenant Improvement) or Addition of square feet each $535 3 New SFD (Single Family Dwelling) each $1,071
4 New Multifamily or Commercial each $2,143
5 Encroachment Permit - Fence each $535
[Notes]
[1] Up to 3 plan review submittals included. Additional Fee will be charged for 4th and subsquent reviews.
[2]
All Public Improvement projects over $500,000 in value or Grading projects larger than 501 cubic yards will be recovered on a deposit and time and materials billing system, per the PW Director's discretion. Overtime rate to be charged in inspections performed after hours, minimum 4 hours.

City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Engineering, Page 12 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Environmental Services Program
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
NPDES
1 BMP Inspection
2,500 to 10,000 square feet each $288
10,001 square feet to 1 acre each $721
1 acre to 5 acres each $2,160
Each additional acre >5 acres per acre $202
2 Grading Inspection for Construction BMPs per 10,000 s.f. $144 3 C.4 Inspection
Low Priority each $144
High Priority each $360
4 Discharge Inspection
Initial Inspection (3 hours) each $431
Each additional hour hourly $144
Monitoring, Sampling or Testing, Lab analysis, cost, and rental equipment charges deposit Actual Cost
5 Illicit Discharge Clean-Up in the Public Right-of-Way Initial Inspection (3 hours) each $431
Each additional hour hourly $144
6 Vacant Property inspections, illegal dumping,
encampments, etc.
each $288
7 Administrative Citation, Minor discharge (inert substance) each [1] $107 8 Administrative Citation, Major Discharge
(non-inert substance, per storm drain impact) each [1] $1,069 9 Other Services not Listed hourly $144
Support to Planning Fees
1 Stormwater Design Review
Single Family each $37
Other
2,500 to 10,000 square feet each $288
10,001 square feet to 1 acre each $721
1 acre to 5 acres each $2,160
Each additional acre >5 acres per acre $505
2 Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance Plan Review
80% or more low-to-no water use per acre $216
80% or less low-to-no water use per acre $865
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Environmental Programs, Page 13 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Environmental Services Program
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
3 Solid Waste Enclosure Design Review
Single Family each $37
Other
2,501-5,000 sf each $37
5,000 sf or more: restaurant, auto, retail, nursery, & other high pollutant potential each $72
10,000 sf- 1 acre, all other each $144
1 acre or high concern projects per acre $288
4 Each Additional Plan Review after first three reviews hourly $144 5 Environmental Impact Studies (EIR) each $721
Support to Building Fees
1 Stormwater Design Review
Single Family each $37
Other
2,500 to 10,000 square feet each $288
10,001 square feet to 1 acre each $865
1 acre to 5 acres each $2,160
Each additional acre >5 acres per acre $505
2 Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance Plan Review
80% or more low-to-no water use per acre $431
80% or less low-to-no water use per acre $1,441
3 Solid Waste Enclosure Design Review
Single Family each $37
Other
2,501-5,000 sf each $72
5,000 sf or more: restaurant, auto, retail, nursery, & other high pollutant potential each $144
10,000 sf- 1 acre, all other each $288
1 acre or high concern projects per acre $431
4 Each Additional Plan Review after first three reviews hourly $144 [Notes]
[1] Penalty Charge
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Environmental Programs, Page 14 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Building Services Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
BUILDING PERMIT AND PLAN CHECK FEES [1]
1 Processing Fee flat $303
2 Building Plan Check - Single Family Residential
$ 5,000
base fee up to
$5,000 $202
$ 5,000
base fee at
$5,000 $202
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $20.19
$ 25,000
base fee at
$25,000 $606
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $8.08
$ 50,000
base fee at
$50,000 $808
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $8.08
$ 100,000
base fee at
$100,000 $1,212
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $3.03
$ 500,000
base fee at
$500,000 $2,423
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $1.91
$ 1,000,000
base fee at
1,000,000
[2] $3,383
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Building, Page 15 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Building Services Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
3 Building Permit/Inspection - Single Family Residential [5] $ 5,000
base fee up to
$5,000 $202
$ 5,000
base fee at
$5,000 $202
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $20.19
$ 25,000
base fee at
$25,000 $606
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $0.00
$ 50,000
base fee at
$50,000 $606
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $16.15
$ 100,000
base fee at
$100,000 $1,414
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $6.56
$ 500,000
base fee at
$500,000 $4,039
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $5.25
$ 1,000,000
base fee at
1,000,000
[2] $6,664
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Building, Page 16 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Building Services Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
4 Building Plan Check - Commercial/Multi-Family/Industrial $ 5,000
base fee up to
$5,000 $202
$ 5,000
base fee at
$5,000 $202
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $22.44
$ 50,000
base fee at
$50,000 $1,212
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $56.55
$ 100,000
base fee at
$100,000 $4,039
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $15.15
$ 500,000
base fee at
$500,000 $10,097
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $100.97
$ 1,000,000
base fee at
1,000,000
$15,146
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$10,000 $31.19
$ 10,000,000
base fee at
$10,000,000 [3] $43,215
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Building, Page 17 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Building Services Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
5 Building Permit/Inspection - Commercial/Multi-Family/Industrial [5] $ 5,000
base fee up to
$5,000 $202
$ 5,000
base fee at
$5,000 $202
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $13.47
$ 50,000
base fee at
$50,000 $808
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $12.12
$ 100,000
base fee at
$100,000 $1,414
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $14.64
$ 500,000
base fee at
$500,000 $7,270
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 $145.40
$ 1,000,000
base fee at
1,000,000
$14,540
each additional $1000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$10,000 $83.69
$ 10,000,000
base fee at
$10,000,000 [3] $89,863
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Building, Page 18 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Building Services Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit

MISCELLANEOUS FEES - FLAT RATE PERMITS
1 Demolition flat $505
2 Commercial Demoliiton
Refer to
Valuation
Table
3 Door/Window Replacements (up to 20 Windows)
Up to 4 Windows flat $404
More than 4 and up to 20 Windows flat $505
Greater than 20 Windows Refer to
Valuation Table
4 Fences
Over 7 ft - 64 l.f. flat $303
Over 7 ft - each additional 16 l.f. over 64 l.f. each $50 CMU fence Refer to
Valuation Table
5 Photovoltaic Systems (Solar Systems) [4]
Solar - Residential each $404
Per kW above 15kW each $5
Solar - Commercial (Up to 50 kW) each $808
Per kW between 51kW - 250kW each $7
Per kW above 250kW each $5
6 Property Research/Site Inspection for Business License each $505 7 Re-roof - Residential
Non-structural up to 10,000 sq. ft. flat $404
Structural or Non-structural greater than 10,000 sq. ft. Refer to Valuation Table
8 Electric Vehicle Charging Station (Residential)
Residential flat $182
Commercial Refer to
Valuation Table
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Building, Page 19 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Building Services Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit

MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
1 Water Heaters and Residential Commodes each $134
2 Residential/Simple Standalone MPE Permit (fee includes up to 3 from the list below) per project $187
Simple Mechanical Items:

Addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system.

HVAC change out - existing dwelling
Air-handling unit over 10,000 CFM
Evaporative cooler
Ventilation fan connected to a single duct
Hood and duct system
Duct systems
Miscellaneous mechanical (wall furnace, condensing units, gas outlet/gas test, etc.)
Other simple mechanical
Simple Electrical Items:

Receptacle, switch, and lighting outlets
Lighting fixtures
Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures
Theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies
Residential appliances
Appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt
(KW), or kilovolt-ampere (KVA), in rating
Busways
Trolley and plug-in-type busways - each 100 feet or fraction thereof
Signs, outline lighting, and marquees
Signs, outline lighting, or marquees supplied from one branch circuit
Services of 600 volts or less and not over 400 amperes in rating
Miscellaneous apparatus, conduits, and conductors
Residential solar photovoltaic systems
Residential swimming pools
Portable generators less than 10,000 W
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Building, Page 20 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Building Services Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Temporary power panel/service
Temporary power pole
Other simple electrical
Simple Plumbing Items:

Plumbing fixtures
Building sewer
Rainwater systems
Water heater
Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor
Water piping and/or water treating equipment
Repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping
Lawn sprinkler systems
Backflow devices
Atmospheric-type vacuum breakers
Gas test
Gas outlets
Solar water systems
Other simple plumbing
3 Complex/Commercial Standalone MEP Permits Refer to
Valuation Table
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Building, Page 21 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Building Services Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit

ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW / INSPECTION SERVICES
1 Alternative Means and Methods hourly $202
2 Extension Requests for Building Permits hourly $202
3 Replacement of Job Card (Building Permit Card) hourly $202 4 Deferred Submittals hourly $202
5 Inspection Supplemental Fee (Projects that require more inspections than average, the Building Official may charge additional inspection fees)
hourly $202
6 Accessibility Hardship Exemption hourly $202
7 Additional Plan Check required by changes, additions, or revisions to plans hourly $202
8 Appeals each $534
9 Certificate of Occupancy each $404
10 Fire Damage Inspection each $642
11 Inspections outside of normal business hours hourly
(2 hr min) $229
12 Pre-Site Inspection / Re-inspection - SFD each $202
13 Pre-Site Inspection / Re-inspection - Other than SFD each $303 14 Records Research per 30 minutes $101
15 Re-inspection hourly $202
16 Written Interpretation of Building Code each $404
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Building, Page 22 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Building Services Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit

PLANNING OR ENGINEERING PROJECT REVIEW BY THE BUILDING DIVISION 1 Tentative Map Review each $202
2 Final Maps (up to 25 lots) each $202
3 Final Maps (>25 lots) each $303
4 Design Review each $404
5 Temporary Use Permit each $303
[Notes]
[1] Includes MPE fees when in combination with a Building Permit [2]
All projects over $1,000,000 in value will be recovered on a deposit and time and materials basis, per the Building Official's discretion. Overtime rate to be charged on inspections performed after hours, minimum 2 hours.
[3]
All projects over $10,000,000 in value will be recovered on a deposit and time and materials billing system, per the Building Official's discretion. Overtime rate to be charged on inspections performed after hours, minimum 4 hours. [4] Fees shall not exceed the amounts as stated in GC 66015. [5] Permits over $100k in valuation are subject to a 25.3% General Plan Update Surcharge.

City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Building, Page 23 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Police Department Fes
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
POLICE FEES [1]
1 Fingerprinting (livescan) each [1] $23
2 Vehicle Release [2]
During Regular Business Hours each $23
During Nights or Weekends or Holidays each $135
Tow Company Cost each Actual Cost
3 Repossession - Verification Fee each [6] $15
4 Proof of Correction Citation - Sign-off each [7] $25
5 Clearance Letter each $15
6 Permit Review - Private Security Company each $333
7 False Alarm Response - (charge is per response after first two responses within a single calendar year) per officer [3] $60 8 Loud Party Response - (charge is per response after first response in one calendar month)
per minute / per
officer / per
dispatcher
[4] $4
9 Assistance to Planning Division -
Security Plan Review for New Business each $428
10 Redaction Services - Body Worn Camera Video (City Staff) hourly - min 1 hr.
[5] $269
11 Redaction Services - Body Worn Camera Video (Contractor) City Processing each $119
Consultant Cost each Actual Cost
12 Officer Support of City Special Events each $119
[Notes]
[1] Plus pass-through of any outside agency fees (e.g. Department of Justice fees). [2] Towing fees are paid separately.
[3] Fee waived for first two responses per calendar year. [4] Fee waived for first response per 120 days.
[5] Redaction Services which take longer than 1 hour will be charged at actual cost of time & materials.
[6] Fee capped at $15 per Section 28 of the Vehicle Code. [7] Fee capped at $25 per Section 68084 of the Government Code.

City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Police, Page 24 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Community Services Division
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Fee Unit / Type
(Flat / Deposit /
Hourly)
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit

COMMUNITY SERVICES FEES
1 Special Event Permit - Application Processing [4]
Category 1 Events [1] $55
Category 2 Events [2,5] $169
Category 3 Events [3,5] $454
$0
Police - Alcohol Distribution per event $60
2 Special Event Permit - On-Site Event Support
Community Services Staff - Business Hours hourly $218
Community Services Staff - After Business Hours hourly $236 Other City Departments hourly See Department
Fee Schedules
Fire / County Health Department hourly See Agency Fee
Schedule
3 Building Facility Rental Fees
City Council Chambers Not Available
for Rental
Community Room (at City Hall)
hourly -
minimum 2
hours
$16
Cooley Landing
hourly -
minimum 2
hours
[4] $81
Senior Center [6] $16
4 Park Facility Rental Fees
All Locations - rental of park, pavilion, or barbeque areas for special events
hourly -
minimum 2
hours
$16
[Notes]
[1] Small gatherings of less than 50 attendees (no Alcohol) - No outside review needed [2] Small gatherings of less than 50 attendees (no Alcohol) or Large gatherings of more than 50 attendees - Review by Police needed
[3] Block Party, Community Event, Parade/Street Closure - Review by Police, Fire, Building, Engineering, Environmental Services needed.
[4] Cooley Landing subject to $500 cleaning deposit.
[5] May also be subject to Fire fee.
[6] Limited Availablity
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Community Services, Page 25 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Development Impact
Fee
No.

Fee Name
Unit / Data Input
Required
Notes
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Development Impact Fees & In-Lieu Fees
1 Housing
Commercial Linkage (Office/Medical/R&D) Square Foot $12.81 2 Parks and Trails
Detached ADU Dwelling Unit [1,2] $1,885.61
Other Non-Residential Peak Service Population $1,047.18 Single-Family Dwelling Unit (Rental) $4,714.61
Townhouse Dwelling Unit (Rental) $4,714.61
Multi-Family Housing Dwelling Unit (Rental) $3,247.64
Office/Research & Development Square Foot $1.32
Industrial Square Foot $0.52
Retail Square Foot $0.87
3 Public Facilities
Detached ADU Dwelling Unit [1,2] $3,306.96
Single-Family Dwelling Unit $8,267.96
Townhouse Dwelling Unit $8,267.96
Multi-Family Housing Dwelling Unit $5,695.63
Other Non-Residential Peak Service Population $1,837.71 Office/Research & Development Square Foot $2.29
Industrial Square Foot $0.93
Retail Square Foot $1.52
4 Storm Drainage
Detached ADU within RBD Dwelling Unit [1,2,3] $2,208.45 Single-Family within RBD Dwelling Unit [3] $5,521.10
Detached ADU outside RBD Dwelling Unit [1,2,3] $1,277.61 Single-Family outside RBD Dwelling Unit [3] $3,194.03
All other Land Uses within RBD Impervious acre [3] $138,027.50 All other Land Uses outside RBD Impervious acre [3] $79,850.62 5 Transportation
Detached ADU Dwelling Unit [1,2] $1,075.70
Single-Family Dwelling Unit $2,689.83
Townhouse Dwelling Unit $2,689.83
Multi-Family Housing Dwelling Unit $2,024.79
Other Non-Residential PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips
& Internal Trips Percentage $7,868.71
Office/Research & Development Square Foot $8.36
Industrial Square Foot $5.45
Retail Square Foot $8.36
City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Impact, Page 26 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update) City of East Palo Alto
Development Impact
6 Water Capacity
Single-Family Dwelling Unit $9,293.47
Townhouse Dwelling Unit $9,293.47
Multi-Family Housing Dwelling Unit $5,719.58
Detached ADU Dwelling Unit [2] $5,719.58
Other Non-Residential Meter Size - 3/4" $13,582.59
Other Non-Residential Meter Size - 1" $22,637.65
Other Non-Residential Meter Size - 1.5" $45,276.45
Other Non-Residential Meter Size - 2" $72,441.62
Other Non-Residential Meter Size > 2",
Gallons Per Day $35.74
[Notes]
[1]
[2] The lessor of this amount or the maximum allowed by law. [3] RBD - Ravinswood Business District
Fee is exempt for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) equal to or smaller than 750 square feet.

For ADUs greater than 750 square feet, fee proportional.

Proportion allocated on square footage of ADU relative to primary residence.

City of East Palo Alto
Master Fee Schedule FY 20-21 4/15/2022 Impact, Page 27 of 27

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Exhibit A East Palo Alto Comprehensive Fee Schedule Eff 07.01.2022 (2185 : Comprehensive Fee Schedule Update)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Patrick Heisinger, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D
Recommendation

1. Accept the staff report regarding the draft MSR;

2. Receive informational presentation from Rob Bartoli, San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (SMLAFCo) Executive Officer, regarding the draft MSR;

3. Direct staff to attend the SMLAFCo public hearing scheduled for April 20, 2022, to provide initial comments on behalf of the City; and

4. Direct staff to return to the City Council on May 3, 2022, with a draft letter for City Council consideration that would become the City’s official response to the draft MSR.

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

Priority No. 2: Enhance Economic Vitality
Priority No. 4: Improve Public Facilities and Infrastructure Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
On October 20, 2020, the City Council directed the City Manager to send a letter to SMLAFCo requesting that an MSR and sphere of influence update for the EPASD be conducted as soon as possible. On October 21, 2020, SMLAFCo agreed to conduct an MSR that encompasses the EPASD, the City, and West Bay SD.

On May 19, 2021, SMLAFCo, in partnership with a consultant, initiated the MSR. For nearly ten (10) months, the consultant reviewed extensive financial and programmatic documentation from and related to the City, EPASD, and West Bay. The consultant then used that information to develop a list of key findings for each agency.

9.1 Packet Pg. 279
On April 5, 2022, the Draft MSR was made available for public review. On April 6, 2022, SMLAFCo hosted a virtual public meeting at which the key findings of the MSR were presented.

Please see Attachment 1 to review a copy of the Draft MSR.

Analysis
At the City Council meeting on April 19, 2022, SMLAFCo’s Executive Officer, Rob Bartoli will provide a detailed presentation describing both the process of developing the Draft MSR and key findings.

Timeline of Next Steps

DRAFT MSR TIMELINE
DATE | MONTH TIME EVENT | MILESTONE
April 20, 2022 2:30 PM SMLAFCo Public Hearing - SMLAFCo will host the first public hearing regarding the Draft MSR
May 3. 2022 TBD
City Council discussion and consideration of staff
recommendation to adopt a formal position on the Draft
MSR
May/June 2022 TBD SMLAFCo to public final revisions to the Draft MSR July 2022 TBD Final SMLAFCo Public Hearing
Fiscal Impact
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this City Council update regarding the information described in the staff report.

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

Attachments

1. Draft MSR

9.1 Packet Pg. 280
[email protected] | 510.612.6906 | www.berksonassociates.com

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT REPORT

SAN MATEO LAFCO
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW UPDATES:

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT

WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT

Prepared by BERKSON ASSOCIATES
in association with POLICY CONSULTING ASSOCIATES LLC
March 28, 2022

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) [This page intentionally left blank]

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................................I

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................1 CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO................................................................................................................................................................2 EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT (EPASD)......................................................................................................................3 WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT (WBSD)...................................................................................................................................5

2. BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................7 LAFCO OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................................7 MSR LEGISLATION............................................................................................................................................................................7 MSR PROCESS....................................................................................................................................................................................8 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES ...................................................................................................................................................8

3. REGIONAL GROWTH AND POPULATION.....................................................................................................10 HISTORICAL POPULATION TRENDS & PROJECTIONS...............................................................................................................10

4. CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO.................................................................................................................................15 BOUNDARIES AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ................................................................................................................................15 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE.........................................................................................................................................17 SERVICE PROVIDERS.......................................................................................................................................................................20 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................................................21 FINANCIAL ADEQUACY...................................................................................................................................................................41 FIRE AND EMS SERVICES..............................................................................................................................................................48 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES....................................................................................................................................................54 COMMUNITY SERVICES – RECREATION, PARKS, OPEN SPACES, AND FACILITIES ..............................................................62 SOLID WASTE SERVICES................................................................................................................................................................69 STORMWATER SERVICES ...............................................................................................................................................................74 STREET MAINTENANCE AND STREETLIGHTS..............................................................................................................................82 WASTEWATER SERVICES...............................................................................................................................................................88 WATER SERVICES ...........................................................................................................................................................................89 SUMMARY OF CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO MSR DETERMINATIONS.......................................................................................96

5. EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT.................................................................................................... 100 BOUNDARIES AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE .............................................................................................................................100 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE......................................................................................................................................102

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) ii
SERVICES PROVIDED ...................................................................................................................................................................105 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS.............................................................................................................................106 FINANCIAL ADEQUACY................................................................................................................................................................115 EPASD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING AND FINANCING.............................................................................................131 FRAMEWORK FOR A CIP FINANCE PLAN ................................................................................................................................141 SUMMARY OF EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT MSRDETERMINATIONS .............................................................149

6. WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT.................................................................................................................. 155 BOUNDARIES AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE .............................................................................................................................155 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE......................................................................................................................................157 SERVICES PROVIDED ...................................................................................................................................................................159 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ..............................................................................................................................162 FINANCIAL ADEQUACY................................................................................................................................................................168 WBSD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING AND FINANCING..............................................................................................173 SUMMARY OF WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT MSR DETERMINATIONS .........................................................................174

7. REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICES......................................................................................................... 176 WASTEWATER PROVIDERS WITHIN CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO.........................................................................................176 SYSTEM OVERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................................................................176 PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY .........................................................................................................................................179 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES .........................................................................................................................187 SERVICE LEVELS ...........................................................................................................................................................................189 FINANCIAL ADEQUACY................................................................................................................................................................195 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING AND FINANCING ............................................................................................................196

8. REORGANIZATION OPTIONS......................................................................................................................... 199 STATUS QUO .................................................................................................................................................................................199 SUBSIDIARY DISTRICT.................................................................................................................................................................200 ANNEXATION TO WBSD............................................................................................................................................................201 APPENDIX A: REGIONAL GROWTH DETAILED REPORT ......................................................................... 202 HISTORICAL POPULATION TRENDS..........................................................................................................................................203 POPULATION PROJECTIONS........................................................................................................................................................204 GROWTH FACTORS ......................................................................................................................................................................206 LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING AND COORDINATION ..............................................................................................................219 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF KEY FINANCIAL METRICS ........................................................................... 221

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D)

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
FIGURE 4-1: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO BOUNDARIES AND SOI............................................................. 16 FIGURE 4-2: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO PROFILE.................................................................................. 17 FIGURE 4-3: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL SERVICE STRUCTURE............................................. 20 FIGURE 4-4: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO LAND USES, 2015 .................................................................... 22 FIGURE 4-5: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ....................................................... 22 FIGURE 4-6: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO FINAL RHNA ALLOCATION, 2023-2031 ...................................... 28 FIGURE 4-7: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS, 2000-2021 .......... 29 FIGURE 4-8: ABAG CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO POPULATION PROJECTIONS (2020-2040)........................ 30 FIGURE 4-9: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO BUILDING PERMITS, 2000-2020 ............................................... 30 FIGURE 4-10: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS........................................... 33 FIGURE 4-11: PLANNED AND PROPOSED PROJECTS, DECEMBER 2021 ................................................ 37 FIGURE 4-12: CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO MAP OF PLANNED AND PROPOSED PROJECTS........................ 40 FIGURE 4-13: EAST PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT PRIORITY CALLS, 2016-2021 .............................. 57 FIGURE 4-14: EAST PALO ALTO CRIME TREND, 2011-2020................................................................... 60 FIGURE 4-15: EAST PALO ALTO CRIME CLEARANCE RATES, 2011-2020................................................. 61 FIGURE 4-16: EPAPD RESPONSE TIMES, 2021 ..................................................................................... 61 FIGURE 4-17: MAP OF CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO PARKS ...................................................................... 63 FIGURE 4-18: CITY PARK INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................................... 64 FIGURE 4-19: EAST PALO ALTO FLOODING ZONES .............................................................................. 76 FIGURE 4-20: EAST PALO ALTO WATER SERVICE AREA....................................................................... 90 FIGURE 5-1: EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI..........................................101 FIGURE 5-2: EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT PROFILE ...............................................................102 FIGURE 5-3: EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT/CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO POPULATION GROWTH .109 FIGURE 5-4: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT’S BOUNDARIES AND SOI ...........................................................................................................................................112 FIGURE 5-5 EPASD PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS........................................133 FIGURE 5-6: ILLUSTRATIVE CIP FINANCE PLAN..................................................................................147 FIGURE 6-1: WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ...................................................156 FIGURE 6-2: WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT PROFILE .........................................................................157

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) FIGURE 6-3: WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT POPULATION GROWTH ..................................................164 FIGURE 6-4: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT’S BOUNDARIES AND SOI..166 FIGURE 7-1: WASTEWATER PROVIDERS IN CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO.................................................177 FIGURE 7-2: WASTEWATER SYSTEMS SUMMARY .............................................................................178 FIGURE 7-3: WBSD WASTEWATER FLOWS, 2016-2020 .......................................................................183 FIGURE 7-4: EPASD WASTEWATER FLOWS, 2016-2020 ......................................................................184 FIGURE 7-5: WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY IN USE, 2016-2020...............................................184 FIGURE 7-6: SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS, 2020 & 2021 ................................................................190 FIGURE 7-7: PEAKING FACTORS (PEAK DAY WET WEATHER FLOW/AVERAGE DAY FLOW), 2020 .........191 FIGURE 7-8: COLLECTION SYSTEM VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ORDERS IN 2020 AND 2021 .......192 FIGURE 7-9: INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES ................................................................193 FIGURE 7-10: EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIMES....................................................................................194 FIGURE 7-11: SEWER SERVICE RATES AS OF JULY 1, 2021 ..................................................................195 FIGURE A.3-1: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION FROM HCD (SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA) ................................................................................................................................................215 FIGURE A.3-2: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, 2013-2020...................................................................218 FIGURE A.3-3: HOUSING PERMITS BY TYPE IN THE BAY AREA, 2020 ...................................................218

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) [This page intentionally left blank]

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) MSR Updates – Public Review Draft
City of East Palo Alto, EPASD, WBSD
March 28, 2022

1. Executive Summary 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document contains Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) for the City of East Palo Alto (“City of EPA”), East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD), and West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD). The document includes the three agencies because EPASD and WBSD both provide sewer service to different areas of the City of EPA (and to portions of other adjacent cities). An independent consulting team, Berkson Associates and Policy Consulting Associates LLC (PCA), prepared the MSRs for San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in accordance with State law.
1 State law requires that LAFCo review and update Spheres of Influence (SOIs)2 every five years “as necessary” and prepare an MSR as a basis for the SOI review. LAFCo initiated the current MSRs at their meeting May 19th, 2021. LAFCo staff indicated at that meeting that the preparation of the MSRs “...responds to a request for a prioritized MSR by various developers and the City of East Palo Alto because of the inability to obtain will-serve letters from the District for new developments in the City.” 3 The previous 2008 MSR for EPASD4 evaluated potential successor agencies to EPASD, which included the City of EPASD and WBSD, to take over services from EPASD in the event of its dissolution. The current MSR for EPASD re-affirms the current “dissolution” (zero) Sphere of Influence originally adopted by LAFCo for EPASD in 1983 and affirmed by the 2008 MSR. A “dissolution” (zero) Sphere of Influence means that LAFCo anticipates future dissolution of EPASD and provision of sewer services by a successor agency.

This chapter summarizes key findings from the reviews of the three agencies. Subsequent chapters describe the reviews in greater detail along with MSR determinations and recommendations. The MSRs are based on compilation and review of agency documents, responses to requests submitted to agencies and agency interviews, research into industry practices, and experience with LAFCo municipal service reviews, financial and governance analysis of other agencies. Draft versions of MSR sections were reviewed by the three agencies and their comments incorporated as appropriate into the current document.
1 Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, California Government Code §56000 et seq.
2 “Sphere of Influence” (SOI) means a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the commission (Gov. Code §56076). 3 Action Minutes, San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission Meeting, May 19, 2021, Item 4, pg. 2. 4 Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update East Palo Alto Sanitary District February 16, 2009.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) MSR Updates – Public Review Draft
City of East Palo Alto, EPASD, WBSD
March 28, 2022

1. Executive Summary 2

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
The City of East Palo Alto (City of EPA) is a general law city incorporated in 1983 covering approximately

2.6 square miles.
5 The City provides a range of services to a population of about 30,000. Sewer services are provided to the City by EPASD.

1. Past population growth has been relatively static but pending development proposals support projections of future resident growth and new commercial development.

As of December 2021, the City had 20 unconstructed development projects in some phase of the application and construction process consisting of 1,469 dwelling units and 4.2 million square feet of nonresidential building space. A majority of the larger developments are located in the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan area. The City has received applications for a significant number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and the General Plan and recent State legislation allows for further increases in development.

2. Lack of EPASD sewer collection system capacity is an impediment to development in the City.

Developers have indicated concerns that the costs to connect are prohibitively expensive and that EPASD has been unwilling to discuss financing options to make connection more feasible.

Efforts to-date to resolve this issue have been largely unsuccessful.

Constrained development deprives the City of EPA and its residents, approximately ninety percent of whom live in EPASD service area, of increased municipal and other revenues to maintain and improve public services, reduces future affordable housing and ability to meet RHNA housing allocations, and limits growth in job opportunities.

3. Reorganization of EPASD as a subsidiary district to the City of EPA is a potential governance option that could improve coordination between land use planning and implementation of needed sewer capacity. A potential contract between the City of EPA and WBSD to manage sewer operations would provide the specialized expertise required.

The majority of EPASD ratepayers are also residents of the City of EPA. This governance option could align provision of sewer services with other community interests and municipal functions, increase community representation in sewer services, improve transparency and public outreach, result in potential cost savings to ratepayers, and improve sewer infrastructure and services.
5 Correspondence from San Mateo LAFCo, 3/21/2022; represents total area including roads.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) MSR Updates – Public Review Draft
City of East Palo Alto, EPASD, WBSD
March 28, 2022

1. Executive Summary 3

EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT (EPASD)
EPASD was formed in 1939 to provide sewer services to increased development in what is now the City of EPA and portions of the City of Menlo Park.6 EPASD boundary covers 1.84 square miles7 and serves approximately 26,622 residents and a range of office, retail, public/institutional, and other uses.

4. EPASD, managed by a locally elected Board of Directors, has provided sewer services continuously for over 80 years and its sewer rates are nearly the lowest in the County at half the median sewer rate for sewer service providers in the region.

EPASD sewer rates are low due to: property tax helps fund expenses; EPASD has used contract staff but is shifting to District employees; the District has not implemented its 2015 CIP or its 2021 Update Addendum to address predicted peak storm event sewer overflows under existing land use conditions; and capital improvements have proceeded at a slower pace than planned.

5. EPASD’S engineering consultants, working under the direction of the EPASD General Manager, predict sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) could occur at 38 manholes due to surcharge conditions in many of its pipes during a peak storm event under existing land use conditions. 8 EPASD’s 2021 Addendum to its Master Plan predicts potential sewer overflows during peak storm events under existing land use conditions. The 2021 Addendum estimated a total cost of $23.9 million to replace and upsize pipe sections to eliminate potential surcharging and SSOs under existing land use conditions. EPASD states that the hydraulic analysis of the 2021 Addendum only indicated that the system is adequate for existing customers, however it cannot serve future developments.
9 EPASD has not reported any sewer overflows in over ten years.

6. The Capital Improvement Program proposed in the 2021 Addendum does not identify improvement priorities, timing or method of funding; the absence of implementation planning could pose a future risk to existing residents in the event of a major storm event.

The pipe replacement and increased pipe sizes recommended in the prior 2015 Master Plan Update have not been implemented. EPASD states that it targets $1.2 million to $1.5 million annually to repair and replace failing pipes as needed; however, the District’s financial reports only show an average of about $500,000 annually of new capital assets added to its balance sheet. EPASD indicates that it repairs and replaces its collection system as needed based on annual inspections.
6 Referenced 2022-01-12 at https://www.epasd.com/about-epasd/who-we-are/history 7 Correspondence from San Mateo LAFCo, 3/21/2022; represents total area including roads. 8 Addendum to the March 2015 East Palo Alto Sanitary District Master Plan Update, Freyer & Laureta Inc., Final – April 28, 2021, Tables 3-5.
9 EPASD comments on 2021-12-17 admin. draft EPASD MSR financial section (rec’d 2021-01-12).

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) MSR Updates – Public Review Draft
City of East Palo Alto, EPASD, WBSD
March 28, 2022

1. Executive Summary 4

7. Funding options exist to upgrade EPASD infrastructure to reduce sewer overflow risks.

EPASD’s reserved funds could be programmed towards specific priority improvements serving existing ratepayers in combination with other sources such as State and federal loans and grants, and debt secured by existing revenues without rate increases. Significant funds may be available from the recently enacted federal infrastructure act, but EPASD should have “shovelready” projects. Balancing continued low sewer rates with proposed infrastructure improvements over time will require a funding plan that taps all possible sources.

Funding opportunities could be improved through collaboration with other agencies, for example, by restarting interjurisdictional committee meetings with the City of East Palo Alto.

Continued lack of planning, implementation and inter-agency cooperation by EPASD could result in the potential loss of significant funds to the detriment of its ratepayers who are also largely City of EPA residents.

8. Lack of EPASD capital improvement implementation stalls the City of East Palo Alto’s General Plan, effectively blocking needed new housing, commercial development and new tax revenues to improve City services.

EPASD is not responsible for funding infrastructure required solely to serve new development; however, EPASD currently requires that new development fund the $23.9 million cost to eliminate potential surcharging and overflows from existing land uses in addition to $8.8 million or more cost to upsize collection capacity for new sewer flows. This financial burden effectively prevents small projects such as parcel subdivisions creating a few new units, as well as largescale development.

9. New development should fund the cost of increased system capacity required by increased flows. This funding should be phased with implementation of EPASD-funded improvements.

EPASD’s engineers estimated the additional cost to mitigate increased sewer flows from new development at $8.8 million in addition to an allocation of costs required for future treatment plant capacity. Developer funding could include a combination of capacity charges and additional funding of any oversized improvements to be reimbursed from capacity charges paid by future development. EPASD capacity charges should be revised to reflect the 2021 Addendum improvements and costs required by new development.

The feasibility of developer funding depends on EPASD’s implementation of improvements that address existing potential sewer overflows. Feasibility also depends on a phasing plan that coordinates EPASD-funded improvements and development-funded expansion, EPASD pursuit of grants and other low-cost funding, and collaboration with the City of EPA.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) MSR Updates – Public Review Draft
City of East Palo Alto, EPASD, WBSD
March 28, 2022

1. Executive Summary 5

10. Governance options exist that could align provision of sewer services with other community interests and municipal functions, increase representation, transparency and public outreach, result in potential cost savings to ratepayers, and improve sewer infrastructure and services.

LAFCo designated an EPASD “dissolution” (zero) sphere of influence after formation of the City of East Palo Alto. This designation means that LAFCo anticipates future dissolution of EPASD and provision of sewer services by a successor agency. Governance options considered in this report include: 1) “status quo”, or no change; 2) reorganization as a subsidiary district to the City of EPA and potential contract with WBSD to manage sewer operations; 3) dissolution and annexation to WBSD. Governance options depend on and require actions by: elected board and council members; City and district residents; and LAFCo analysis, review and approval.

WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT (WBSD)
Formed in 1902, WBSD is the regional sanitary sewer provider for City of Menlo Park and portions of Atherton, East Palo Alto, Portola Valley, Redwood City, Woodside, south county unincorporated areas and several parcels in Santa Clara County near Los Trancos Creek. WBSD’s 216 miles of collection system pipes serve approximately 55,700 residents.

11. WBSD is considered well managed with a high level of transparency and accountability as demonstrated by its compliance with legal requirements and efforts to exceed its minimum obligations.

WBSD complies with all legal requirements aimed at ensuring accountability and transparency of public agencies, such as maintaining a website, timely ethics training, adoption of and compliance with required policies and bylaws, and filing of Form 700 by appropriate individuals.

Additionally, WBSD has gone beyond the legal requirements and is a recipient of the District Transparency Certificate of Excellence from the Special District Leadership Foundation (SDLF) for the period January 2020 to March 2023. In order to receive this recognition, WBSD was required to complete all transparency program requirements “designed to promote transparency in their operations and governance to the public and other stakeholders.” WBSD has also established the Open Government Section, which is charged with ensuring transparency and easy access to the public.

12. WBSD has faced a relatively high level of infiltration and inflow in its system in the past, but it has made and continues to make improvements to address those issues.

While WBSD had a peaking factor of approximately 5 in 2020, infiltration and inflow (I/I) has reportedly not been identified as an issue for its system. Pipes reportedly demonstrate sufficient capacity during wet weather, and hydraulic models do not show bottle necks. However, a few pipes and manholes in specific areas are slightly affected by wet weather. WBSD completed two significant capital projects in 2010 and 2011 that greatly reduced I/I in areas of concern.

WBSD continues a regular capital program of continual rehabilitation and replacement aimed at

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) MSR Updates – Public Review Draft
City of East Palo Alto, EPASD, WBSD
March 28, 2022

1. Executive Summary 6
I/I reduction. By repairing 1.5 percent of the system or three miles of pipe per year, and replacement of 1.5 percent of the system, it is predicted that the District can achieve 0.75 percent I/I reduction annually.

13. WBSD’s Master Plan is outdated and in need of a comprehensive update. The District recognizes the necessity of maintaining up-to-date planning documents and is in the midst of compiling a new Master Plan in 2022.

WBSD reported that there is generally sufficient collection capacity to serve existing demand; however, some basins are at capacity. Because the District’s Master Plan is almost 10 years old and many improvements have been made since the hydraulic assessment was conducted, it is unclear the degree to which flows are at or nearing capacity and which segments are most impacted. The new Master Plan is anticipated to identify existing conditions after capital improvements, any areas of concern, and capital projects to address these areas.

Similarly, because WBSD’s flow projections are outdated it is unclear what infrastructure needs are necessary to meet projected demand. The 2022 Master Plan is anticipated to provide up-todate flow projections and recommended capital improvements to meet future demand. The District changed the program name to “Sustainability Plan” to better reflect the ongoing assessments of the system which will be completed soon.

This update is essential given the degree of improvements and changes in land use assumptions that have occurred since the previous Master Plan. Additionally, it is vital to plan for necessary capacity given the degree of anticipated development.

14. Governance options other than 1) status quo, include WBSD as a potential service provider: 2) contract services to the City of EPA following reorganization of EPASD as a subsidiary district to the City of EPA; and 3) WBSD annexation of EPASD following dissolution of EPASD.

WBSD has indicated a willingness and ability to provide sewer services to the community but is not willing to initiate a reorganization, for example Option #3 above, in the absence of EPASD concurrence. Option #2, contract services to a City subsidiary district, depends on action by the City, LAFCo and area residents to reorganize EPASD as a subsidiary district. A longer-term option, if a subsidiary district is formed as in Option #2, could involve future dissolution of the City subsidiary district and annexation to WBSD.

Another option discussed in the MSR involves the annexation of parcels proposing new development to WBSD, and corresponding detachment from EPASD. The MSR does not consider this a viable option due to its reduction of future EPASD operating and capital revenues, and the resulting irregular service area boundaries.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) MSR Updates – Public Review Draft
City of East Palo Alto, EPASD, WBSD
March 28, 2022

2. Background 7

2. BACKGROUND
This report is prepared pursuant to legislation enacted in 2000 that requires LAFCo to conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of influence (SOIs) of all agencies under LAFCo’s jurisdiction. This chapter provides an overview of LAFCo’s powers and responsibilities. It discusses requirements for preparation of the municipal services review (MSR), and describes the process for MSR review, MSR approval and SOI updates.

LAFCO OVERVIEW
LAFCo regulates, through approval, denial, conditions and modification, boundary changes proposed by public agencies or individuals. It also regulates the extension of public services by cities and special districts outside their boundaries. LAFCo is empowered to initiate updates to the SOIs and proposals involving the dissolution or consolidation of special districts, mergers, establishment of subsidiary districts, and any reorganization including such actions. Otherwise, LAFCo actions must originate as petitions or resolutions from affected voters, landowners, cities or districts.

MSR LEGISLATION
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires LAFCo review and update SOIs not less than every five years and to review municipal services before updating SOIs. The requirement for service reviews arises from the identified need for a more coordinated and efficient public service structure to support California’s anticipated growth. The service review provides LAFCo with a tool to study existing and future public service conditions comprehensively and to evaluate organizational options for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services are provided efficiently.

Government Code §56430 requires LAFCo to conduct a review of municipal services provided in the county by region, sub-region or other designated geographic area, as appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare a written statement of determination with respect to each of the following topics:
• Growth and population projections for the affected area; • The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the SOI;
• Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies (including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence);

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Draft MSR (2205 : Update on the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary D) MSR Updates – Public Review Draft
City of East Palo Alto, EPASD, WBSD
March 28, 2022

2. Background 8
• Financial ability of agencies to provide services;
• Status of, and opportunities for shared facilities;
• Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies; and
• Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy.

MSR PROCESS
The MSR process does not require LAFCo to initiate changes of organization based on service review findings, only that LAFCo identify potential government structure options. However, LAFCo, other local agencies, and the public may subsequently use the determinations to analyze prospective changes of organization or reorganization or to establish or amend SOIs. Within its legal authorization, LAFCo may act with respect to a recommended change of organization or reorganization on its own initiative (e.g., certain types of consolidations), or in response to a proposal (i.e., initiated by resolution or petition by landowners or registered voters).

MSRs are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to §15306 (information collection) of the CEQA Guidelines. LAFCo’s actions to adopt MSR determinations are not considered “projects” subject to CEQA.

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES
The Commission is charged with developing and updating the sphere of influence (SOI) for each city and special district within the county. SOIs must be updated every five years or as necessary. In determining the SOI, LAFCo is required to complete an MSR and adopt the determinations previously discussed.

An SOI is a LAFCo-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary and service area.

Spheres are planning tools used to provide guidance for individual boundary change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. Territory cannot be annexed by LAFCo to a city or a district unless it is within that agency's sphere.

The purposes of the SOI include the following: to ensure the efficient provision of services, discourage urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands, and prevent overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services.

LAFCo cannot regulate land use, dictate internal operations or administration of any local agency, or set rates. LAFCo is empowered to enact policies that indirectly affect land use decisions. On a regional level, LAFCo promotes logical and orderly development of communities as it considers and decides individual

East Palo Alto City CouncilApril 19, 2022

East Palo Alto City Council
April 19, 2022