Agenda packet — East Palo Alto City Council, July 19, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

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

EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
July 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/88620562049
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 2056 2049
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aMWYF4KT East Palo Alto City Council July 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. Quarterly COVID-19 Emergency Reporting
Recommendation: Receive and file the Quarterly Emergency Report for June 30, 2022.

2. City Participation in Leadership Council San Mateo County.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City to become an annual sponsor of the Leadership Council San Mateo County.

3. Contract Close Out with Temporary Agency
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution;
Ratifying previous purchases with Robert Half International, Inc for temporary administrative support through July 8, 2022 in the amount not-to-exceed $60,000; Waiving formal bid procedures pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code section

2.84.070(D)

4. Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the following new classifications and salary schedules (Exhibit A):

1. Planning Permit Technician

2. Part-Time Reserve Police Officer

3. Assistant to the City Manager - 1-Year Term Limited

4. Public Works Supervisor

5. Adopt a Resolution Approving California Office of Emergency Services Form 130 Designation of Agent
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) Form 130, Designating Agents Necessary to Provide for All Matters Pertaining to State and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Reimbursements.

6. Monthly Cash Treasury Report for May 2022.

Recommendation: Accept and file the Cash Treasury Report for the month of May 2022.

7. Authorization to apply for the OBAG3 grant
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution retroactively authorizing submission of an application for the One Bay Area Grant 3 (OBAG 3)

8. Accept San Mateo County’s Office of Aging and Adult Services (OAAS) grant funding through 2022/2026 for Congregate Nutrition and Transportation Programs Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a fouryear grant agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, from San Mateo County’s Aging and Adult Services in the amount of $197,004 for the City’s Congregate Nutrition and Transportation Programs for fiscal year(s) 2022-2026.

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

9. Designating a voting delegate and up to two alternates to the California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference September 7-9, 2022, Long Beach.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) designating the Mayor to be the voting delegate and the Vice Mayor to serve as an alternate voting delegate to represent the City of East Palo Alto at the California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference.

10. John Bostic Proclamation

4. CLOSED SESSION

1. Closed Session – Government Code Section 54956.9: Conference with Legal Counsel-Potential Litigation one Case
A. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
B. ADJOURNMENT INTO CLOSED SESSION
C. RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION
D. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

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

1. Traffic Calming Update

2. Street Sweeping Project Update

7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.

Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution:

1. Finding that the proposed Alternative Compliance Option for the residential development project (“Project”) located at Lincoln Street (APN 063-186-270) to provide two residential units with a detached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) on a vacant property and a deed restricted attached ADU affordable to a household at 35% of the area median income ("AMI”) fulfills the project’s inclusionary obligation under Section

18.37.080(D) of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code; and

2. Directing the City Manager to execute all required documents, in a form approved by the City Attorney, associated with the Inclusionary Housing requirements of the Project.

9. POLICY AND ACTION

1. Compensation Adjustments and Agreements with SEIU, MEA, and Unrepresented Employment Groups
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution:

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

1. Approving the terms of the Tentative Agreement jointly agreed to between the City of East Palo Alto, Service Employees International Union Local 521 (SEIU) and IFPTE Local 21, Management Employees Association (MEA);

2. Approving Cost of Living Adjustments for Non-Bargaining, Unrepresented Confidential Restricted Classifications;

3. Directing the Interim City Attorney to draft an amendment to the employment agreement with the Interim City Manager to provide a Cost of Living Adjustment and other benefits consistent with those received by SEIU, MEA, and other nonrepresented personnel and authorizing the Mayor to execute such an amendment; and

4. Appropriating $790,000 for FY 2022-23 from the General Fund Reserve to account for the compensation adjustments described in the staff report.

2. Approval of the Terms of a Tentative Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Officers’ Association (POA) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution:

1. Approving the terms of a Tentative Agreement with the East Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association;

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding jointly prepared by the City’s negotiating team and representatives of the East Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association;

3. Establishing a recruitment and retention bonus for new police officers; and

4. Approving the estimated total salary and benefit expenditures of $2,260,000 for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 and appropriating $1,090,000 in the General Fund of the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget.

3. Proposed Specific Plan for Bell Street Park in Partnership with the Magical Bridge Foundation
Recommendation: By motion:

1. Accept a status report regarding the exploration by the Magical Bridge Foundation of a potential Magical Bridge project at Bell Street Park;

2. Provide staff with direction regarding the conceptual plan (Attachment 1) for Bell Street Park; and

3. Direct staff to initiate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process to advance the Bell Street Park design process.

4. Update on the Draft Housing Element
Recommendation: Receive the report, provide feedback on the Draft Housing Element, and authorize release of the document for a 30-day public review period.

5. Consideration of Measure C Funding to Support Two Community-Based Organization Initiatives: Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse and One East Palo Alto/El Concilio’s Sponsored Employment Program
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to enter into agreements, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) and the Sponsored Employment Program (SEP) offered by One East Palo Alto and El Concilio to provide services related to implementation of Measure C.

6. City Hall and Tate Street Reopening Plan
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: provide direction to City Manager to reopen City offices to the public per staff recommendation with a proposed start date of Tuesday, September 6, 2022.

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

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

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

11. ADJOURNMENT
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 fr om d isc lo su re pursuant to the Public Records Act, that are distributed to the majority of the City Council will be available for public inspection at th e Ci ty Clerk’s Office, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to th e City Council. Such documents may also be available on the East Palo Alto website www.cityofepa.org subject to staff’s ability to p ost 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 pert aining t o 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 bus iness hours .

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

East Palo Alto City Council Chambers is ADA compliant. Requests for disability related modifications or accommodations, aids or s ervices 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 7 2 hours prior to the meeting.

POSTED: July 15, 2022
ATTEST:

James Colin
City Clerk
Future Meetings:

Meeting Date Time
Study Session July 26, 2022 6:00 p.m.

RegularMeeting September 6, 2022 6:30 p.m.

RegularMeeting September 20, 2022 6:30 p.m.

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
Greg Henry, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Quarterly COVID-19 Emergency Reporting
Recommendation
Receive and file the Quarterly Emergency Report for June 30, 2022.

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 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

3.1 Packet Pg. 6
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 June 30, 2022, the City incurred approximately $32,543 in identified COVID-19 spending. This consisted primarily of community testing and vaccine support, funded by the County, as well an increase in the Vaccine Incentive Card program. County funded has ended, as of June 30, for community testing and vaccine support.

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 April 19, 2022.

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 $975,147 in additional COVID related contracts and activity supported by outside funding (CARES, Bureau of Justice Grants and San Mateo Count). The Council has approved $1.95M in COVID response activity.

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
03/22/22 San Mateo County Funding (Vacc & Testing) 145,000 06/07/22 Vaccination Incentive 55,000
Total $ 1,950,147
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

3.1 Packet Pg. 7
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. Since the March report, Federal Emergency Management Agency funding has been reduced slightly but the projects have been “obligated” meaning that the City has been approved for funding at the proposed amount.

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) (114,377)
FEMA (76,361)
City Emergency Funds (904,549)
Total (1,590,065)
06/30/22
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 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.

3.1 Packet Pg. 8
Table 3
Description Spent
Committed
to Contract Total
City Council
Direct
Authority
City Manager
Emergency
Authority
Vaccine Incentive Cards 39,643 15,357 55,000 55,000 -
COVID-Testing, Vaccine 554,694 - 554,694 238,412 316,282 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 1,590,065 109,199 1,699,264 944,525 754,739
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 $1.95M, approximately $1.70M 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 September 30, 2022.

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 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.

3.1 Packet Pg. 9

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City to become an annual sponsor of the Leadership Council San Mateo County.

Background
Leadership Council San Mateo County (LCSMC) is a nonprofit dedicated to inspiring, connecting, and educating leaders from the business, government, and nonprofit sectors to positively transform San Mateo County and find solutions for the biggest issues that we are facing collectively. LCSMC provide experiential leadership programs to help individuals and their respective organizations and/or interests to find pathways for making an impact at the local level.

Currently, LCSMC has two primary leadership programs: Leadership CORPS and Emerging Leaders.

Leadership CORPS
The Leadership CORPS program brings together senior leaders to learn deeply about San Mateo County (County) and its communities, connect to a diverse group of peers, and expand their leadership skills.

Leadership CORPS welcomes participants from all areas of County to elevate and empower countywide, representative leadership talent to create positive change. Participants learn from County leaders, dive deeply into the strength-based leadership framework, and collaborate with one another to expand their impact.

Emerging Leaders
The Emerging Leaders Program is an immersive, ten-month, professional development series

3.2 Packet Pg. 10
for rising leaders. It provides a career-changing experience through a combination of transformational skills training, civic engagement, and relationship building.

Participants receive training from, and access to, influential leaders from some of the region’s most high-profile corporations, small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government entities. As they learn and collaborate with a diverse group of peers from across the County, participants find inspiration, fellowship, and connection that empowers them to expand their organizational and community impact.

The purpose of this staff report is to seek City Council authorization for City of East Palo Alto participation as a sponsor for the LCSMC in an effort to provide City staff or other community leaders with the opportunity to participate in LCSMC programs.

Analysis
Staff has expressed interest in additional training opportunities to grow and develop the City’s workforce. If the City becomes a sponsor for LCSMC, on an annual basis one or two City staff, or possibly a community leader, will have the opportunity to participate in programs offered by LCSMC.

LCSMC is in contact with all County jurisdictions to engage as many of these agencies as possible in support of this countywide effort. To date, the cities of South San Francisco, Foster City, and Half Moon Bay have committed as sponsors and more jurisdictions are expected to join soon.

Staff recommends that the City of East Palo Alto commit to support LCSMC by providing a payment of $1,000. Employee and/or community member participation in LCSMC sponsored programs would require an additional payment in the range of $2,000 to $2,500.

Fiscal Impact
There is adequate funding in the City Manager’s FY2022-2023 training budget.

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.

3.2 Packet Pg. 11

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Sandra Floyd, Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Contract Close Out with Temporary Agency
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution;

1. Ratifying previous purchases with Robert Half International, Inc for temporary administrative support through July 8, 2022 in the amount not-to-exceed $60,000;

2. Waiving formal bid procedures pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code section

2.84.070(D)
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
On January 21, 2022, the previous City Manager executed a contract with Robert Half International to provide temporary administrative support in the City Manager’s Office while vacancies were being filled.

On June 17, 2022, the Interim City Manager became aware that the costs connected with the contract with Robert Half exceeded the amount of $27,000 which would require staff to abide by the City's formal bid procedures.

Analysis
The City has expended $56,203 for services provided by Robert Half since January 2022 through July 8, 2022. The purpose of this staff report is to seek City Council ratification of the payments with Robert Half and waiver for the requirement of the formal bidding procedures,

3.3 Packet Pg. 12
which will then result in the City closing out the agreement with the firm.

Recently, the City appointed a permanent City Clerk and Executive Assistant and is in the process of recruiting for a permanent front desk employee. It is expected this position will be filled by early August. Under the current circumstances, the Interim City Manager does not foresee the need to receive services from a temp agency for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Fiscal Impact
The source of funding will be from the City Manager’s department’s budget using salary savings, and no additional appropriation will be needed.

Attachments

1. Resolution

3.3 Packet Pg. 13
RESOLUTION NO.

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC.

IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000
WHEREAS, the firm of Robert Half International, Inc., has provided talent solutions needed to support City administrative operations during FY 2021-2022 and FY 2022-2023; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to continue to obtain professional services from Robert Half International, Inc. for the City Manager’s Department for an estimated amount not to exceed $60,000.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO that it:

1. Ratifies previous purchases with Robert Half International, Inc. for temporary administrative support through July 8, 2022 in the amount not-to-exceed $60,000;

2. Waives formal bid procedures pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code section

2.84.070(D)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of July 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

3.3.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Resolution (2347 : Contract Close Out with Temporary Agency)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the following new classifications and salary schedules (Exhibit A):

1. Planning Permit Technician

2. Part-Time Reserve Police Officer

3. Assistant to the City Manager - 1-Year Term Limited

4. Public Works Supervisor
Background
On June 7, 2022, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2023 Budget. In that action, the City Council approved several personnel modifications, with direction to return for consideration specific classifications and compensation schedules prior to implementation.

In addition, at the start of FY 2022-2023, staff initiated the process of reclassifying an existing position in the Public Works Department to provide greater oversight of the City’s Maintenance Division.

Through this staff report, staff seeks final City Council approval of the specific classification and compensation schedules for the personnel modifications that were adopted within the FY 2022-2023 Budget process, as well as consideration of an additional subsequent classification change, requested by staff to meet an operational need.

Analysis
As part of the FY 2022-2023 Budget process, the City Council authorized the following new classifications:
• Planning Permit Technician (Exhibit B)
• Part-Time (PT) Reserve Police Officer (Exhibit C)

3.4 Packet Pg. 15
• Assistant to the City Manager (1-Year Term Limited) (Exhibit D) The complete staff report, linked here and within the June 7, 2022, City Council agenda provides detailed descriptions of each classification and proposed uses within the City organization.

Staff analysis of similar jurisdictions informed the following proposed salary schedule for each position identified in Table 1 below:

Staff also seeks City Council approval to reclassify the existing Public Works Inspector position to a new Public Works Supervisor classification (Exhibit E). This change is requested to establish a better structure in the Public Works Department with greater oversight for the Maintenance Division. Staff proposes the salary for the Public Works Supervisor as shown in the table below, which reflects a $21,000 increase compared with the previous Public Works Inspector position, as shown in Table 2.

Fiscal Impact
The costs associated with all positions identified in Table 1 were incorporated in the adopted FY 2022-2023 Budget. The annual cost associated with reclassification of the existing Public Works Inspector position to a Public Works Supervisor classification is $21,000. As a reminder, the City Council appropriated an additional $50,000 to the City’s Maintenance Division as part of the FY 2022-2023 budget process.

3.4 Packet Pg. 16
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. Attachment 1 - Resolution

2. EXHIBIT A - Salary Schedule

3. Exhibit B Planning Permit Technician

4. Exhibit C - Part- Time Reserve Officer

5. Exhibit D - Assistant to the City Manager

6. Exhibit E - PW Supervisor

3.4 Packet Pg. 17
1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADOPT THE JOB CLASSIFICATION AND

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE FOR THE POSITIONS OF PLANNING PERMIT TECHNICIAN,

PART-TIME RESERVE OFFICERS, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND PUBLIC WORKS

SUPERVISOR
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3.4.06 of the City of East Palo Alto’s (“City”) Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, establishes the procedures for department heads or the Personnel Officer to create a new classification; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2022 and May 26, 2022, the City Council held budget sessions where staff presented recommended changes in classification plan reflecting on the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager met and conferred with both Management Employees Association (“MEA”) Local 21, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 521, and Police Officers Association (POA) pertaining to the proposed classifications; and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends the following new classifications: Planning Permit Technician, Part-Time Reserve Officers, Assistant to the City Manager, Public Works Supervisor, which will result in a net of 2.35 FTEs.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY authorizes the City Manager to adopt the new classifications including job descriptions and compensation schedules for:

1. Planning Permit Technician (Exhibit B)

2. Part-Time Reserve Police Officer (Exhibit C)

3. Assistant to the City Manager - 1-Year Term Limited (Exhibit D)

4. Public Works Supervisor (Exhibit E)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the salary schedules for the new classifications shall be as set forth in Exhibit A.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

3.4.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) 2 of 2
Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

3.4.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) EXHIBIT A – Salary Schedule

CLASSIFICATION AND ANNUAL SALARY SCHEDULE
Position Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Planning Permit Technician $60,175.93 $63,184.72 $66,343.96 $69,661.16 $73,144.22 PT Reserve Police Officer $88,465.02 $92,888.27 $97,532.68 $102,409.32 $107,529.78 Assistant to the City
Manager (1-Year Term) $125,123.02 $131,379.17 $137,948.12 $144,845.53 $152,087.81 Public Works Supervisor $98,035.56 $102,937.32 $108,084.24 $113,488.44 $119,162.88

3.4.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: EXHIBIT A - Salary Schedule (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget)

EXHIBIT B

PLANNING PERMIT TECHNICIAN
July 2022
FLSA: Non-Exempt

DEFINITION
Under general supervision, performs a variety of routine to complex administrative and technical support duties related to City planning and in support of related services and activities of the Community Development and Economic Department; explains ordinances, requirements, and City codes, and department procedures to building contractors, architects, engineers, builders, and the general public pertaining to land development and improvement, permit requests, and concerns; received and reviews plans and applications for completeness; gathers analyzes and summarizes data and performs related duties, as assigned.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
Receives general supervision from the Planning Manager. Exercises no direct supervision over staff.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
This is a technical classification performing a wide variety of administrative and technical support work related to City planning. Incumbents serve to relieve management of performing technical detail work and are expected to function with very little direct oversight. Successful performance of the work requires knowledge of urban planning, departmental and City activities and extensive staff and public contact. This class is distinguished from other technical classes by the nature, scope, complexity, and diversity of responsibilities involved in the planning division support function(s).

EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only)
Management reserves the right to add, modify, change, or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.
➢ Assists and advises the public in the preparation and filing of applications for zoning changes, variance permits, tentative tract and parcel map approval, site plan and design review, residential development use permits, and other requests for services.
➢ Confers with architects, builders, attorneys, contractors, engineers, and the general public regarding City development policies and standards; provides and clarifies information relative to land use, zoning, code interpretation, general plan compliance, signage, and other issues. ➢ Reviewsroutine to moderate scale commercial, industrial, and residential development proposals, plans, and applications for issuance of zoning clearance and for compliance with appropriate codes, ordinances, standards, laws, rules, regulations, and policies; provides interpretations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Subdivision Map Act, and local environmental guidelines; calculates permit fees; prepares bills, collects fees and issues receipts; identifies corrective actions to be taken by owners; recommends improvement and rehabilitation programs; conducts follow-up and verifies completeness of submittal.
➢ May provide support with the preparation of staff reports and agenda packets; Assist as a backup with coordinating zoom or in-person meetings, attend and takes minutes for Planning Commission and/or any other Community Development-related boards and commissions meetings, including evening meetings, as requested.
➢ Reviews permit applications, plans, specifications, and supporting documents for completeness and

3.4.c
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Exhibit B Planning Permit Technician (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) Planning PermitTechnician

Page 2 of 4 ends

➢ compliance with legal standards and City requirements; calculates permit fees; prepares bills, collects fees, and issues receipts; issues building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits, and issues contractor business licenses as established by guidelines. ➢ Reviews plans submitted for Building Plan Check and permits for planning issues and approval; and approves plans, submittals, and/or other accompanying documents for routine or less complex projects, such as patio covers, room additions, and minortenant improvements; assistsin processing construction plans for commercial and residential projects; files or routes information to appropriate City departments.
➢ Provides appropriate development review information regarding planning related, ordinances, including the development code, procedures, and requirements to the public including homeowners, developers, contractors, engineers, and architects, in person and over the counter, online and telephone answering questions and providing information regarding zoning, land use, development standards; ➢ Provide guidance with the City’s entitlement process; receives and reviews applications for building permits for completeness; receives and records zoning and code compliance complaints, establishes appropriate files, performs inspections of document violations, coordinates actions with those of other agencies, and implements appropriate proceduresto correct or resolve each complaint and violation. ➢ Tracks and monitorsstatus of development plan reviews; preparesstandard periodic and special reports are required; researches files regarding prior actions, decisions and development activities. ➢ Performs a wide variety of routine to complex administrative duties in support of the Community and Economic Development Department; establishes and maintains filing systems; creates and modifies forms as necessary; prepares and proofreads a wide variety of correspondence, letters, memoranda, reports, statistical charts, and other written materials; distributes reports internally and to various governmental offices; organizes and assembles documents;files and catalogues maps, photos, and other planning division exhibits and documents; verifies accuracy of information; researches discrepancies and records information; and provides planning support for Code Enforcement, as assigned. ➢ Monitors and coordinates office paperwork and activities, including binding bids, permit files and microfilm, distributing mail, answering phones, updating webpages, printing flyers, and conducting a variety of special projects of a routine administrative nature. ➢ Applies departmental policies and procedures in determining completeness of applications, records, and reports; provides information and forms to the public; processes appropriate information. ➢ Compiles information and data for statistical and financial reports; maintains a variety of statistical records; checks and tabulates statistical data.
➢ Contactsthe public and outside agenciesin acquiring and providing information and making referrals. ➢ Participates in the introduction of new technology as needed to advance the Department’s capabilities to serve customers effectively and efficiently.
➢ Providesinput into departmental procedural and processing issues; recommends policy and procedural improvementsrelated to counter activities and/or other areas of responsibility; recommends changesto codes, rules and regulations, forms and proceduresto correct identified problems and to help ensure the processis efficient, effective and fair; and at the direction of the Planning Manager, preparespolicy and procedures associated with the development process.
➢ Providestechnical support for special events and special promotions programs. ➢ Providesinstruction and training to new temporary or part-time staff as assigned. ➢ Performs other related duties as assigned.

JOB-RELATED QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
➢ Organization, procedures, and operating details of the Community and Economic Development Department and the Planning Division.
➢ Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, and organizational policies and proceduresrelevant to building, engineering, land use, and/or urban planning,sufficient to answer questions and provide information to the public; applicable zoning and related laws and regulations. ➢ Business letter writing and basic report preparation. ➢ Geographic,socio-economic, transportation, political, and other elementsrelated to city planning.

3.4.c
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Exhibit B Planning Permit Technician (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) Planning PermitTechnician

Page 3 of 4 ends

➢ General concepts of architecture, landscaping, grading, drainage, and traffic and transportation engineering as they relate to the process of urban planning. ➢ Researching and reporting methods, techniques, and procedures. ➢ Recent developments, current literature, and sources of information related to planning, zoning, and environmental review.
➢ Practices of researching planning and land use issues, evaluating alternatives, making sound recommendations.
➢ Record keeping principles and procedures.
➢ Techniques for providing a high level of customer service by effectively dealing with the public, vendors, contractors, and City staff.
➢ The structure and content of the English language, including the meaning and spelling of words, rules of composition, and grammar.
➢ Modern equipment and communication toolsused for businessfunctions and program, project, and task coordination.
➢ Computers and software programs (e.g., Microsoft software packages) to conduct, compile, and/or generate documentation.

Ability to:
➢ Understand, interpret, and apply all pertinent laws, codes, regulations, policies and procedures, and standards relevant to work performed.
➢ Interpret, apply, explain, and ensure compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures.
➢ Read and interpret plans, specifications, related planning documents, and maps. ➢ Calculate square footage, fees and/or penaltiesfrom plans, and feesfor zoning permit applications. ➢ Perform detailed, technical, and specialized planning and zoning and/or permit support work. ➢ Analyze site design, terrain constraints, land use compatibility, utilities, and other urban services. ➢ Conduct routine research projects, evaluate alternatives, and make sound recommendations. ➢ Read and understand technical drawings and specifications. ➢ Coordinate assigned activities with other City departments and agencies asrequired. ➢ Perform the full range of office and administrative support duties and tasks. ➢ Respond to and effectively prioritizing multiple phone calls, walk-up traffic, and other requests and interruptions.
➢ Establish and maintain a variety of filing, record-keeping, and tracking systems; Maintain accurate logs, records, and basic written records of work performed. ➢ Enter and retrieve data from a computer with sufficient speed and accuracy to perform assigned work. ➢ Make accurate arithmetic, financial, statistical and planning computations. ➢ Effectively represent the department and theCity in meetingswith governmental agencies; community groups; various business, professional, and regulatory organizations; and in meetings with individuals. ➢ Learn and understand the organization and operation of the City and of outside agencies as necessary to assume assigned responsibilities.
➢ Independently organize work, set priorities, meet critical deadlines, and follow-up on assignments. ➢ Effectively use computer systems, software applications, and modern business equipment to perform a variety of work tasks.
➢ Make sound, independent decisions within established policy and procedural guidelines. ➢ Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing, using appropriateEnglish grammar and syntax.
➢ Use tact, initiative, prudence, and independent judgment within general policy, procedural, and legal guidelines.
➢ Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.

Education and Experience:

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

3.4.c
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Exhibit B Planning Permit Technician (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) Planning PermitTechnician

Page 4 of 4 ends

Equivalent to graduation from the twelfth (12th) grade and two (2) years increasingly responsible support experience in a planning, zoning, and/or environmental issues. An Associate’s degree (or equivalent) desired. A Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited college or university in Urban Planning can be substituted for experience.

Licenses and Certifications:
➢ Possession of a valid California Class C Driver’s License and a good driving record, at the time of appointment.

PHYSICALDEMANDS
Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person and over the telephone. Standing and walking in work areas if frequently required. Finger dexterity isneeded to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positionsin this classification occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, reach, push, and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry, push, and pull materials and objects weighing up to 25 pounds.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Employees work in an office environment with moderate to loud 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.

3.4.c
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Exhibit B Planning Permit Technician (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget)

EXHIBIT C

RESERVE OFFICER
July 2022
FLSA: Non-Exempt

DEFINITION
Under general supervision of a Police Sergeant, performs a wide variety of patrol and related duties involving the prevention of crime, the protection of life and property and the enforcement of laws and ordinances; makes investigations, assists in the preparation of cases and testifies in court; serves in specialized departmental roles as assigned; provides information and assistance to the public; and performs related work as required.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
This sworn law enforcement class performs all non-supervisory assignments found in a municipal police department. While incumbents are normally assigned to a specific geographic area for patrol or traffic enforcement, all functional areas of the law enforcement field are included due to the size and organization of the department. Successful performance of the work requires a team- oriented individual who takes pride in serving the community, is flexible and a problem-solver, and is highly motivated and able to motivate others. This class is distinguished from Police Sergeant in that the latter is the first supervisory level in this sworn class series.

EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only)
Essential and other important responsibilities and duties may include, but are not limited to, the following:
➢ Assume direct responsibility for monitoring and administering a variety of programs; oversee assigned administrative support functions including budget. ➢ Develop and implement operational, administrative, program, and other policies and procedures; assist in contract negotiations and administration. ➢ Participate in drafting and implementing City-wide and departmental goals, policies, and procedures.
➢ Direct the preparation and administration of assigned budget(s); maintain and monitor appropriate budgeting controls; prepare various financial reports as required. ➢ Collect, compile, and analyze complex information from various sources on a variety of specialized topics related to assigned programs; prepare reports which present and interpret data, and identify alternatives; make and justify recommendations. ➢ Serve as City liaison/facilitator with public and private organizations, community groups and other related organizations.
➢ Receive and respond to complaints and questions from the general public relating to assigned programs; review problems and recommend corrective actions; prepare summary reports as required.

3.4.d
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Exhibit C - Part- Time Reserve Officer (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) Executive Assistant to the CityManager

Page 2 of 3 ends

JOB-RELATED QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
➢ Principles and practices of public administration used in the operations of local government ➢ Methods of research, program analysis, and report preparation. ➢ Principles and practices of Human Resources.
➢ Policies and procedures of the assigned department.
➢ Principles and practices of budget administration.
➢ Public relations techniques and facilitation skills.
➢ Principles and procedures of accounting and procurement practices. ➢ English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
➢ Modern office procedures, methods including computers. ➢ Federal, State and local laws, codes and regulations. ➢ Perform complex administrative and analytical activities for assigned programs.

Ability to:
➢ Understand the organization and operation of the assigned department and outside agencies as necessary to assume assigned responsibilities.
➢ Interpret and apply administrative and departmental policies and procedures. ➢ Perform responsible and difficult administrative work involving the use of independent judgment and personal initiative.
➢ Research, analyze, and evaluate programs, policies, and procedures. ➢ Analyze problems, identify alternative solutions, project consequences of proposed actions and implement recommendations in support of goals.
➢ Prepare clear and concise reports.
➢ Independently prepare correspondence and memoranda. Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.
➢ Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. ➢ Facilitate public meetings
➢ Independently manage and prioritize workload, demands and time. ➢ Use initiative and judgement within established guidelines. ➢ Manage complex projects and programs.
➢ Maintain mental capacity, which allows for effective interaction and communications with others.

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:

Five years of increasingly responsible administrative and analytical experience preferably within a local government environment.

Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in public administration, business administration or a related field. Masters degree highly desirable.

Licenses and Certifications:
➢ Possession of a valid California Class C Driver’s License and a good driving record, at the time of appointment.

PHYSICALDEMANDS
Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a

3.4.d
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Exhibit C - Part- Time Reserve Officer (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) Executive Assistant to the CityManager

Page 3 of 3 ends

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. Employeesmust possessthe ability to lift, carry, push, and pullmaterials and objectsweighing up to 25 pounds.

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.

3.4.d
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Exhibit C - Part- Time Reserve Officer (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget)

EXHIBIT D
ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER (1-Year Term
Limited)
July 2022
FLSA: Exempt

DEFINITION
Under general direction from the City Manager, performs a wide variety of complex administrative and analytical duties; administers the department budget, manages, and oversee assigned administrative processes, procedures, projects and programs; and provides information and assistance to the public regarding assigned programs and services; and performs other related tasks as assigned.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
Receives general direction from the City Manager. May exercises direct supervision over assigned staff.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
The Assistant to the City Manager is a management level classification with responsibility for assisting the City Manager with the overall management and administration of City operations and services. There is no class series for this classification.

3.4.e
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Exhibit D - Assistant to the City Manager (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) Assistant to the CityManager Page 2 of 3

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:

Five years of increasingly responsible administrative and analytical experience preferably within a local government environment.

Licenses and Certifications:
➢ Possession of a valid California Class C Driver’s License and a good driving record, at the time of appointment.

PHYSICALDEMANDS
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

3.4.e
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Exhibit D - Assistant to the City Manager (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) Assistant to the CityManager Page 3 of 3
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. Employeesmust possessthe ability to lift, carry, push, and pullmaterials and objectsweighing up to 25 pounds.

3.4.e
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Exhibit D - Assistant to the City Manager (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget)

EXHIBIT E
July 2022
FLSA: Non-Exempt

PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR

DEFINITION
Under general direction, plans, schedules, assigns, and reviews the work of public works staff within the Public Works department; supervises, plans, and coordinates the construction, installation, maintenance, inspection, and repair of City infrastructure, including buildings, parks, streets, sidewalks, water, stormwater and/or drainage systems and facilities; administers, monitors, and provides technical input for assigned public works maintenance, operations, and related projects and programs; provides responsible technical assistance to the Maintenance Manager; performs a variety of technical tasks relative to the assigned functional area; and performs related work as required.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
Receives general direction from the Public Works Director. Coordinates all work with the Maintenance Manager. Exercises direct and general supervision over technical and maintenance staff.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
This is a working supervisory classification within the Maintenance Worker series. Incumbents are responsible for planning, organizing, supervising, reviewing, and evaluating the work of public works maintenance staff either directly or through lead workers. Incumbents are expected to independently perform the full range of public works maintenance duties as assigned. Performance of the work requires the use of considerable independence, initiative, and discretion within established guidelines. This class is distinguished from the Maintenance Manager in that the latter has overall management responsibility for all maintenance division programs, functions, and activities.

3.4.f
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Exhibit E - PW Supervisor (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) Maintenance Supervisor

Page 2 of 4 ends

➢ Monitors operations and activities of the work unit; identifies opportunities for improving service delivery methods and procedures; provides recommendations concerning process changes; reviews with appropriate management staff; implements improvements. ➢ Determines and recommends equipment, materials, and staffing needs for assigned operations, projects, and programs; participates in the annual budget preparation; prepares detailed cost estimates; maintains a variety of records and prepares routine reports of work performance. ➢ Plans and lays out maintenance work projects; monitors and controls supplies and equipment; orders supplies and tools as necessary; prepares documents for equipment procurement; participates in the bid process for maintenance and repair projects.
➢ Supervises the use of and operation of tools, equipment, and vehicles; ensures that tools, equipment, and vehicles are safely operated, maintained, and secured when not in use; schedules the service, repair, and replacement of tools and equipment.
➢ Inspects work in progress and completed work of assigned employees and contractors for accuracy, proper work methods and techniques, and compliance with applicable standards and specifications. ➢ Inspects the assigned City infrastructure for safety violations; ensures that safety procedures are followed, and that safety equipment is worn; makes periodic safety presentations to assigned staff. ➢ Performs the most complex public works maintenance duties and provides technical assistance to crews.
➢ Troubleshoots complex operational and maintenance problems; corrects or directs the correction and repair of operational and/or equipment problem including wastewater pump stations. ➢ Coordinates assigned services and activities with those of other divisions and outside agencies. ➢ Provides staff assistance to the Maintenance Superintendent; prepares and presents staff reports and other written materials; supervises the preparation and maintenance of related reports, records, and files; ensures the proper documentation of operations and activities. ➢ Stays current on the status of new and pending regulatory legislation; recommends changes to current policies and procedures in order to comply with changes in legislation. ➢ Oversees safety programs and training for the assigned functional areas and work groups; assists in action planning for safety programs; implements and monitors risk management plans regarding hazardous materials; responds to workers’ compensation issues. ➢ Answers questions and provides information to the public; investigates inquiries; recommends corrective actions to resolve issues.
➢ Responds to emergency situations as necessary.
➢ Performs other related duties as assigned.

JOB-RELATED QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
➢ Principles and practices of employee supervision, including work planning, assignment review and evaluation, discipline, and the training of staff in work procedures. ➢ Principles and practices of leadership.
➢ Principles and practices of public works maintenance and operations program development and administration.
➢ Principles, practices, equipment, tools, and materials of construction, maintenance, and repair of public works infrastructure.
➢ Applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulatory codes, ordinances, and procedures relevant to assigned area of responsibility.
➢ Basic principles and practices of budget and capital improvement program development, administration, and accountability.
➢ Principles and practices of contract administration and evaluation. ➢ Safety principles, practices, procedures, and equipment related to the work. ➢ The operation and maintenance of a variety of hand and power tools, vehicles, and power equipment.

3.4.f
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Exhibit E - PW Supervisor (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) Maintenance Supervisor

Page 3 of 4 ends

➢ Techniques for providing a high level of customer service by effectively dealing with the public, vendors, contractors, and City staff.
➢ Modern equipment and communication tools used for business functions and program, project, and task coordination.
➢ Computers and software programs (e.g., Microsoft software packages) to conduct, compile, and/or generate documentation.

Ability to:
➢ Organize, implement, and direct assigned maintenance and operations activities. ➢ Understand, interpret, and successfully communicate both orally and in writing pertinent department policies and procedures.
➢ Identify problems, research and analyze relevant information, develop and present recommendations, and justification for solution.
➢ Perform the most complex maintenance and operations duties and operate related equipment safely and effectively.
➢ Develop cost estimates for supplies and equipment.
➢ Research, analyze, and evaluate new service delivery methods, procedures, and techniques. ➢ Prepare clear and concise reports, correspondence, procedures, and other written materials. ➢ Establish and maintain a variety of manual and computerized files, record keeping, and project management systems.
➢ Read, interpret, retrieve, and produce drawings, blueprints, maps, and specifications. ➢ Understand, interpret, explain, and apply all pertinent laws, codes, regulations, policies and procedures, and standards relevant to work performed.
➢ Effectively represent the department and the City in meetings with governmental agencies; community groups; various business, professional, and regulatory organizations; and in meetings with individuals. ➢ Learn and understand the organization and operation of the City and of outside agencies as necessary to assume assigned responsibilities.
➢ Independently organize work, set priorities, meet critical deadlines, and follow-up on assignments. ➢ Effectively use computer systems, software applications, and modern business equipment to perform a variety of work tasks.
➢ Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing. ➢ Use tact, initiative, prudence, and independent judgment within general policy, procedural, and legal guidelines.
➢ Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.

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 the completion of the twelfth (12th) grade and five (5) years of progressively responsible work experience performing construction and maintenance work, including two (2) years of lead experience or equivalent. An associate degree in business administration or a related field is desirable.

Licenses and Certifications:
➢ Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid California Driver’s License by time of appointment and a satisfactory driving record.

PHYSICAL DEMANDS

3.4.f
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Exhibit E - PW Supervisor (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget) Maintenance Supervisor

Page 4 of 4 ends

Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer, to inspect City sites, including traversing uneven terrain, climbing ladders, stairs, and other access points, 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 and to conduct inspections 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. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry, push, and pull materials and objects weighing up to 40 pounds.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Employees predominately work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may work in the field and occasionally be exposed to loud noise levels, cold and hot temperatures, inclement weather conditions, road hazards, vibration, mechanical and/or electrical hazards, and hazardous chemical substances and fumes. Employees may interact with members of the public or with staff under emotionally stressful conditions while interpreting and enforcing departmental policies and procedures.

3.4.f
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Exhibit E - PW Supervisor (2359 : Classification Modifications for FY2022-23 Budget)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
Greg Henry, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving California Office of Emergency Services Form 130 Designation of Agent
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) Form 130, Designating Agents Necessary to Provide for All Matters Pertaining to State and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Reimbursements.

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. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
On March 4, 2020, the Governor of California proclaimed a state of emergency exists in California related to the spread of COVID-19.

On March 13, 2020, the President declared the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 COVID-19) pandemic of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration for all states, tribes, territories, and the District of Columbia pursuant to section 501 (b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the “Stafford Act”). This national emergency declaration increases federal support for state and local responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

3.5 Packet Pg. 35
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.

The City has sought to fund much of it’s COVID-19 response with outside funds including grants from San Mateo County and from FEMA.

For the City to be eligible for FEMA eligible cost reimbursement as well as other future reimbursement from the federal or state government, the City Council must approve a CalOES Form 130--Designation of Applicant’s Agency Resolution for Non-State Agencies (Form 130). The Form 130 designates the positions the City Council authorizes to apply for public assistance and recovery funding on behalf of the City, for a three-year period. The proposed action would designate the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Finance Director as agents who can apply for possible reimbursement.

This item is an update to a staff report from April 21, 2020 and sets the three-year window for receipt of funds from July 19, 2022, that is to July 19, 2025.

Analysis
If the City Council approves the Form 130, Staff will submit all necessary documents to CalOES as required for future reimbursement requests. Staff have submitted $76,361.01 in cost to recover throughout the COVID-19 emergency, of which $72,724.77 have been obligated by FEMA and are pending payment upon the submittal of the documents to CalOES.

Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate financial impact associated with approving the Resolution. However, approval of the CalOES Form 130 is required for the City to obtain certain disaster cost reimbursements from FEMA and the State relating to the COVID -19 emergency as well as any future disasters over the next three years.

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.

Attachments

1. resolution Designation Of Agent - Cal OES

2. Exhibit A to Resolution Cal OES Designation of Agent

3.5 Packet Pg. 36
Resolution No. XX-2022 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO.– 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
APPROVING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’ S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT’ S AGENT RESOLUTION (CALOES FORM 130) 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 WHEREAS, for the City to be eligible for future reimbursement from the Federal or State government for costs incurred from the current COVID-19 emergency, the City Council must approve a CalOES Form 130—Designation of Applicant’ s Agency Resolution for Non-State Agencies (Form 130) authorizing certain positions to apply for public assistance and recovery funding on behalf of the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY approves the CalOES Form 130—Designation of Applicant’s Agency Resolution for Non-State Agencies (Form 130), attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council designates the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Finance Director as authorized agents to obtain certain federal financial assistance under Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act, for a period not to exceed three years.

3.5.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: resolution Designation Of Agent - Cal OES (2349 : California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Designation of Agent) Resolution No. XX-2022 2 of 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July 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. 38
Attachment: resolution Designation Of Agent - Cal OES (2349 : California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Designation of Agent)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Cal OES ID No:

Cal OES 130

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION FOR

NON-STATE AGENCIES

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE OF THE
(Governing Body) (Name of Applicant)

THAT , OR
(Title of Authorized Agent)
, OR
(Title of Authorized Agent)
(Title of Authorized Agent)
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the , (Name of Applicant)
a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance for any existing or future grant program, including, but not limited to any of the following:
- Federally declared Disaster (DR), Fire Mitigation Assistance Grant (FMAG), California State Only Disaster (CDAA), Immediate Services Program (ISP), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), Legislative Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (LPDM), under - Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act.
- Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), under Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
- National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) 42 U.S. Code 7704 (b) ((2) (A) (ix) and 42 U.S. Code 7704 (b) (2) (B) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and also The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Div. F, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-141 - California Early Earthquake Warning (CEEW) under CA Gov Code – Gov, Title 2, Div. 1, Chapter 7, Article 5, Sections 8587.8, 8587.11, 8587.12 That the , a public entity established under the
(Name of Applicant)
laws of the State of California, hereby authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required.

Cal OES 130 (Rev 3/9/22)
Exhibit A

3.5.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution Cal OES Designation of Agent (2349 : California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Designation of

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Cal OES 130 (Rev 3/9/22)
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Cal OES 130
Please check the appropriate box below
This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters/grants declared up to three (3) years following the date of approval.

This is a disaster/grant specific resolution and is effective for only disaster/grant number(s):

Passed and approved this __day of , 20
(Name and Title of Governing Body Representative)
(Name and Title of Governing Body Representative)
(Name and Title of Governing Body Representative)

CERTIFICATION
I, , duly appointed and of
(Name) (Title)
, do hereby certify that the above is a true and
(Name of Applicant)
correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by the (Governing Body)
of the on the day of , 20 .
(Name of Applicant)
(Signature) (Title)
(Page 2 of 2)

3.5.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution Cal OES Designation of Agent (2349 : California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Designation of

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Cal OES 130 (Rev 3/9/22)
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Cal OES 130 - Instructions
Cal OES Form 130 Instructions
A Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies is required of all Applicants to be eligible to receive funding. A new resolution must be submitted if a previously submitted resolution is older than three (3) years from the last date of approval, is invalid, or has not been submitted.

When completing the Cal OES Form 130, Applicants should fill in the blanks on pages 1 and 2. The blanks are to be filled in as follows:

Resolution Section:

Governing Body: This is the group responsible for appointing and approving the Authorized Agents.

Examples include: Board of Directors, City Council, Board of Supervisors, Board of Education, etc.

Name of Applicant: The public entity established under the laws of the State of California.

Examples include: School District, Office of Education, City, County or Non-profit agency that has applied for the grant, such as: City of San Diego, Sacramento County, Burbank Unified School District, Napa County Office of Education, University Southern California.

Authorized Agent: These are the individuals that are authorized by the Governing Body to engage with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services regarding grants for which they have applied.

There are two ways of completing this section:

1. Titles Only: The titles of the Authorized Agents should be entered here, not their names. This allows the document to remain valid if an Authorized Agent leaves the position and is replaced by another individual. If “Titles Only” is the chosen method, this document must be accompanied by either a cover letter naming the Authorized Agents by name and title, or the Cal OES AA Names document.

The supporting document can be completed by any authorized person within the Agency (e.g., administrative assistant, the Authorized Agent, secretary to the Director). It does not require the Governing Body’s signature.

2. Names and Titles: If the Governing Body so chooses, the names and titles of the Authorized Agents would be listed. A new Cal OES Form 130 will be required if any of the Authorized Agents are replaced, leave the position listed on the document, or their title changes.
(Page 1 of 2)

3.5.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution Cal OES Designation of Agent (2349 : California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Designation of

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Cal OES 130 (Rev 3/9/22)
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Cal OES 130 - Instructions
Checking Universal or Disaster-Specific Box: A Universal resolution is effective for all past disasters and for those declared up to three (3) years following the date of approval. Upon expiration it is no longer effective for new disasters, but it remains in effect for disasters declared prior to expiration. It remains effective until the disaster goes through closeout unless it is superseded by a newer resolution.

Governing Body Representative: These are the names and titles of the approving Board Members.

Examples include: Chairman of the Board, Director, Superintendent, etc. The names and titles cannot be one of the designated Authorized Agents. A minimum of three (3) approving board members must be listed. If less than three are present, meeting minutes must be attached in order to verify a quorum was met.

Certification Section:

Name and Title: This is the individual in attendance who recorded the creation and approval of this resolution.

Examples include: City Clerk, Secretary to the Board of Directors, County Clerk, etc. This person cannot be one of the designated Authorized Agents or Approving Board Member. If a person holds two positions (such as City Manager and Secretary to the Board) and the City Manager is to be listed as an Authorized Agent, then that person could sign the document as Secretary to the Board (not City Manager) to eliminate “Self-Certification.” (Page 2 of 2)

3.5.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution Cal OES Designation of Agent (2349 : California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Designation of

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
Bo-Kyoung Kim, Financial Services Manager
SUBJECT: Monthly Cash Treasury Report for May 2022.

Recommendation
Accept and file the Cash Treasury Report 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. 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

3.6 Packet Pg. 43
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 May 30, 2022, are as follows:

Account
Beginning
Balance Receipts Disbursements
Quarterly
Interest
Allocation
Inter-Account
Transfers Ending Balance
Wells Fargo Bank 913,187.89 1,557,143.94 (1,968,694.61) - 2,000,000.00 2,501,637.22 LAIF 10,013,265.31 - - - - 10,013,265.31
San Mateo County Pool 102,552,345.12 2,679,539.79 - (2,000,000.00) 103,231,884.91 Total 113,478,798.32 4,236,683.73 (1,968,694.61) - - 115,746,787.44 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 $1.6M compared to the balance as of May 31, 2022.

May receipts, a total of approximately $1.6M, primarily consist of Fund from Department of Transportation for Annual Street Resurfacing ($0.5M), Sales Tax ($0.4M), TOT (0.1M), and other various receipts.

May disbursements total $2.0M and primarily consist of payroll costs ($1.1M), purchase of three cars for Police Department (0.1M), and other recurring operating expenditures.

The table below reflects recent treasury yield comparisons up to five-year notes since that is the maximum maturity the City may invest: 1
May-22 Apr-22 May-21
6-month Treasury Bill 1.60 1.37 0.03
2-year Treasury Note 2.53 2.70 0.14
5-Year Treasury Note 2.81 2.92 0.79
LAIF average monthly effective yields were 0.684% in May which increased for 0.16% from April 2022. San Mateo County monthly gross earnings for May were 1.062% compared to

1.02% in April 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.

Public Notice
1 Daily US Treasury Yield Curve. Treasury.gov

3.6 Packet Pg. 44
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.

3.6 Packet Pg. 45

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Adrian Biggs, Associate Engineer
Humza Javed, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorization to apply for the OBAG3 grant
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution retroactively authorizing submission of an application for the One Bay Area Grant 3 (OBAG 3)
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
The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), now in its third iteration, guides how MTC distributes federal transportation funding from the Federal Highway Administration to projects and programs that improve safety, spur economic development and help the Bay Area meet climate change and air quality improvement goals.

The third round of One Bay Area Grant funding (OBAG 3) was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in January 2022 and includes more than $750 million in federal funding for projects from 2023 to 2026.

Analysis
In response to MTC’s regional call for projects, C/CAG is conducting countywide outreach and initial project prioritization and will submit a project nomination list for consideration by MTC (by September 2022). MTC staff will evaluate County Transportation Agencies (CTA) nominations using regional criteria and recommend a subset of projects for OBAG 3 funding in January

3.7 Packet Pg. 46
2023. Applications for OBAG 3 funding were due to C/CAG on July 1, 2022.

Due to a tight timeline leading to the application due date, staff prepared and submitted an application on behalf of the City.

The Runnymede Street Improvements Project was selected for the application based on the criteria of the grant. This project is a multi-modal Complete Street project that enhances safety, bay trail access, and road conditions. This project meets the intent of the OBAG 3 grant to provide Safe Route to School, Complete Street, and Bay Trail Access improvements within a Priority Development Area (PDA) established by C/CAG.

The Project will improve Runnymede Street from Pulgas Avenue to the Bay Trail, including reconstructing the pavement, adding striping and pavement markings, closing sidewalk gaps, adding Class III bike lane striping, enhancing pedestrian crossings, improving drainage, and providing storm drain upgrades. The project cost, including design and construction, is currently estimated at $2,500,000.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact to apply for the grant. If the grant is awarded, a 20% match of approximately $490,000 will be required by MTC.

Attachments

1. Resolution

3.7 Packet Pg. 47
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE
ONE BAY AREA GRANT 3 (OBAG 3)
WHEREAS, the third round of One Bay Area Grant funding (OBAG 3) was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in January 2022; and WHEREAS includes more than $750 million in federal funding for projects from 2023 to 2026; and
WHEREAS, C/CAG is conducting countywide outreach and initial project prioritization and will submit a project nomination list for consideration by MTC by September 2022; and WHEREAS, MTC staff will evaluate County Transportation Agencies (CTA) nominations using regional criteria and recommend a subset of projects for OBAG 3 funding in January 2023; and WHEREAS, applications for OBAG 3 funding were due to C/CAG on July 1, 2022 and staff prepared and applied on behalf of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Runnymede Street Improvements Project was selected for the application based on the criteria of the grant.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY retroactively authorizes the submission of an application for the One Bay Area Grant 3 (OBAG 3).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day July 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

3.7.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Resolution (2330 : OBAG3 Grant Application)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Azalea Renfield, Community Services Manager
SUBJECT: Accept San Mateo County’s Office of Aging and Adult Services (OAAS) grant funding through 2022/2026 for Congregate Nutrition and Transportation Programs
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a four-year grant agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, from San Mateo County’s Aging and Adult Services in the amount of $197,004 for the City’s Congregate Nutrition and Transportation Programs for fiscal year(s) 2022-2026.

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

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 February 23, 2022, San Mateo County’s Office of Aging and Adult Services (OAAS) released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to senior service providers for a four-year (48-months) grant to support a variety of senior services, including the Senior Congregate Nutrition and Transportation program.

On June 28, 2022, the city was selected as a recipient to receive funding in the amount of $197,004 to be disbursed equally over four years ($49,251 per year) to provide nutritious catered lunches to seniors and daily transportation to and from East Palo Alto Senior Center each weekday. The City has been a grant recipient since 2002.

Analysis
Providing nutritious meals to senior residents in the city is an essential service. Similarly, providing transportation for seniors to the Senior Center ensures that all seniors have access

3.8 Packet Pg. 49
to resources and can actively participate in the Congregate Nutrition program and enjoy their community.

Table 1 outlines the approved budget allocation for the entire contract for both senior programs. The funding is derived from the Older Americans Act of 1969 via a pass-through from the California Department of Aging.

Program Area OAA COUNTY
General Fund
Total
Congregate
Nutrtion $ 149,400.00 $ 28,000.00 $ 177,400.00
Transportation $ 19,604.00 $ - $ 19,604.00
$ 169,004.00 $ - $ 197,004.00
Note: OAA funding is a pass-through from the US Department on Aging via the Older American Act of 1969. This funding is highly regulated and restricted. The County General Fund contribution is less restricted and is offered as additional support. The City has traditionally allocated this funding to support catering costs.

Staff believes it is essential to evaluate all programs and services provided by the City and to evaluate other viable options that could result in improved services at an equal or lesser cost to the City. The grant from the county is beneficial and allows the City to access ongoing support and other grant opportunities.

The administrative and programmatic support for these programs includes 1) manager, 1 onsite supervisor, 1 kitchen aide, and 2 van drivers. Recreation Leaders are occasionally assigned to support the program (if needed). Each team member participates in annual required training prescribed by San Mateo County. The team is cross-trained to ensure uninterrupted program coverage and improved operational efficiency.

To continue operating the programs without interruption, the staff recommends that City Council authorize the acceptance of the grant from San Mateo County’s Office of Aging and Adult Services.

Fiscal Impact
The total grant award is $197,004, which has been allocated to help offset the cost of catered meal service and vehicle maintenance.

Public Notice
The public was notified of this agenda item by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official bulletin board outside City Hall and making the plan and report available at the City’s website and the San Mateo Co. Library located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the

3.8 Packet Pg. 50
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 NO

2. OAA RFP Info Sheet

3.8 Packet Pg. 51
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A GRANT FOR $197,004 FROM SAN MATEO COUNTY’S OFFICE OF AGING AND ADULT SERVICES

FOR NUTRITION AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO SENIORS FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2022 TO JUNE 30, 2026 AND TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT

FOR THE GRANT
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, San Mateo County’s Office of Aging and Adult Services (OAAS) released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to senior service providers for a four-year (48-months) grant to support a variety of senior services, including the Senior Congregate Nutrition and Transportation program; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, the City was selected as a recipient to receive funding in the amount of $197,004 ($49,251 per year) to provide nutritious catered lunches to seniors and daily transportation to and from East Palo Alto Senior Center; and WHEREAS, the County and City have collaborated to support senior nutrition, transportation, and other related programs since July 2002; and WHEREAS, both the Congregate Nutrition and the Transportation Programs provide a necessary public good to provide nutritious meals in a congregate environment that seeks to provide wellness, and social engagement and reduce the isolation of our aging community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO that it hereby authorizes the City Manager to accept a grant in the amount of $197,004 from San Mateo County’s Office of Aging and Adult Services for nutrition and transportation services to seniors for the period July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2026 and to execute an Agreement for the grant.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor

3.8.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: RESOLUTION NO (2346 : Accept San Mateo County’s Office of Aging and Adult Services (OAAS) grant funding through 2022/2026) ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

3.8.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: RESOLUTION NO (2346 : Accept San Mateo County’s Office of Aging and Adult Services (OAAS) grant funding through 2022/2026)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Designating a voting delegate and up to two alternates to the California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference September 7-9, 2022, Long Beach.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) designating the Mayor to be the voting delegate and the Vice Mayor to serve as an alternate voting delegate to represent the City of East Palo Alto at the California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference.

Background
The California League of Cities’ 2022 Annual Conference is scheduled for Wednesday, September 7 through Friday, September 9 in Long Beach.

The League’s Annual Business meeting is typically scheduled for the Friday of the Conference.

At this meeting the League membership considers and acts on Resolutions that establish League policy.

Mayor Abrica and Vice Mayor Gauthier have indicated to staff that they intend to attend the conference.

Analysis
In order to vote at the Annual Business meeting, the City Council must designate a voting delegate. Council may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity.

The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. In order to cast a vote at least one person must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. The attached Resolution designates the Mayor as the primary delegate and the Vice Mayor as the alternate delegate.

Fiscal Impact

3.9 Packet Pg. 54
There is no Fiscal Impact connected to the action in the report.

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.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. League of Cities Information Packet

3.9 Packet Pg. 55

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

DESIGNATING MAYOR RUBEN ABRICA AS THE VOTING DELEGATE AND VICE

MAYOR LISA GAUTHIER AS THE ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
WHEREAS, The League of California Cities Annual Business meeting will be held on September 9, 2022; and
WHEREAS, The League of California Cities Bylaws require that a city’s voting delegate be designated by the City Council and that the voting delegate must be registered to attend the conference and be present at the business meeting.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT

1. The City Council designates Mayor Ruben Abrica as the voting delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference Business meeting to be held on Friday, September 9, 2022.

2. The City Council designates Vice Lisa Gauthier as the alternate voting delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference Business meeting to be held on Friday, September 9, 2022.

3. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of this resolution to the League of California Cities.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

3.9.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Resolution (2353 : California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference)

3.9.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: League of Cities Information Packet (2353 : California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference)

3.9.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: League of Cities Information Packet (2353 : California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference)

3.9.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: League of Cities Information Packet (2353 : California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference)

3.9.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: League of Cities Information Packet (2353 : California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference)

3.9.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: League of Cities Information Packet (2353 : California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference)

3.9.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: League of Cities Information Packet (2353 : California League of Cities 2022 Annual Conference)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: John Bostic Proclamation
Recommendation
Present the Proclamation.

Background
The City Council will present a proclamation recognizing and on honoring John Bostic.

Attachments

1. John Bostic Proclamation

3.10 Packet Pg. 63

PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO IN MEMORY OF AND RECOGNIZING JOHN GRANTANT

BOSTIC (JARIBU) FOR HIS YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY AS A

COUNCIL MEMBER AND MAYOR
WHEREAS, John Bostic was born in South Philadelphia Pennsylvania where he attended elementary, junior high school and graduated from South Philadelphia High School where he formed part of the track and field team, and WHEREAS, he went on to attend Foothill College, San Jose State University and graduated from San Francisco State University with a Bachelors Degree in Industrial Relations, and
WHEREAS, John Bostic served as Foothill College Financial Aid Director for 34 years and during this time he held various leadership positions in both the California Community College Student Financial Aid Administrators Association and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, and
WHEREAS, he was also a community activist and leader in East Palo Alto and the Mid-peninsula communities and under his leadership the Ethos Academy for the Development of Learning was established, and WHEREAS, he served as a Council Member, Vice Mayor and Mayor of the City of East Palo Alto during the late 1980's and early 1990's, and WHEREAS, in subsequent years he also served as a Trustee on the Ravenswood City Elementary School District and was involved in the National School Boards Association, and
WHEREAS, an event to celebrate the life of John Grantant Bostic (Jaribu) will be held on August 4th at 1:00 pm at the Hearthside Lounge at Foothill College,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the City Council of East Palo Alto, hereby recognizes John Grantant Bostic (Jaribu) for his years of service to the City as a Council Member and Mayor
Dated: July 19, 2022
Ruben Abrica, Mayor

3.10.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: John Bostic Proclamation (2358 : John Bostic Proclamation)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Glen March, Senior Engineer
Humza Javed, City Engineer
Adrian Biggs, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Traffic Calming Update
Recommendation
Receive and file.

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
The City of East Palo Alto (City) engineering staff is working to implement traffic calming measures to reduce speeding and sideshows (illegal late-night gatherings that feature car racing and/or car stunts) in the City. The process of implementing traffic calming measures is a continuous process.

On April 20, 2021, the City Council approved a Resolution adopting a Residential Streets Traffic Management Policy (Policy). The purpose of the policy was to provide guidance and uniform procedures to address resident concerns regarding traffic safety in our neighborhoods.

City Staff follows the Policy to address speeding concerns city-wide.

Analysis
Speed humps are regularly requested by residents. The City’s current practice is to install speed humps based on the recommendations presented in the City’s Mobility Plan and

6.1 Packet Pg. 65
requested from the community through an adopted process. There are many other examples of traffic calming which can be reviewed at the following link:
<https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/design-controls/design-speed/speedreduction-mechanisms/>.

Staff also works with the Menlo Park Fire District (MPFD) to determine speed hump locations.

MPFD does not want speed humps on certain arterial and collector streets (major streets) to maintain response times and avoid damage the fire engines and other vehicles. For those streets, city staff considers speed hump alternatives, which may be significantly more expensive than speed humps. Also, city staff has adopted the MPFD speed hump standards which include gaps in the speed humps at widths equal to the wheels of fire engines which allow fire engines to drive through without slowing down as much. 2022 Annual Street Resurfacing Project (Project)
The most cost-effective means of implementing traffic calming measures is as part of a large street resurfacing project.

The construction of this year’s project will begin in July 2022 and should be completed by December 2022. As part of the Project, eight speed humps will be constructed at the following locations:

Street Location
Bell Street between Clarke Avenue and Bell Court (total: 2) Bell Street between Cooley Avenue and Henry Court
Runnymede Street between Clarke Avenue and Avelar Street (East) Runnymede Street between Cooley Avenue and Avelar Street (West) Wisteria Drive1 between Camellia Drive and Daphne Way
Illinois Street1 between Bay Road and Michigan Avenue (total: 2) Notes:

1. Speed hump requested by residents and approved by the Public Works and Transportation Commission (PW&TC).

Speed Hump Requests
Residents may request that the City install speed humps. The process and necessary forms for requesting speed humps is located on the City’s website. <https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/3441/final_spe ed_hump_process_letter_and_petition.pdf>. Once the request is complete, the PW&TC may approve the request and recommend that the City Council approve the speed humps or deny the request.

Between July 1, 2021 and June 31, 2022, residents submitted three (3) speed hump requests.

Two (2) requests were approved by the PW&TC and the City Council. One (1) request was denied because the proposed location was on a bus route where speed humps cannot be placed.

City’s Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP)

6.1 Packet Pg. 66
The development of CBTP is a Metropolitan Transportation Commission Program that seeks to bring local residents, community organizations and transportation agencies together to improve mobility for low-income communities. (tap:
<https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/community-basedtransportation-plans-cbtps>) Staff is working with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County to update the City’s 2004 CBTP. The 2004 CBTP can be found here: (tap:

EastPaloAltoCBTPFinal.pdf (ca.gov)
<https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/CBTP%20East%20Palo%20Alto%202004.pdf>).

C/CAG is the lead agency for preparing the updated CBTPs for specific areas of San Mateo County. East Palo Alto will be included in the new CBTP for Southeast San Mateo County.

C/CAG solicited input for the CBTP from East Palo Alto residents, including having a booth at the local farmer's market. Residents identified transportation and mobility needs in the City.

C/CAG will develop a list of projects and rate the projects based on community priorities, financial feasibility, ease of implementation, etc. Staff is currently reviewing and commenting upon the draft list of projects identified by residents.

Residents requested traffic calming measures at numerous locations. Other projects include improving signalization control, adding pedestrian amenities, closing sidewalk gaps, improving lighting deficiencies, increasing bus service, and implementing safe routes to school improvements.

In the Fall, staff will provide a compressive update on the implementation of the City’s Mobility Study to the City Council including progress on short term items, as well as next steps.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associate with receiving and filing this report.

6.1 Packet Pg. 67

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Batool Zaro, Assistant Civil Engineer
Humza Javed, City Engineer
Jeff Liu, Interim Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Street Sweeping Project Update
Recommendation
Receive and file.

Background
The City of East Palo Alto’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes a project for street sweeping signage city wide. In 2016 approximately 300 street seeping signs were installed around the Gardens neighborhood.

A new project to install street sweeping signs began in 2021. The 2021 Street Sweeping Project includes the installation of approximately 350 signs throughout the City, filling a large gap of the locations that lack signage. As part of the current project, approximately 300 signs were installed in 2021 and the remaining additional signs will be installed in 2022. Once all the work is completed, approximately 80% of the City will have street sweeping signage. Some neighborhoods in the City are without street sweeping signage due to the lack of curb where signs can be safely and appropriately placed. Additionally, other areas in the City, like the Palo Alto Park area, only have street sweeping signs on one side of the street because of the existence of curbs on only one side of the street. Upon installation of curbs at the remaining locations, street sweeping signs will subsequently be installed.

Analysis
Street sweeping signage and its enforcement is vital for the environment and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Trash and debris that is not swept on an occasional schedule ends up in the storm drain, and eventually the ocean.

Street sweeping helps remove these materials and keeps them out of the stormwater drainage

6.2 Packet Pg. 68
system. Regular street sweeping also reduces the accumulation of dust and controls its distribution into the atmosphere.

The East Palo Alto community has regularly complained about the lack of enforcement of the street sweeping signs. The City Council recently appropriated funds for Community Service Officers (CSO), and one of the many tasks of the CSO’s is street sweeping enforcement. It is anticipated additional CSO’s will be hired and trained by late summer 2022 and street sweeping signed will be enforced by the Police Department (PD) on a more consistent basis.

Early in 2022, mailers regarding street sweeping enforcement were sent out by the Public Works Department to residents in the areas where the new signs were installed. These mailers were sent as a courtesy to the residents informing them about the new signs and upcoming enforcement.

Any questions regarding the Street Sweeping Project can be sent to [email protected]
In the Fall, staff will bring a compressive update on the City’s Mobility Study to the City Council to discuss the progress on short-term items as well as next steps.

6.2 Packet Pg. 69

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Karen Camacho, Housing Project Manager
Rachel Horst, Housing and Economic Development Manager
Michelle Huang, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.

Recommendation
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution:

2. Directing the City Manager to execute all required documents, in a form approved by the City Attorney, associated with the Inclusionary Housing requirements of the Project.

Background
Lincoln St. Residential Development Project
The project located at Lincoln St. with APN 063-186-270 (“Project”) is a residential development on a currently vacant lot of 5,149 square feet (“sq ft”). The Project applicant is Namit Raisurana (“Applicant”). The Project area is zoned as Single-Family Residential Zone (“R-LD”). The proposal is to build a two-story residential rental development, with one unit on the first floor and one unit on the second floor, utilizing Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”). The applicant is also proposing a 727-sq ft detached ADU and a deed-restricted 511 sq ft ADU. See the Applicant’s Inclusionary Housing Plan and tentative design plan in Attachment 2.

Consistent with the recently approved SB 9 this development proposal, located in the R-LD

8.1 Packet Pg. 70
zoning district, must be approved via a ministerial process. However, as explained below, the Inclusionary Housing Plan must be approved by City Council prior to the development proposal because the applicant is requesting an Alternative Compliance Option.

Please find a timeline of the project below:

Table 1. Project Timeline
May 5, 2022 SB 9 Plan Submittal
June 3, 2022 Inclusionary Housing Plan submittal
Pending Planning Issuance of Compliance Letter
Pending Ministerial Building Permit
Inclusionary Housing Requirement
All residential development projects are subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.37 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code (“EPAMC”) Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (“IHO”), adopted by City Council on November 19, 2019.

The IHO requires an Inclusionary Housing Plan to be approved by the Housing Division prior to scheduling the first Planning Commission hearing or Planning approval. The content of the Inclusionary Housing Plan is incorporated into the Housing Division conditions of approval.

In the Inclusionary Housing Plan, applicants must select from a list of options (“Inclusionary Housing Compliance Options”) that demonstrate how a project will meet the inclusionary requirement. The Applicant completed an Inclusionary Housing Plan and selected the “Other” Alternative Compliance Option, as shown in Attachment 2. Under the IHO, all alternative compliance options require City Council approval. This alternative is discussed in detail in the analysis section below.

The purpose of this staff report is for Council to consider the Project applicant’s request to provide an Alternative Compliance Option under the IHO. If the Inclusionary Housing Plan is approved, the approval for the proposed development proposal would be processed via a ministerial building permit.

Analysis
Standard Inclusionary Housing Requirements
All residential projects that create net new units of fewer than 5 units are required to pay an InLieu Fee equivalent to 20% of the base number of units in the project. Below is the fee schedule for projects with fewer than 5 units.

Table 2. In-Lieu Fee for Projects with Fewer than 5 Units Project Size For-Sale Rental
1 unit $38,000 $51,800
2 units $76,000 $103,600
3 units $114,000 $155,400

8.1 Packet Pg. 71
4 units $152,000 $207,200
Lincoln St. Inclusionary Housing Requirement
As a proposed two-unit rental development project, the Project’s inclusionary requirement is to pay an In-Lieu Fee for .4 Inclusionary Units for a total of $103,600.

Since the Project is a development of fewer than five units, the IHO also allows applicants the option to provide one Inclusionary Unit on-site.

Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Options
The IHO allows the applicant of a residential development of fewer than 5 units to propose an alternative to the In-Lieu Fee requirement. Any Alternative Compliance Option requires the approval of the City Council. The IHO identifies two Alternative Compliance Options:

1. Provide Inclusionary Units off-site equal to 25% of the units in the project at the lowest affordability level; or

2. Other Alternative Compliance Options as proposed by the applicant.

The applicant has chosen to go with Option 2 and is proposing an Other Alternative Compliance Option for consideration by City Council that will be further discussed below.

Inclusionary Housing Standards
If the Applicant were to choose Option 1, section 18.37.060 describes the standards for Inclusionary Units off-site. These standards are relative to the market-rate units in a project and include:
· Comparability in exterior appearance and overall quality of construction (to the market-rate unit)
· Comparability in average bedroom mix and unit size
· Dispersion of Inclusionary Units throughout the project, rather than a single location · Same amenities (access to common open space, parking, storage, etc.) The purpose of these standards is to ensure that the Inclusionary Units are indistinguishable from the market-rate units and well-integrated into the project. Please note that, because the IHO does not apply to ADUs, any proposed ADUs are not included in the base count for the purpose of calculating the inclusionary obligation.

Proposed Alternative Compliance Option
Also, if the applicant chooses Option 1 of providing units off-site, the requirement is to provide the equivalent of 25% of the total number of units. Any proposed “Other” Alternative Compliance Option should demonstrate equivalent or greater public benefit than this amount, and this is the basis upon which the proposal is evaluated.

Since the Project is a development of fewer than five units, the Applicant also has the option to provide one Inclusionary Unit on-site as an “Other” Alternative Compliance Option.

The Applicant proposes one attached ADU, to be rented at a price affordable to a household at or below 35% Area Median Income (“AMI”). Based on 2022 household

8.1 Packet Pg. 72
income limits, the Inclusionary Unit would rent at $1,005.25 per month for a two-person household in this ADU.

For reference, the 2022 household income limits at 35% AMI are shown below.

Table 3. 2022 Household Income Limits at 35% Area Median Income Household Size 1 2 3 4
35% AMI Max
Income
$45,668.00 $48,930.00 $58,716.00 $65,240.00
SB 9 Applicability
The current, proposed design of this Project, including this “Other” Alternative Compliance Option, is not compliant with the development standards for the Residential Low Density (RLD) zoning designation. The R-LD zoning only allows for the development of a single-family dwelling on each parcel.

However, Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), a new state law from the 2020-22 legislative session that took effect on January 1, 2022, applies to the Project to allow the development of up to two units in single-family zoning districts, such as the R-LD designation. SB 9 requires jurisdictions to allow through a ministerial approval the development of up two (2) units, not including ADUs, on each parcel zoned for single-family dwellings. Consistent with the previous legislative changes in 2019, ADUs must also be allowed through a ministerial process. “Ministerial” approval means that jurisdictions may only use objective zoning, design, and subdivision standards in their review of a residential development project, without discretionary review or a public hearing.

The Applicant proposes to utilize SB 9 to build a two-unit residence on the one lot. Planning has conducted an initial review to confirm the project could qualify for SB 9.

Upon the Planning Division’s issuance of a Zoning Clearance confirming that the project is subject to SB 9, the applicant would file for a Building permit. As a ministerial process, the Project would not be subject to a design review permit, including Planning Commission approval.

Evaluation of Lincoln St. SB 9 Compliance
Since the Project is proposing two units via SB 9, each unit would be allowed to have one ADU. The ADUs are required to meet the development standards under EPAMC 18.96.040 - Development Standards - Lots with Two-Family and Multiple-Family Dwellings. The two-unit SB 9 project with the attached and detached ADUs are consistent with all the applicable Accessory Dwelling Unit development standards.

A. Multiple accessory units may be allowed within the existing portion of two-family or multiple-family dwellings that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with the current Building and Fire Codes for dwellings. The project is a new development on a vacant lot. The applicant proposes two accessory dwelling units for a two8.1 Packet Pg. 73
unit development that would be permitted via SB 9 in the R-LD Single-Family Residentialzoning district.

B. At least one accessory unit may be allowed within an existing multiple-family dwelling, subject to requirements in subsection A of EPAMC 18.96.040. Attached accessory units may be allowed up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing number of units within the site. The proposal to construct one 511 sq. ft. attached ADU and one 727 sq. ft. detached ADU meets the requirements.

C. No more than two detached accessory units may be allowed on a lot zoned for twofamily or multiple-family dwellings. A detached accessory unit shall not exceed 16 feet in height, in addition to any required elevation for floodproofing pursuant to Section 15.52.070(A) of the EPAMC, as well as minimum rear and side setbacks of four (4) feet. The applicant proposes one detached accessory dwelling that would have a maximum height of 14’-11” and the attached ADU would have a maximum height 12’-9”; both proposed ADUs would meet the maximum 16 ft. height threshold. The detached ADU would also meet the minimum four-foot side and rear setbacks and the minimum six-foot separation required between the main dwelling and the ADU.

D. Accessory units shall comply with the provisions of Section 18.96.030, as applicable.

The ADU parking spaces are exempt since the parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of a public transit opportunity (i.e., a bus stop). The ADUs would not be submitted to impact fees because all proposed ADUs are less than 750 sq. ft. in size. The detached ADU matches the overall architectural features of the proposed main dwelling - colors, materials, appearance, roofing, and windows.

Evaluation of the Lincoln St. Alternative Compliance Option Section 18.37.080 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code describes that an “Other” Alternative Compliance Option can be approved by the City Council based on findings that the alternative will provide as many or more inclusionary units at the same or lower income levels or will otherwise provide greater public benefit than would provision of the inclusionary units on-site.

For the purposes of comparison, the market-rate units and inclusionary unit are shown side-byside in the chart below.

Table 4. Inclusionary and Market-Rate Unit Overview
Inclusionary Unit Market-Rate Units
Units 1 1-bedroom
attached ADU
1 3-bedroom (Unit 1) 1 4-bedroom (Unit 2) 1
2-bedroom detached ADU
Size 511 sq ft 1,030 sq ft (Unit 1) 1,424 sq ft (Unit 2) 727 sq ft (ADU) 2,454-3,181 total with ADU
AMI Levels 35% AMI All market-rate
Required Number of Units. The number of Inclusionary Units required for this Project is a fraction of a unit (.4). The proposed Alternative Compliance Option exceeds that requirement by providing one Inclusionary Unit.

8.1 Packet Pg. 74
Bedroom Count and Size. The Inclusionary Unit proposed would be a one-bedroom 511 sq ft attached ADU, while the detached ADU and two units would range from 727 to 1,424 sq ft.

While the maximum allowable size for an attached or detached ADU is 1,000 sq. ft., the proposed ADUs are smaller due to constraints such as setback and parking requirements.

Comparability. The one-bedroom Inclusionary Unit would contain identical or comparable exterior and interior finishes and amenities (e.g., washer and dryer), with equal access to common areas and comparable private open space.

Affordability- AMI. As noted in Table 2 above, in an inclusionary requirement for a project of five or fewer units, the In-Lieu Fee must be paid. In the Alternative Compliance Option, the unit would be restricted for sale to households at or below 35% AMI.

Rather than focusing on the Applicant providing an Inclusionary Unit that is equivalent to one of the market-rate units, staff evaluated whether the provision of this 511 sq ft ADU at 35% AMI is an equal or greater public benefit than a fee payment representing a fraction of a subsidized prototypical unit.

Based on the methodology of the Rental In-Lieu Fee calculation, the fee payment of $103,600 represents .4 times the gap financing for an “average” unit (calculated as weighted average of 35%, 50%, and 60% AMI). Providing one unit that will rent at 35% AMI, or $1,005.25 per month, compared to $1,900 for a market-rate ADU, could immediately provide a per-month “subsidy” of $894.75.

In addition, based on the UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, ADUs in the San Francisco Bay Area region are the most expensive to build, with a median construction cost of $329 per sq ft. The proposed inclusionary unit would cost approximately $168,119 to build, which is greater than the In-Lieu Fee of $103,600.

Staff finds this Alternative Compliance Option preferable in terms of both subsidy amount and timing, as the ADU will become available when construction of the Project is completed, rather than funds accumulating in the Affordable Housing Fund to support affordable units at a later time. In addition, this unit would increase the City’s affordable housing stock as it will be deedrestricted in perpetuity at 35% AMI for a household size of two people.

Staff Recommendation
Based on the above considerations, staff believes the above-described proposal to provide one ADU to a household at or below 35% AMI fulfills the requirements of Section 18.37.080 and recommends the City Council approve this Alternative Compliance Option.

Construction of Units in Alternative Compliance Option
If the City Council approves the provision of Inclusionary Unit as an Alternative Compliance Option for the Project, the standard requirements of the IHO will apply. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City would execute an Inclusionary Housing Agreement that holds the developer responsible for constructing the Inclusionary Units concurrently with the market-rate units in the project and for selecting a qualified buyer. This Inclusionary Housing Agreement is recorded against the entire Project.

8.1 Packet Pg. 75
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a deed restriction would be recorded against the Inclusionary Unit to ensure that it remains affordable in perpetuity, in accordance with the requirements of the IHO for rental units.

The City or its designated entity, such as EPACANDO, would be responsible for ongoing compliance monitoring. As with all units created and income-restricted under the Inclusionary Housing program, these units would remain part of the City’s Below Market-Rate (“BMR”) portfolio.

Next Steps
If the City Council determines that the proposed Alternative Compliance Option is sufficient to fulfill the Project’s inclusionary obligation, City staff will incorporate the Inclusionary Housing Plan into the permit issuance process.

Staff will also prepare the required documents and work with the developer to execute and record an Inclusionary Housing Agreement against the Project. As noted above, the project, including the Inclusionary Units, will be permitted via a ministerial approval process enabled by SB 9 and the EPAMC.

Staff would like to note that, in all cases, the Inclusionary Housing Agreement will ensure the Project complies with Section 18.37.070 of the EPAMC, which requires concurrent construction and issuance of final inspection or certificates of occupancy for the Inclusionary Units and market-rate units.

Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this staff report.

As noted above, if the City Council approves the Alternative Compliance Option, the Applicant would not be required to pay the In-Lieu Fee payment of $103,600, the equivalent of .4 units, but instead would provide the Inclusionary Unit at 35% AMI.

All BMR units are managed by the City’s current BMR Administrator, EPACANDO. Addition of units to the portfolio will not generate additional administrative costs, as these are funded through a combination of Housing TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax, F207) and Housing Successor (F220) funds under the Agreement with EPACANDO, which is effective through May 2023.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by publishing a notice in the July 8, 2022 Palo Alto Daily News and by posting the agenda and report on the City’s website and at the City Hall located at 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

8.1 Packet Pg. 76
(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

2. Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan

8.1 Packet Pg. 77
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

APPROVING AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OPTION FOR A TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT LINCOLN STREET (APN 063-186-270) WHEREAS, on November 19, 2020, the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto (“City Council”) adopted Ordinance No. 425 (“Ordinance”), adding Chapter 18.37 – Inclusionary Housing to the City of East Palo Alto Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, an application for a residential development consisting of two units and one detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) that provides one attached ADU as an inclusionary unit on a vacant lot on Lincoln Street (“Project”), was submitted on May 5, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the Ordinance, since it is a new residential development project; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s inclusionary obligation is to provide an In-Lieu Fee Payment equal to

0.4 of a unit;
WHEREAS, Section 18.37.080(D) of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code allows for an applicant of a residential development to propose an Alternative Compliance Option to meet its inclusionary obligation, and this Alternative Compliance Option must be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, in lieu of paying an In-Lieu Fee equal to 0.4 of a unit, the Developer proposes to provide one attached ADU to rent to a 35% Area Median Income (“AMI”) Household, as defined in the Ordinance, as an Alternative Compliance Option for the Project; and WHEREAS, no Planning approvals or clearances may be issued for a residential project unless the inclusionary housing requirements are first met.

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

1. Finds that the proposed Alternative Compliance Option for the Project to provide, instead of an In-Lieu Fee Payment equivalent to 0.4 units, one attached Accessory Dwelling Unit to be rented separately to 35% Area Median Income Households, satisfies the requirements of Section 18.37.080(D) of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code; and

2. Directs the City Manager to execute all necessary documents, in a form approved by the City Attorney, associated with the inclusionary housing requirements of the Project.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Resolution (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.) ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Ruben Abrica, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Resolution (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.) 1 Inclusionary Housing Plan – Section 18.37.090
Overview
Residential Developments in East Palo Alto that create new or additional dwelling units (“Residential Developments”) are subject to the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

All residential developments seeking permits are required to submit an Inclusionary Housing Plan Application (“Inclusionary Housing Plan Application”), as described below.

Developers who claim their project is exempt or waived from the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance must comply with this process in order for the claim to be evaluated by Housing Division staff.

As part of the application for First Approval of any Residential Developments, there is an Inclusionary Housing Plan application processing fee. The current processing fee can be found on the Housing Division’s webpage of the City’s website. [Note to applicant: there is no fee in place at this time.]
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Requirements
Please refer to the Inclusionary Housing Guidelines for further information on the following requirements.

1.) The inclusionary requirement for Residential Developments of fewer than 5 units is an In-Lieu Fee payment.

2.) The inclusionary requirement for Residential Developments of 5 or more units is the provision of 20% of the units on-site, i.e., within the Residential Development, at the affordability levels indicated below1:
a. For-Sale: 10% of units affordable to households at or below 80% AMI and 10% of units affordable to households at or below 120% AMI b. Rental: 5% of units affordable to households at or below 35% AMI; 10% of units affordable to households at or below 50% AMI; and 5% of units affordable to households at or below 60% AMI
The Inclusionary Units must not be geographically concentrated in the development and must meet standards intended to ensure Inclusionary Units are comparable to the market rate units. These standards can be found in the Inclusionary Housing Guidelines.

3.) Any developments that contain residential units are subject to the Ordinance, including mixed-use developments. The Ordinance applies only to the residential portion of the development.
1 Please refer to Section 18.37 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Inclusionary Housing Guidelines Main Document for further detail on affordability levels and definitions.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on 2 4.) For Developers seeking to pursue any Alternative Compliance Option, including, but not limited to: Off-Site Construction, payment of an In-Lieu Fee, or other alternatives, the inclusionary requirement is 25%. The proposed Alternative Compliance Option must be identified in the Inclusionary Housing Plan. All Alternative Compliance Options are subject to City Council approval. It is the responsibility of the Developer to demonstrate that the Alternative Compliance Option meets the inclusionary requirements. Demonstrating such findings will not result in automatic approval of the proposed Alternative Compliance Option.

Please see the Inclusionary Housing Guidelines for more information on Alternative Compliance Options.

5.) Please refer to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for projects that are exempt from the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements.

Please note that a Residential Development that has tentative map(s) or other map(s) or plan(s) allowing the creation of separately conveyable dwelling units or interests (such as condominiums, stock cooperatives, or community apartments) will be considered For-Sale even if the Developer intends to rent the units.

Inclusionary Housing Plan Application
As part of the application for First Approval2 of any development, the Developer must submit the completed Inclusionary Housing Plan Application and all relevant attachments (including the Unit Mix Worksheet and Fair Housing & Marketing Plan) to the Housing Division. The Inclusionary Housing Plan is processed concurrently with all other permits and must be submitted and accepted by the Housing Division two weeks prior to scheduling of an entitlement hearing.

If the project is a mix of For-Sale and Rental, attach two separate Unit Mix Worksheets.

All information supporting the qualification for an exemption or waiver must also be submitted with this packet.

If an Inclusionary Housing Plan was not submitted and approved at First Approval, it is due when a Developer applies for any other Planning or Building permit and must be approved and before any permits are issued.

Review Process
As a part of the initial permit application review process, the Housing Division will provide the Developer an initial response letter with a preliminary determination of the Inclusionary Housing obligations associated with the project.

The Housing Division may contact the Developer to request additional information required in connection with the Inclusionary Housing Plan Application and/or the 2 First Approval is defined as the first approval to occur for either a Planning permit or Building permit for the Residential Development, as applicable.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on 3 Developer’s proposed method of satisfying the obligation. Failure to fully complete the application and provide all attachments may delay approval of the Inclusionary Housing Plan.

After review of the Inclusionary Housing Plan, if it is complete, consistent with the IHO and Guidelines, and all required submittals have been provided, the Plan will be approved and the permit conditions will be provided to Planning and Building Divisions and the Developer. These permit conditions will be made a part of the project’s conditions of approval.

Please submit the completed plan to the Housing Project Manager at [email protected].

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on 4 City of East Palo Alto Inclusionary Housing Plan
Residential Developments in East Palo Alto (“Residential Developments”) are subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.37 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code – Inclusionary Housing.

An application for First Approval of a Residential Development must include an Inclusionary Housing Plan. This will be processed concurrently with all other permits required for the Residential Development and must be approved prior to issuance of any permits or scheduling of an entitlement hearing.

Please fill out the application below and submit it together with the Unit Mix Table and Unit Mix Details to the Housing Project Manager at [email protected].

Application for Inclusionary Housing Plan
Developer Information
Company name
Address
Phone
Contact name
Email/Phone
Project Information
Project Name:

Project Address:

Project APNs:

Planning file number if assigned:

Number of residential buildings:

Total number of units:

For-sale housing project? Y N
For rent housing project? Y N
Is this project a mixed use (commercial/residential)? Y N Total square footage of non-residential space:

Is this a rehab project? Y N
If so, number of units to be added:

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on 5 Will any residential units be demoed or converted? Y N Does developer intend to obtain a parcel, or tentative, and final map for the project? Y N Does developer intend to create condos, coops, or similar housing requiring CA BRE report approval? Y N
Does Developer intend to request a Density Bonus (Section 18.37.060)? Y N Exemption (Section 18.37.040)
Does developer intend to seek an exemption for the project? Y N Additional documentation may be required.

1. Map Act Vesting: Project has subdivision map(s) which the Developer claims confer vesting rights under the Subdivision Map Act:

Tentative or parcel: Y N
Approval date:

Final: Y N
Approval date (if applicable):

Please indicate if any maps are phased or vesting.

2. Building permit issued Y N
Issue date:

3. Previously executed Development Agreement: Y N
Approval date:

Please attach an explanation to this application with supporting documentation, including any approved maps or permits needed to support your claim.

Compliance Methods (Section 18.37.050)
Check all that apply
In-Lieu Fee (for projects of < 5 units)
On-site (20% Inclusionary Units)
In-Lieu Fee for fraction of unit (for projects of 5+ units) Alternative Compliance Options (Section 18.37.080)
Developer must seek approval from City Council.

In-Lieu Fee (25% Inclusionary Units)
Off-Site (25% Inclusionary Units)
Other (25% Inclusionary Units)
By signing below, Developer acknowledges that most claims of exemption can only be conditionally approved at the time the Inclusionary Housing Plan Application is approved. The Developer will be required to record an Inclusionary Housing Agreement agreeing to satisfy the Obligation if conditions of exemption are not met.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on 6 Developer Signature
Date
Planning acceptance of application Date
Housing acceptance of application Date

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on 7 Unit Mix Table
Please see Section 18.37.050 and Section 18.37.060.

1. Please provide the unit mix of market-rate vs. Inclusionary Units using a table like the ones shown below. Note that:
a) The inclusionary unit mix should reflect that of the market-rate units. The total number of bedrooms in the Inclusionary Units should reflect 20% of the total number of bedrooms in the project.
b) The square footage of the Inclusionary Units must be comparable to that of the market-rate units. The average square footage of the Inclusionary Units should be no less than 85% of the average square footage of the market rate units with the same number of bedrooms.

2. Please indicate the affordability levels of the Inclusionary Units3 and the rent
levels of the Market-Rate Units4in the table.
a) For-Sale requirement: 10% of units affordable to households at or below 80% AMI and 10% of units affordable to households at or below 120% AMI. b) Rental requirement: 5% of units affordable to households at or below 35% AMI; 10% of units affordable to households at or below 50% AMI; and 5% of units affordable to households at or below 60% AMI.

Example Table: Inclusionary Unit Mix [50-Unit Rental Project] Unit Type AMI
(%)
Bedrooms Sq Ft. # Units Total
Bedrooms
Total Sq.

Ft.

Type A 35 1 900 1 1 900
Type B 35 2 1200 1 2 1200
Type B 50 2 1200 2 4 2400
Type B 60 2 1200 2 4 2400
Type C 35 3 1800 1 3 1800
Type C 50 3 1800 2 6 3600
Type C 60 3 1800 1 3 1800
Total 10 23 14100
Example Table: Market-Rate Unit Mix [50-Unit Rental Project] Bedrooms Sq. Ft. # Units Total
Bedrooms
Total Sq.

Ft.
1 900 10 10 9000
2 1200 20 40 24000
3 1800 10 30 18000
Total 40 80 51000
3 Please note that the inclusionary requirement for any Alternative Compliance Option is 25% at the lowest affordability levels. See the Inclusionary Housing Guidelines Main Document for a breakdown by affordability levels.
4 For an Alternative Compliance proposal, please provide an estimate of the amount you plan to rent each market rate rental unit for. Commercial real estate information (e.g. Co-Star, Zillow, Redfin, etc.) or your own estimates are acceptable.

Market
Rent
Type A $2,200
Type B $3,200
Type C $3,800

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on 8 Unit Mix Details
Please see Section 18.37.060.

1.) Please indicate in the project site plan the location and size of the Inclusionary Units.
a) The Inclusionary Units must not be geographically concentrated in the development and must meet standards intended to ensure Inclusionary Units are comparable to the market rate units. See Section 18.37.060.

2.) Please describe construction appearance and quality of the Inclusionary Units. a) The Inclusionary Units must be comparable in exterior appearance and overall quality of construction to the market-rate units.

3.) Please describe access to private open space and other amenities of the Inclusionary Units, including parking.
a) The Inclusionary Units must have the same access to amenities as the market-rate units. This includes common areas, parking, and storage.

4.) Please outline a Fair Housing and Marketing plan, which must comply with all applicable Fair Housing laws and not discriminate in the sale or rental of Inclusionary Units on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, gender, disability, familial status, age, income source, or marital status. This includes application of the City’s Local Preference Policy.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Attachment 1 to Inclusionary Housing Plan
Inclusionary Housing Fair Housing and Marketing Plan
A Fair Housing and Marketing plan is required as part of the Inclusionary Housing Plan submittal, in compliance with City of East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.37.090.

The Fair Housing and Marketing Plan must be submitted prior to Planning approval, but may be refined thereafter, and is and codified in the Inclusionary Housing Agreement.

The below plan must be approved by the Housing Division prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The below template may be used to draft the plan.

Please address the following in the plan below:
• Anticipated timeline for the sale of both market-rate and inclusionary units, indicating concurrent marketing and sale of both types of units • Description of how the Inclusionary Units will be marketed to the public in a nondiscriminatory and equitable manner
• Acknowledgement of City of East Palo Alto Local Preference Policy, which will apply to the Inclusionary Units
The marketing of all units should be concurrent between market rate and Inclusionary Units. Final inspections or certificates of occupancy (including temporary certificates when there are multiple phases or buildings) will not be approved for more than 50% of the market-rate units until final inspections or certificates of occupancy have been issued for all (100%) of the Inclusionary Units (EPA Municipal Code 18.37.070).

Project Information:

Address: 2206 Lincoln St, East Palo Alto, CA 94303
APN: 063-186-270
Census Tract: 6120
Applicant Information: Namit Raisurana
Entity Responsible for Marketing: Namit Raisurana
Identify Staff Member Responsible for Marketing: Namit Raisurana Target Date of Initial Occupancy for all units: 4/1/24
Estimated Advertising Start Date for all units: 2/1/24
(Not sure what to fill in for the next 4 questions)

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Demographics of Target Area:

Per the U.S.Census Bureau, the current population of East Palo Alto is 28,978.

According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of East Palo Alto was:
• Other race: 37.62%
• White: 35.42%
• Black or African American: 11.65%
• Asian: 5.05%
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 4.64%
• Two or more races: 4.25%
• Native American: 1.37%
See included complete demographic information.

Acknowledgment of Local Preference:

I (applicant) acknowledge the City of East Palo Alto Local Preference Policy and commits to comply with it.

Description of Outreach and Marketing Activities to Community:

I (applicant) have contacted and gathered information from various Google, Facebook advertising sources & community groups. Also, from craigslist advertisements.

Information will be presented in English since majority of the population in East Palo Alto is English speaking.

Acknowledgment of Need to Partner with Housing Department and City ThirdParty Administrator I (applicant) acknowledge that I am responsible for the marketing of all units and will follow fair marketing practices between the market rate units and the Inclusionary Units.

I may market and sell the inclusionary units in partnership with a third-party administrator to implement and oversee this part of the Inclusionary program. If the City makes available a program/process that I can participate in, this will be reflected in the Inclusionary Housing Agreement and codified before Building Permits may be issued.

Ultimately, I am still responsible for the fair marketing of units and through this acknowledgement understands that this is a requirement of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on SCALE

DATEDRAWN BYPROJECT ID
3687 SKYLINE DRIVE,
HAYWARD, CA 94542
T:510.574.6559
E:[email protected]
This sheet is not to be used for construction unless the architect's stamp & signature appear on the drawings and the status box indicates drawings have been released for construction.These plans & prints thereof, as instruments of service, are owned by the architect and are for use on this project only. Reproduction and/or distribution without the prior written consent of the architect is forbidden.These plans & prints must be returned to SSA on the completion of work, if requested.Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractor shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions on the job and this office must be notified of any variations from the dimensions and conditions shown on these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for review before proceeding with fabrication.

STAMP

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.

REVISIONS
A1.0

COVER SHEET

NEW UNITS & ADU'S
ss

07.13.22 2021.19

LINCOLN STREET,

EAST PALO ALTO, CA

LINCOLN

DEVELOPMENT

NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS & ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
- LINCOLN DEVELOPMENT
EAST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303

PROJECT TEAM

PROJECT INFORMATION
OWNER:LINCOLN DEVELOPMENTNAMIT RAISURANA2206 LINCOLN STREETEAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303T: [email protected] ARCHITECT:SSA, INC.SHARMILA SUBRAMANIAM3687 SKYLINE DRIVEHAYWARD, CA 94542T: [email protected]

SHEET INDEX

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT LOCATION
A1.0 COVER SHEETA1.1 CONSTRUCTION BMP'SA1.2 PARCEL MAPA1.3 PARCEL MAPA1.4 TOPOGRAPHY & SITE PLANA2.1 FIRST FLOOR PLANA2.2 SECOND FLOOR PLANA2.3 3D VIEWS & CONTEXT PHOTOSA3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.P.N. 063-186-270ZONING
R-LD
SETBACKS - UNITS FRONT= 15', REAR= 30'-9", SIDES = 9'SETBACKS - ADU REAR = 4', SIDES = 4'OCCUPANCY GROUP R-3/U
HEIGHT - UNITS 25'-10" (TOP OF ROOF RIDGE)HEIGHT - DETACHED ADU 14'-11" (TOP OF ROOF RIDGE)CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B
NUMBER OF STORIES - UNITS 2 STORY NUMBER OF STORIES - ADU'S 1 STORYFIRE SPRINKLERS - MAIN BUILDING YESLOT SIZE 5,149 SFPROPOSED UNIT # 1 AT 1ST FLOOR 1,030 SFPROPOSED UNIT # 2 AT 2ND FLOOR 1,424 SFF.A.R UNITS 47.7% (2,454 SF)PROPOSED ATTACHED ADU 511 SFPROPOSED DETACHED ADU 727 SFPROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 49.9% (2,572 SF)PARKING 3 STANDARD CARS

APPLICABLE CODES
2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE INCLUDING SANTA CLARA COUNTY CODE AMMENDMENTS2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODEALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL CODES, LAWS AND REGULATIONS

SCOPE OF WORK
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESUBMITTAL # 2
THIS PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW 2- STORY BUILDING WITH ONE UNIT AT EACH FLOOR PER SB-9, ONE ATTACHED & ARCHITECTURALONE DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. NEW PARKING.

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:GMEP ENGINEERSHIN LAM CHING (SAM)5990 STONERIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 105PLEASANTON, CA 94588T: [email protected]

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
No. Description Date
CIVILCIVIL ENGINEER:THE AUGUST CO.FRANK J. MUNGIA, P.E. 1065 N. COLLEGE AVENUE,FRESNO, CA 93728T: [email protected] G1 GRADING/ DRAINAGE PLAN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.) SCALE

STAMP

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.

REVISIONS
A1.1

CONSTRUCTION BMP'S

NEW UNITS & ADU'S
Author

07.13.22 2021.19

LINCOLN STREET,

EAST PALO ALTO, CA

LINCOLN

DEVELOPMENT
No. Description Date
At a minimum, 65% of the project waste stream shall be recycled; prior to final project approval, a receipt shall be provided to the building inspector to verify 65% recycling has occurred. Self-hauling is prohibited in the City of East Palo Alto; an authorized hauler shall be utilized. All construction and demolition debris shall be contained on-site (not in the public right-of-way) in constantly covered bins, which include adequate service.” The City of East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 15.04.125 limits construction activity to the following hours: Monday through Friday: 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturday: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Sundays and national holidays: No activity allowed

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.) SCALE

STAMP

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.

REVISIONS
A1.2

PARCEL MAP

NEW UNITS & ADU'S
Author

07.13.22 2021.19

LINCOLN STREET,

EAST PALO ALTO, CA

LINCOLN

DEVELOPMENT
No. Description Date

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.) SCALE

STAMP

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.

REVISIONS
A1.3

PARCEL MAP

NEW UNITS & ADU'S
Author

07.13.22 2021.19

LINCOLN STREET,

EAST PALO ALTO, CA

LINCOLN

DEVELOPMENT
No. Description Date

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.) S
HO

21.24 EP 21.36 EP 21.39 EP

21.74 AC 21.49 AC
20 2
1 66
.

21.34 EP 21.15 EP 21.16 EP
2 1
37 .

20. 1
8 20.
1 7
20 8. 6
21 1. 3
21 0. 3
2 1
.
9 3
R
I
M
2 1
78 .
2 1
22 .
2 1
43 .
2 1
.
1 9
2 1
53 .
20 89 .

S79°22'55"E
WMB
AC
7' FENCE
6' FENCE
TURF
SEWER

MANHOLE
' 0. 5
) KCABTES(
W"00' 83

LINCOLN STREET

ADJACENT PROPERTY

ADJACENT PROPERTY
2-STORY RESIDENCE
ADU

46.81'
110'
110'

46.81'
12' - 0"

REAR YARD
750 SF.
7' - 6"

SETBACK
10' - 0"

ADJACENT PROPERTY

FRONT YARD
504 SF.

ADU AT 1ST FLOOR

LINCOLN STREET

ADJACENT PROPERTY

ADJACENT PROPERTY
2-STORY RESIDENCE
ADU AT 1ST FLOOR
ADU

46.81'
110'
110'

46.81'

REAR YARD
750 SF.

SETBACK
7' - 6"

FRONT YARD
504 SF.

SETBACK
10' - 0"
(N) 1ST FLR. BLDG. FOOTPRINT
(N) BLDG. FOOTPRINT

SETBACK
4' - 0"

SETBACK
4' - 0"
(N) ROOF LINE
CAR # 19' x 18' VEHICLE SPACECAR # 29' x 18' VEHICLE SPACECAR # 3 9' x 18' VEHICLE SPACE 30' - 9"
6' - 0"

SETBACK
5' - 0"

SETBACK
12' - 0"

SCALEDATEDRAWN BYPROJECT ID
3687 SKYLINE DRIVE,
HAYWARD, CA 94542
T:510.574.6559
E:[email protected]
This sheet is not to be used for construction unless the architect's stamp & signature appear on the drawings and the status box indicates drawings have been released for construction.These plans & prints thereof, as instruments of service, are owned by the architect and are for use on this project only. Reproduction and/or distribution without the prior written consent of the architect is forbidden.These plans & prints must be returned to SSA on the completion of work, if requested.Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractor shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions on the job and this office must be notified of any variations from the dimensions and conditions shown on these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for review before proceeding with fabrication.

STAMP

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.

REVISIONS
1/8" = 1'-0"
A1.4

TOPOGRAPHY & SITE
PLAN

NEW UNITS & ADU'S
Author

07.13.22 2021.19

LINCOLN STREET,

EAST PALO ALTO, CA

LINCOLN

DEVELOPMENT
1/8" = 1'-0" 1 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED N
1/8" = 1'-0" 2 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
N
Impervious/ Pervious Surface Table
SURFACE AREA STATUS IMPERVIOUS PERVIOUSUNIT # 1 - 1ST FLOORUNIT # 1 REAR PORCHUNIT # 1 REAR PORCH STEPSPARKING - GRAVELFRONT YARD GRAVELREAR YARD GRAVELATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT - 1ST FLOORDETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT - 1ST FLOORDETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PORCHDETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT STEPS

NEWNEWNEWNEWNEWNEWNEWNEWNEWNEW
TOTAL
1,210 SF33 SF21 SF573 SF
504 SF750 SF
727 SF

UNIT ENTRY FRONT PORCHUNIT ENTRY FRONT PORCH STEPS
NEWNEW
9 SF6 SF9 SF6 SF2,594 SF 1,740 SF
No. Description Date
A.P.N. 063-186-270ZONING R-LDSETBACKS - MAIN HOUSE FRONT= 15', REAR= 30'-9", SIDES = 9'SETBACKS - ADU REAR = 4', SIDES = 4'OCCUPANCY GROUP R-3/UHEIGHT - MAIN HOUSE 25'-10" (TOP OF ROOF RIDGE)HEIGHT - DETACHED ADU 14'-11" (TOP OF ROOF RIDGE)CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-BNUMBER OF STORIES 2 STORY NUMBER OF STORIES - ADU'S 1 STORYFIRE SPRINKLERS - MAIN HOUSE YESLOT SIZE 5,149 SFPROPOSED UNIT AT 1ST FLOOR 1,030 SFPROPOSED UNIT AT 2ND FLOOR 1,424 SFF.A.R MAIN HOUSE 47.7% (2,454 SF)PROPOSED ATTACHED ADU 511 SFPROPOSED DETACHED ADU 727 SFPROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 49.9% (2,572 SF)PARKING 3 STANDARD CARS 486 SF

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.) A3.1
2 A3.2
2 1 A3.2
UNIT # 1
ADU
ADU
1,030 SF.
511 SF.
727 SF.

ADJACENT PROPERTY

ADJACENT PROPERTY
+ 1'- 9"
UP
3R (7" MAX.)
2T (11" MIN.)
9' - 0"

BEDROOM

BATHROOM

KITCHEN
LIVING
FAU
W

BATHROOM

BEDROOM
CLOSET
DINING
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
D
3' - 7"
5' - 0"

REAR YARD
750 SF.

CLOSET
5' - 0"
CLOSET
2' - 0" 11' - 0"

ADU REAR SETBACK
4' - 0"
6' - 0"

ADU SIDE SETBACK
4' - 0"
+ 1'- 9"
UP
3R (7" MAX.)2T (11" MIN.)
W
D
FAU
DINING

KITCHEN
(N) LIVING

ADU SIDE SETBACK
4' - 0"

46.81'
110'
110'
UP 3R (7" MAX.) 2T (11" MIN.)
+ 1'- 9"

KITCHEN
LIVING
FAU
11' - 0"

BATHROOM

BEDROOM

BATHROOM
UP
CAR # 19' x 18' VEHICLE SPACE
A3.1 1

FRONT YARD
1 1
2 2
2 1
3 3
4 4
4 10' - 6"
5' - 0"

FRONT SETBACK
10' - 0"
CAR # 29' x 18' VEHICLE SPACE

SIDE SETBACK
7' - 6"
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE = 2,572 SF = 49.9%
PROPOSED F.A.R MAIN HOUSE = 2,454 SF = 47.7%
2' - 0"

BEDROOM BEDROOM
CLOSET
11' - 0"

LINCOLN STREET

ADJACENT PROPERTY

FRONT SETBACK
15' - 0"
12' - 0"
8' - 5"
504 SF.

CAR # 3 9' x 18' VEHICLE SPACE
5 5
6 6
(N) PARKING
4' - 0"
3' - 0"
CLOSET
12' - 0" 5' - 0"

ADU SETBACK
5' - 0"

SIDE SETBACK
12' - 0"
W+D
4' - 0"
3' - 6"

BATHROOM
CLOSET
11' - 9" 2' - 0" 5' - 0"
6 3' - 0"
3' - 0" 11' - 7 3/4" PANTRY CLOSET 2' - 0" 9' - 10 1/4" 3' - 4 3/4" CLOSET

BEDROOM
ATTACHED ADU WILL BE DEED RESTRICTED RENTAL UNIT AT 35% AMI WITH WAIVER OF IN-LIEU FEES.

NEW DOORNEW FULL HEIGHT INTERIOR WALL: 2x DF @ 16" O.C. W/ 3/4" THK. SOUND ATTENUATION GLASS FIBER BATT INSULATION, STC RATING 50 W/ 5/8" GYP. BD. BOTH SIDES U.O.N. AT TILED WALLS USE 5/8" CEMENT BD. U.O.N. PROVIDE LEVEL 4 SMOOTH FINISH. PAINT P1 U.O.N.NEW FULL HEIGHT EXTERIOR WALL: 2x DF @ 16" O.C. W/ STUCCO FINISH & PAINT COLOR WHITENEW SLIDING GLASS WINDOW

SD SMOKE ALARM (PHOTOELECTRIC) HARD

WIRED, INTERCONNECTED

CO CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM (NO

COMBINATION ALARMS)

STAMP

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.

REVISIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A2.1

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

NEW UNITS & ADU'S
Author

07.13.22 2021.19

LINCOLN STREET,

EAST PALO ALTO, CA

LINCOLN

DEVELOPMENT
Keynotes Indicated by x on the plans
1 (N) 2X @ 16" O.C. DF STUD WALL TYP., S.S.D. R19 BATT INSULATION TO BE INSTALLED IN ALL (N) EXTERIOR WALLS. (N) STUCCO FINISH & PAINT COLORLIGHT GREY. 2 (N) PATIO & STAIRS.3 (N) AC HEAT PUMP CONDENSER.4 PROPERTY LINE.5 (N) 3'H WOOD FENCE AROUND (N) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.6 (N) GRAVEL AT FRONT & REAR YARDS.

N
1/4" = 1'-0" 1 First Floor - Proposed
Legend
No. Description Date

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.) A3.1
2 A3.2
2 1 A3.2
UNIT # 2
DN 1,424 SF.

BEDROOM
LIVING
A3.1 1

ADU ROOF
1 S
D
I
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
7' - 6"

SIDE SETBACK
12' - 0"

BEDROOM

BATHROOM FIRST FLOOR ROOF
1 CLOSET

BATHROOM
13' - 0" 2' - 0"
9' - 8 3/4"
3' - 0"
2 BEDROOM
2' - 0" 10' - 0" CLOSET
13' - 6"
3' - 0"
5' - 0" 5' - 0"
W
D FAU
DINING
PANTRY
3' - 0" 3' - 6"
10' - 5"
5' - 0" 3' - 0"
3' - 0"
CLOSET
4' - 3"
4' - 8 1/4"

BEDROOM
16' - 11"
11' - 0"

BATHROOM
2' - 0"
CLOSET
11' - 1"

BALCONY
SIDE 3' - 0"

SETBACK
5' - 0"

BALCONY
3' - 0"

BALCONY
3' - 0"
NEW DOORNEW FULL HEIGHT INTERIOR WALL: 2x DF @ 16" O.C. W/ 3/4" THK. SOUND ATTENUATION GLASS FIBER BATT INSULATION, STC RATING 50 W/ 5/8" GYP. BD. BOTH SIDES U.O.N. AT TILED WALLS USE 5/8" CEMENT BD. U.O.N. PROVIDE LEVEL 4 SMOOTH FINISH. PAINT P1 U.O.N.NEW FULL HEIGHT EXTERIOR WALL: 2x DF @ 16" O.C. W/ STUCCO FINISH & PAINT COLOR WHITENEW SLIDING GLASS WINDOW

SD SMOKE ALARM (PHOTOELECTRIC) HARD

WIRED, INTERCONNECTED

CO CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM (NO

COMBINATION ALARMS)

STAMP

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.

REVISIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A2.2

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

NEW UNITS & ADU'S
Author

07.13.22 2021.19

LINCOLN STREET,

EAST PALO ALTO, CA

LINCOLN

DEVELOPMENT
No. Description Date
Keynotes Indicated by x on the plans
1 (N) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF CLASS 'A' FIRE RESISTANT, (N) ROOF SLOPE 4"/ 12".

ROOF COLOR: DARK GREY.
2 (N) 2X @ 16" O.C. DF STUD WALL TYP., S.S.D. R19 BATT INSULATION TO BE INSTALLED IN ALL (N) EXTERIOR WALLS. (N) STUCCO FINISH & PAINT COLORLIGHT GREY.

Legend
1/4" = 1'-0" 1 Second Floor - Proposed
N

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.) SCALE

STAMP

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.

REVISIONS
A2.3
3D VIEWS & CONTEXT
PHOTOS

NEW UNITS & ADU'S
Author

07.13.22 2021.19

LINCOLN STREET,

EAST PALO ALTO, CA

LINCOLN

DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE ADJACENT PROPERTY
No. Description Date

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.)

1. THE ADDRESS NUMERALS MUST BE CLEARLY VISIBLE & LEGIBLE FROM THE ADJACENT PUBLIC WAY OR STREET WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS (CRC R319):

2. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY LIT DURING NON-DAYLIGHT HOURS. LIGHTING MUST BE ON ALL THE TIME (TYPICAL OF LOW VOLTAGE UNITS) OR IF LIT ONLY DURING NONDAYLIGHT HOURS, SWITCHING SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY A TIME CLOCK OR A PHOTO SENSOR. BATTERY OR PHOTO CELL POWERED UNITS CANNOT BE USED FOR REQUIRED ADDRESS.

3. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE AT LEAST 4" HIGH AND INSTALLED ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND & SHALL READ FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. VERTICALLY POSITIONED NUMBERS CANNOT BE USED.

4. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE PLACED IN SUCH A LOCATION THAT EMERGENCY CREWS CAN READ THE ADDRESS FROM THE STREET FRONTING THE DWELLING.

5. THE NFRC LABEL WHICH STATES THE REQUIRED U-VALUE & SHGC FOR ALL FENETRATION PRODUCTS SHALL NOT BE REMOVED PRIOR TO INSPECTION OR THE REMOVAL BY A BUILDING INSPECTOR & SHALL REFLECT THE VALUES LISTED IN THE ENERGY REPORT.

6. ALL STAIRS WILL HAVE MAX. 7" HIGH RISER & MIN. 11" WIDE TREADS. 7. A SPHERE 4" IN DIAMETER MAY NOT PASS THROUGH RAIL.8. A GRASPABLE HANDRAIL EXTENDING 6" PAST THE TOP AND BOTTOM RISERS 34"-38" ABOVE THE STAIR NOSING IS REQUIRED AT STAIRS HAVING THREE OR MORE RISERS. IN A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, THE GUARDRAIL HEIGHT AT THE STAIRS MAY MATCH THE HANDRAIL HEIGHT, AND A 6" SPHERE MAY PASS THROUGH AT THE STAIR TREAD. (N) First Floor
1' - 9"
Ground Floor
0' - 0"
(N) Main House
Roof High Ridge
25' - 10"
(N) Second Floor
12' - 9"
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
1 5
6 4 4
3 7
8 TYP.
6 1
6 9 9
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
3' W X 4' HSILL= 4'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
Ground Floor
0' - 0"
(N) Main House
Roof High Ridge
25' - 10"
(N) Second Floor
12' - 9"
(N) Second Floor
Top Plate
21' - 9"
(N) ADU Roof High
Ridge
14' - 11"
3' W X 4' HSILL= 4'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
1 1
2 3 3
4 5
TYP. 1
6 7
9 3' W X 4' HSILL= 4'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
2' W X 4' HSILL= 6'2' W X 4' HSILL= 3'
6 10 10
8' W X 7' H 8' W X 7' H
11 11

STAMP

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.

REVISIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A3.1

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

NEW UNITS & ADU'S
Author

07.13.22 2021.19

LINCOLN STREET,

EAST PALO ALTO, CA

LINCOLN

DEVELOPMENT
Keynotes
1 (N) 2X @ 16" O.C. DF STUD WALL TYP., S.S.D. R19 BATT INSULATION TO BE INSTALLED IN ALL (N) EXTERIOR WALLS. (N) STUCCO FINISH & PAINTCOLOR LIGHT GREY. 2 (N) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF CLASS 'A' FIRE RESISTANT, (N) ROOF SLOPE 4"/ 12". ROOF COLOR: DARK GREY.
3 (N) PATIO & STAIRS.4 (N) AC HEAT PUMP CONDENSER.5 (N) MAIN ENTRY FRENCH DOOR WITH GLASS INSET.6 (N) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF CLASS 'A' FIRE RESISTANT, (N) ROOF SLOPE 3"/ 12". ROOF COLOR: DARK GREY.
7 (N) 1/2" THICK ALUMINUM SIGNAGE NUMBERS, BRUSHED ALUMINUM FINISH. FONT STYLE: FAKE PLASTIC. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDESAMPLES/SUBMITTAL FOR ARCHITECT APPROVAL. 8 (N) JELD-WEN VINYL, GLASS SLIDING WINDOW.9 (N) 3'H WOOD FENCE AROUND (N) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. 10 (N) BALCONY W/ PAINTED METAL RAILING.11 (N) SLIDING GLASS DOOR, 8'W X 7'H.

General Notes
Indicated by x on the plans
1/4" = 1'-0" 1 Front Elevation
1/4" = 1'-0" 2 Right Elevation
Color & Material Palette
Asphalt Shingle Roof - Color Dark Grey
Exterior Stucco Finish -Color Light Grey
Sliding Glass Windows w/ White Vinyl Frames
No. Description Date
Balcony Railing

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.) Ground Floor
0' - 0"
(N) Main House
Roof High Ridge
25' - 10"
(N) Second Floor
12' - 9"
(N) ADU Roof High
Ridge
14' - 11"
3' W X 4' HSILL= 4'
3' W X 4' HSILL= 4'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
4 1
1 1
5 TYP.
2 3
8 8' W X 7' H
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
9 9
10 Ground Floor
0' - 0"
(N) Main House
Roof High Ridge
25' - 10"
(N) Second Floor
12' - 9"
(N) Second Floor
Top Plate
21' - 9"
(N) ADU Roof High
Ridge
14' - 11"
3' W X 4' HSILL= 4'
3' W X 4' HSILL= 4'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
1 1
1 2
3 4
5 TYP.
5 TYP.
6 6
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
3' W X 4' HSILL= 4'
7 2
3' W X 4' HSILL= 4'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'
8 3' W X 4' HSILL= 4'
7' W X 5' HSILL= 3'

1. THE ADDRESS NUMERALS MUST BE CLEARLY VISIBLE & LEGIBLE FROM THE ADJACENT PUBLIC WAY OR STREET WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS (CRC R319):

3. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE AT LEAST 4" HIGH AND INSTALLED ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND & SHALL READ FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. VERTICALLY POSITIONED NUMBERS CANNOT BE USED.

4. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE PLACED IN SUCH A LOCATION THAT EMERGENCY CREWS CAN READ THE ADDRESS FROM THE STREET FRONTING THE DWELLING.

STAMP

SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.

REVISIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A3.2

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

NEW UNITS & ADU'S
Author

07.13.22 2021.19

LINCOLN STREET,

EAST PALO ALTO, CA

LINCOLN

DEVELOPMENT
1/4" = 1'-0" 1 Rear Elevation
1/4" = 1'-0" 2 Left Elevation
Keynotes
1 (N) 2X @ 16" O.C. DF STUD WALL TYP., S.S.D. R19 BATT INSULATION TO BE INSTALLED IN ALL (N) EXTERIOR WALLS. (N) STUCCO FINISH & PAINTCOLOR LIGHT GREY. 2 (N) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF CLASS 'A' FIRE RESISTANT, (N) ROOF SLOPE 3"/ 12". ROOF COLOR: DARK GREY.
3 (N) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF CLASS 'A' FIRE RESISTANT, (N) ROOF SLOPE 4"/ 12". ROOF COLOR: DARK GREY.
4 (N) AC HEAT PUMP CONDENSER.5 (N) JELD-WEN VINYL, GLASS SLIDING WINDOW.6 (N) PATIO & STAIRS.7 (N) 1/2" THICK ALUMINUM SIGNAGE NUMBERS, BRUSHED ALUMINUM FINISH. FONT STYLE: FAKE PLASTIC. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDESAMPLES/SUBMITTAL FOR ARCHITECT APPROVAL. 8 (N) 3'H WOOD FENCE AROUND (N) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.9 (N) BALCONY W/ PAINTED METAL RAILING. 10 (N) SLIDING GLASS DOOR, 8'W X 7'H.

General Notes
Indicated by x on the plans
No. Description Date

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Lincoln St Inclusionary Housing Plan (2352 : Inclusionary Housing Alternative Compliance Option for Development Project on Lincoln St.)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: Compensation Adjustments and Agreements with SEIU, MEA, and Unrepresented Employment Groups
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution:

2. Approving Cost of Living Adjustments for Non-Bargaining, Unrepresented Confidential Restricted Classifications;

3. Directing the Interim City Attorney to draft an amendment to the employment agreement with the Interim City Manager to provide a Cost of Living Adjustment and other benefits consistent with those received by SEIU, MEA, and other non-represented personnel and authorizing the Mayor to execute such an amendment; and

4. Appropriating $790,000 for FY 2022-23 from the General Fund Reserve to account for the compensation adjustments described in the staff report.

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

Priority No. 3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Background
Service Employees International Union Local 521 (SEIU) represents City employees pursuant to the Employer Employee Resolution of the City adopted November 21,1983 for the regular full-time employees assigned to the classes set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), except for those employees in confidential positions in those classifications, which are unrepresented.

9.1 Packet Pg. 100
The IFPTE Local 21, represents City management employees pursuant to City Resolution No. 48-83 adopted on November 21,1983 for the regular full-time employees assigned to the classes set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), except for those employees in confidential positions in those classifications, which are unrepresented. .

The City and SEIU and the City and MEA have been parties to a series of Memoranda of Understandings setting forth the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment for the members of their respective bargaining units.

The most recent MOU with SEIU expired on July 30, 2022, and the MOU with MEA expired on July 31, 2022. On June 21, 2022, representatives of the City, MEA, and SEIU met to begin negotiating the terms and conditions for new MOUs in a coalition-style bargaining. The City’s negotiators, MEA representatives, and SEIU representatives met on four (4) occasions and exchanged proposals. The parties agreed to the general terms and conditions of the proposed tentative agreement on July 1, 2022. The Bargaining Unit representatives agreed to the developed proposals and the membership ratified the Tentative Agreement and notified the City on July 12, 2022. Although there is joint Tentative Agreement, each unit will continue to have a separate MOU.

Analysis
Major components of the TA between the City and the Bargaining Units are provided below and will be incorporated into the redline version of the MOUs, which will be brought before the City Council for review at a later date.

Issue Tentative Agreement
Duration 17 months (August 1, 2022 – December 31, 2023) COLA (Cost of Living
Adjustment)

5.0% first full pay period immediately following adoption by City Council.

One-Time Lump Sum One-time payment of $2,500 effective the first full payroll following Dec 1, 2022.

Leave Cash Out Cash out up to 80 hours of leave consistent with the process language of their respective MOUs.

The MOUs between the City of East Palo Alto and SEIU and between the City of East Palo Alto and MEA are competitive agreements that reflect the City’s desire to address challenging current and forward wage parity issues and includes a compensation package that will not only attract new talent but also retain existing employees.

Unrepresented Employees
The Interim City Manager recommends extending the same COLA adjustment, one-time lump sum payment, and the vacation pay-out modification as SEIU/MEA may receive to the unrepresented employees. This would include the Interim City Manager, who would have received a COLA adjustment if he were still in the Assistant City Manager position. If the City Council approves the recommendations in this report, the salary for Assistant City Manager will exceed the salary currently being received by the Interim City Manager.

Fiscal Impact
If the City Council approved the terms of the Tentative Agreement between the City of East

9.1 Packet Pg. 101
Palo Alto and the bargaining units, it will result in an estimated additional expenditure in Year 1 of approximately $790,000 in fiscal year 2022-23 and expenditure in Year 2 of approximately $563,000 in fiscal year 2023-24.

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 on the City’s website and at the San Mateo County Library located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
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

2. Exhibit A:?Signed Tentative Agreement

9.1 Packet Pg. 102
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

APPROVING THE TERMS OF A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY

OF EAST PALO ALTO AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 521 AND BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE EAST PALO ALTO

MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS THE TERMS AND

CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR NON-BARGAINING UNREPRESENTED

CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED CLASSIFICATIONS AND RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, beginning in June 2022, representatives from the City of East Palo Alto (“City”) met with representatives of the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) Local 521, and the Management Employees Association (“MEA”) to begin negotiating terms and conditions for new Memoranda of Understanding (“MOUs”); and WHEREAS, City staff met with representatives of SEIU Local 521 and MEA representatives on multiple occasions to develop and address proposals for new MOUs; and
WHEREAS, the City administration, SEIU Local 521, and MEA entered into a Joint Tentative Agreement that will result in a successor MOU between the City and SEIU Local 521 and a separate successor MOU between the City and MEA; and WHEREAS, the Joint Tentative Agreement is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to implement identical terms for the NonBargaining Unrepresented Confidential Restricted positions and classifications.

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

1. Approves the Joint Tentative Agreement with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 521 and with the Management Employees Association (MEA);

2. Approves identical cost of living adjustments, lump sum bonuses, and leave payouts for the Non-Bargaining Unrepresented Confidential Restricted positions and classifications;

3. Direct the Interim City Attorney to draft an t amendment to the employment agreement with the Interim City Manager to provide a Cost of Living Adjustment and other benefits consistent with those received by SEIU, MEA, and other non-represented personnel and authorizing the Mayor to execute such an amendment; and

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Resolution (2361 : Compensation Adjustments and Agreements with SEIU, MEA, and Unrepresented Employment Groups)

4. Directs the City negotiating team to work with representatives of SEIU Local 521 and with representatives of the Management Employees Association to jointly prepare each bargaining unit Memorandum of Understanding reflecting the terms of the Joint Tentative Agreement, which will be brought back for Council review and approval; and

5. Appropriates $790,000 in the General Fund of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Resolution (2361 : Compensation Adjustments and Agreements with SEIU, MEA, and Unrepresented Employment Groups) -?GJ'-C6@?G?CB ,6E=6?B?B= I?G> 4/05 ! 2/+ '%''
-?GJ C< /6FG 36@C +@GC DECDCF6@ GC 2/+ 6B9 4/05
.?FGE?7HG;9 1H@J )$ *(**
3ECDCF6@ 2*&) "2# % /8CBCA?8 ,HB9@;

41. .682031 '&- 0FEIG<=I 8>GD
0;7 F7D? A8 F;7 *,1 E;3>> 47 8DA? !G9GEF ZM [Y[[ FA $75 \ZM [Y[\ 7CG<H3>7@F FA E<JF77@ ?A@F;EO

41. .682031 &+- ;<@>H
S.7B>357 5GDD7@F EG4E75F<A@E ! 3@6 "T
!O %?B>AK77E <@ F;<E G@<F I<>> D757<H7 3 E3>3DK <@5D73E7 A8 ^b S8<H7T 78875F<H7 F;7 8<DEF 8G>> B3KDA>> <??76<3F7>K 8A>>AI<@9 36ABF<A@ A8 F;<E 39D77?7@F 4K #<FK #AG@5<> "O %?B>AK77E <@ F;<E G@<F I<>> D757<H7 3 A@7 F<?7 B3K?7@F A8 W[M^YY 78875F<H7 F;7 8<DEF 8G>> B3KDA>> 8A>>AI<@9 $75 ZM [Y[[O
7129 .682031 (%- 0FEIG<=I 8>GD
0;7 F7D? A8 F;7 *,1 E;3>> 47 8DA? !G9GEF ZM [Y[[ FA $75 \ZM [Y[\ 7CG<H3>7@F FA E<JF77@ ?A@F;EO 7129 .682031 ,$&- ;<@>H
S.7B>357 5GDD7@F EG4E75F<A@E < 3@6 <<T
<O %?B>AK77E <@ F;<E G@<F I<>> D757<H7 3 E3>3DK <@5D73E7 A8 ^b S8<H7T 78875F<H7 F;7 8<DEF 8G>> B3KDA>> <??76<3F7>K 8A>>AI<@9 36ABF<A@ A8 F;<E 39D77?7@F 4K #<FK #AG@5<> <<O %?B>AK77E <@ F;<E G@<F I<>> D757<H7 3 A@7 F<?7 B3K?7@F A8 W[M^YY 78875F<H7 F;7 8<DEF 8G>> B3KDA>> 8A>>AI<@9 $75 ZM [Y[[O
/>E>?BIH 0FDDBII>>
$GD<@9 F;7 F7D? A8 F;<E *,1M F;7 #<FK 3@6 1@<A@E E;3>> 5A@H7@7 F;7 "7@78<FE #A??<FF77 8AD F;7 8A>>AI<@9 BGDBAE7EN
SZT 0A 5A@F<@G7 A@9A<@9 6<E5GEE<A@E D793D6<@9 5AEF EFDG5FGD7E 3E 3 B3DF A8 3@ AH7D3>> EFD3F79K FA ?3<@F3<@ 43>3@576 7@DA>>?7@F <@ #<FK B>3@EM
S[T 0A <@H7EF<93F7 F;7 873E<4<><FK A8 D7H<E<@9 ?76<53> 3@6PAD 67@F3> 5AH7D397 3@6PAD B>3@SET 3@6 EFD3F79<7E FA B3DF<5<B3F7 <@FA 47@78<F <@EGD3@57 5AEF EFDG5FGD7M 3@6 0;7 "7@78<FE #A??<FF77 I<>> 5A??7@57 @A >3F7D F;3@ /7BF7?47D \YM [Y[[O 0;7 #A??<FF77 I<>> 47 5A?BAE76 A8 #<FK >34AD D7BD7E7@F3F<H7EM @AF FA 7J5776 8AGD S]T D7BD7E7@F3F<H7E 3@6 8AGD S3>F7D@3F7ET 8DA? 735; B3DF<5<B3F<@9 >34AD AD93@<L3F<A@ 3@6 8AGD S]T #<FK D7BD7E7@F3F<H7EO 0;7E7 @3?7E I<>> 47 BDAH<67 FA F;7 #<FK @A >3F7D F;3@ !G9GEF \ZM [Y[[O -?GJ C< /6FG 36@C +@GC
36=; & C< [

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Exhibit A:?Signed Tentative Agreement (2361 : Compensation Adjustments and Agreements with SEIU, MEA, and Unrepresented -?GJ'-C6@?G?CB ,6E=6?B?B= I?G> 4/05 ! 2/+ '%''
3><K> 0<HAFJI 5GFKBHBFE !.GIB=C> &*$& 7>=IBFE 0 ?FG 7129# 7>=IBFE +$'$) ?FG 41." $GD<@9 F;7 F7D? A8 F;<E *,1M 4AF; G@<FE E;3>> 47 3>>AI76 FA 53E;AGF GB FA _Y ;AGDE A8 >73H7 5A@E<EF7@F I<F; F;7 BDA57EE >3@9G397 A8 F;7<D D7EB75F<H7 *,1EO
U0;7 #<FK 3@6 1@<A@E I<>> 5A@F<@G7 FA ?77F 3@6 5A@87D <@ 9AA6 83<F; AH7D @A@Q75A@A?<5 *,1 >3@9G397 5A@57D@EO

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
)AE7 !@97> -<5A@M /%(1 .7BD7E7@F3F<H7 "D7@@3 .AI7M +79AF<3FAD />A3@ /3=3<

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
)3@7F +G@7LQ!9G<>3DM /%(1 #;3BF7D -D7E<67@F /3@6D3 &>AK6M '. *3@397D

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
/F3@>7K 2AG@9M *%! .7BD7E7@F3F<H7

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
!L3>73 .7@8<7>6 M *%! #;3BF7D -D7E<67@F
-?GJ C< /6FG 36@C +@GC
36=; ' C< [
Stanley A. Young

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Exhibit A:?Signed Tentative Agreement (2361 : Compensation Adjustments and Agreements with SEIU, MEA, and Unrepresented

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of the Terms of a Tentative Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Officers’ Association (POA) Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution:

1. Approving the terms of a Tentative Agreement with the East Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association;

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding jointly prepared by the City’s negotiating team and representatives of the East Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association;

3. Establishing a recruitment and retention bonus for new police officers; and

4. Approving the estimated total salary and benefit expenditures of $2,260,000 for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 and appropriating $1,090,000 in the General Fund of the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget.

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 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

9.2 Packet Pg. 107
Background
The East Palo Alto Police Department is currently experiencing uniquely urgent staffing issues. The Department has thirty-six (36) budgeted sworn positions (Police Officer, Police Sergeant, Police Commander and Police Chief). However, nine (9) of those positions are currently vacant and another four (4) are out on long term leaves of absence, leaving a total of twenty-three (23) officers available for active duty. Of those, six (6) are in the hiring process for employment by other police agencies. If those individuals leave and are not replaced, the City will be left with an unacceptably low staffing level of seventeen (17) officers available for active duty.

The Police Department is currently processing applications for six (6) potential officers.

Without further attrition, these officers would bring the total sworn staffing to twenty-nine (29) officers available for active duty. However, these officers have not yet completed the hiring process and have additional training to complete before being ready for active duty. If hired, the new officers would embark on a 20- week Field Training program except for one applicant who would attend a 6-month Police Academy prior to the 20-week Field Training program.

These new officers would only be available to fill vacant shifts if/when they successfully complete training.

During FY 2021-2022, it is estimated that the Police Department have expended approximately $751,000 in overtime due to the current vacancy rate.

East Palo Alto Police Officers are currently the second lowest paid in the County. (Attachment

1.) Considering the current economic situation, the status of staffing in the Police Department, and the negotiated agreements of other nearby jurisdictions, a significant increase in salaries is necessary to address the current retention issues and allow the Department to move towards full staffing. Further, to stay competitive with other jurisdictions that are providing significant hiring/retention bonuses, it is imperative the City remain somewhat competitive with neighboring communities, especially those to which East Palo Alto officers are leaving. The table below indicates where 23 former East Palo Alto police officers have relocated since 2008, largely because the other jurisdictions pay police officers significantly more:

Negotiations
The East Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association (“POA”) represents the City’s sworn Police Officers and Police Sergeants. The City and the POA have been parties to a series of Memoranda of Understanding (“MOU”) setting forth the wages, hours and other terms and

9.2 Packet Pg. 108
conditions of employment for the members of the POA bargaining unit.

Given the significant issues facing the Department, the POA understood the need to bargain expeditiously. Although bargaining only began in early July, the City and POA were able to reach a tentative agreement (TA) on July 8, 2022, and the POA notified the City that it had approved the TA on Sunday, July 10.

Analysis
The TA with all changes needed to the MOU is attached. Major components of the TA between the City and POA are as follows:

In addition to the key elements of the TA between the City of East Palo Alto, and the POA, establishing a recruitment/retention bonus to lure new police officers will further enhance the City’s ability to recruit and retain officers. Therefore, staff proposes the City establish a recruitment/retention bonus program for new police officers consistent with the structures offered by other agencies. The key elements of the recruitment/retention bonus would be:
• $10,000 payment after a new officer completes field training; • $10,000 payment after a new officer completes probation; and • $10,000 payment after a new officer completes a third year of service with the City of East Palo Alto.

For the current Fiscal Year, staff recommends salary savings from existing vacancies be allocated for the proposed recruitment/bonus program described above. If the City desires to offer a recruitment/retention bonus in future years, the City Council would consider it as part of future budget processes. Stated differently, there would be no impact on the City’s General Fund to implement the bonus.

The TA between the City of East Palo Alto and the POA reflects the City’s desire to address challenging current and forward wage parity issues and to have a compensation package that will not only attract new talent but also retain our existing employees.

Fiscal Impact
If the City Council approves the terms of the Tentative Agreement between the City of East Palo Alto and the POA, it will result in an estimated additional expenditure of approximately $2,260,000 over the next two fiscal years (FY 2022-23 and 2023-24) which will require

9.2 Packet Pg. 109
additional appropriation in the amount of $1,090,000 in the General Fund of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget. The annual fiscal impact in the future fiscal years will be estimated for approximately $1,170,000.

1. Despite the uncertainty in the budget; staff recommends the increases at this difficult time for the following reasons:
a. The increase is important to maintain market competitiveness. b. Public Safety is a long-stated and significant strategic priority of the City and its residents.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit 1 - Police Department Data and Background Information

3. Exhibit 2 - Tentative Agreement between the City of East Palo Alto and Police Officers’ Association (POA) - two Year Agreement July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2024

9.2 Packet Pg. 110
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

APPROVING THE TERMS OF A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY

OF EAST PALO ALTO AND THE EAST PALO ALTO POLICE OFFICERS

ASSOCIATION AND RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2022, representatives from the City of East Palo Alto (“City”) and the East Palo Alto Police Officers Association (“POA”) met to begin negotiating terms and conditions for a new Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”); and
WHEREAS, City staff and POA representatives met on two occasions to develop and address proposals for a new labor agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the POA membership entered into a Tentative Agreement that will result in a successor MOU between the parties; and WHEREAS, the terms of the proposed Tentative Agreement are attached and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the POA membership approved the terms of the TA on July 10, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to identifying ways in which to recruit and retain new police officers for the City of East Palo Alto;

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

1. Approves the Tentative Agreement with the East Palo Alto Police Officers Association;

2. Directs the City negotiating team to work with representatives of the POA to jointly prepare a Memorandum of Understanding for Council review and approval;

3. Directs the City Manager to establish a recruitment and retention bonus program to attract new police officers to join the City of East Palo Alto; and

4. Approves the estimated total salary and benefit expenditures of $2,260,000 for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 and appropriates $1,090,000 in the General Fund of the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget.

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

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Resolution (2360 : Approval of the Terms of a Tentative Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Offic) AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Resolution (2360 : Approval of the Terms of a Tentative Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Offic) ATTACHMENT 1

POLICE DEPARTMENT DATA AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Comparison of Current Police Department Salaries in San Mateo County Agencies

COMPARISON OF CURRENT POLICE DEPARTMENT SALARIES IN SAN

MATEO COUNTY AGENCIES
Agency Annual Salary
Police Officers
Annual Salary
Sergeants
Fiscal Year of
Contract
Atherton $ 133,662.00 $ 162,635.00 2022
Belmont $ 130,805.28 $ 154,020.00 2020
Brisbane $ 116,529.60 $ 140,395.20 2022
Broadmoor $ 117,795.13 $ 131,338.66 2022
Burlingame $ 118,028.18 $ 143,149.00 2022
Colma $ 141,195.60 $ 149,424.00 2022
Daly City $ 120,695.52 $ 164,790.00 2021
East Palo Alto $ 116,857.00 $ 140,883.20 2021
Foster City $ 126,180.00 $ 152,508.00 2021
Hillsborough $ 128,726.00 $ 157,612.00 2022
Menlo Park $ 133,216.00 $ 164,885.00 2021
Millbrae $ 121,511.28 $ 146,616.00 2021
Pacifica $ 118,764.00 $ 146,940.00 2021
Redwood City $ 150,372.00 $ 182,664.00 2020
San Bruno $ 121,212.00 $ 149,280.00 2021
San Mateo $ 147,878.64 $ 170,614.08 2022
Sheriff's Office $ 121,511.28 $ 146,616.00 2021
South San Francisco $ 125,112.00 $ 150,342.40 2022
County Average $ 123.311.64 $149,883.20 NA
B. East Palo Alto Police Department Sworn Positions Status by Category

EAST PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT SWORN POSITIONS STATUS BY

CATEGORY
Category Number
Total Budgeted 36
Vacancies 9
Out on Leave 4
Available for Active Duty 23
In Process with Other Agencies 6
Potential Active Duty as Early as July 2022 17

9.2.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Police Department Data and Background Information (2360 : Approval of the Terms of a Tentative Agreement and C. East Palo Alto Police Officers Leaving for Other Jurisdictions (Since 2008)

EAST PALO ALTO POLICE OFFICERS LEAVING FOR OTHER JURISDICTIONS Jurisdiction Count
San Francisco 4
San Mateo County Sheriff 4
Milpitas 3
Daly City 2
Redwood City 2
Other 8
TOTAL 23
D. East Palo Alto Police Department Years of Service

EAST PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT YEARS OF SERVICE
Years Number of Sworn
32-35 2
23-31 0
20-22 3
15-19 3
10-14 3
5-9 4
0-4 12
TOTAL 27
E. Cost to Hire New Police Recruits
The recruitment, training, and retaining of new police officers is a costly endeavor for the City.

Many costs associated with hiring new officers related to compensation for academy costs, and, in some cases, a salary during academy training. As such the costs for hiring a new officer who does not have to attend the academy are measurably preferable to the cost of sending a new officer to the academy:

COSTS OF HIRING NEW POLICE RECRUITS
Recruit Status Cost
Completed Academy $6,500
Must Attend Academy $41,000
It may be prudent to establish incentive programs to attract more candidates to apply to the City who have already graduated from an eligible police academy. It may also be prudent to develop retention strategies to ensure that the City benefits from the investment in recruiting and hiring police officers.

9.2.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Police Department Data and Background Information (2360 : Approval of the Terms of a Tentative Agreement and F. Hiring Bonuses
Several neighboring jurisdictions are offering signing bonuses to lure policer officers to join their departments. The chart below provides an sampling of local Bay Area hiring bonuses for new officers:

LOCAL JURISDICTION POLICE OFFICER HIRING / SIGNING BONUSES Agency Amount
Alameda County Sheriff $ 10,000
San Jose State PD $ 10,000
Fairfield PD $ 10,000
Daly City PD $ 10,000
BART PD $ 15,000
Benicia PD $ 15,000
Hayward PD $ 20,000
Alameda PD $ 30,000
San Mateo County Sheriff $ 30,000
San Mateo PD $ 30,000
Scotts Valley $ 40,000
It may be prudent for the City develop a hiring bonus incentive that mirrors that of the San Mateo County Sheriff, which is the most frequent destination of former East Palo Alto officers since 2008. As indicated in section E above, the costs to the City to send a potential officer to the police academy as a recruit ($41,000) is much greater than the cost of hiring officers from other jurisdictions who have already graduated from the academy. Cost savings may result even if the City were to pay a hiring incentive similar to that of the San Mateo County Sheriff.

G. CalPers Issue
The City of East Palo Alto joined the CalPERS retirement system in 2001. As such, many of the City’s workforce have not accrued the number of years in CalPERS that might otherwise lead them to seek retirement. Perhaps related to this issue, a number of City employees have reported that they continue to work for financial reasons, particularly to retain access to good health care plans, when they would otherwise choose to retire. This is true of employees in the Police Department, who may appreciate consideration of incentives to retirement.

Staff is aware that other labor groups may seek more information on this unique issue during the upcoming bargaining sessions.

9.2.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Police Department Data and Background Information (2360 : Approval of the Terms of a Tentative Agreement and City of East Palo Alto/POA Negotiations 2022
City of East Palo Alto

Page 1 of 3 ends

CITY PAKAGE PROPOSAL # 4
July 8, 2022

1. Term/Expiration (Article 31)
x June 30, 2024 (2 Years)

2. Wages (Article 9)
x COLAS
i. 10.0% Effective the later of City Council adoption or July 1, 2022 ii. 5.0% Effective the later of City Council adoption or July 1, 2023 x Lump Sum:

Individuals who are members of the bargaining unit represented by POA during the first pay period following City Council adoption of the resolution authorizing amendments to the MOU and who continue to be members of the bargaining unit as of last pay period in November 2022 will receive a one-time lump sum payment of $10,000. The Parties intend and understand that this lump sum payment is non-pensionable and will not be reported to CalPERS. The parties also agree that this payment is intended to be specific to the pay period in which it is paid and is to be considered part of the regular rate for this pay period only.

3. Acting Commander (Section 9.4)
Modify Section 9.4 as follows:

9.4 Working Out of Classification
An employee who is officially designated by their department head and approved by the City Manager management to perform all, or substantially all, of the duties of a vacant position or of an absent employee in a higher paid classification, shall be paid at the step of the higher pay range or at the first step which is not less than five percent (5%) more than his/her current base rate after a full shift (excluding overtime assignments), or twelve (12) regularly scheduled hours, whichever is greater, served in the higher paid classification. Once an employee has worked in the acting assignment for a full shift (excluding overtime assignments), or twelve (12) regularly scheduled hours, whichever is greater, he or she shall be entitled to acting pay for the entire length of the assignment.

9.2.c
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Tentative Agreement between the City of East Palo Alto and Police Officers’ Association (POA) - two Year Agreement City of East Palo Alto/POA Negotiations 2022
City of East Palo Alto

Page 2 of 3 ends

4. Payout of Vacation (Section 12.4)
Modify Section 12.4 as follows:

12.4 Vacation Cashout
Members of the bargaining unit may make an irrevocable election to cashout vacation during the month of December each year. To qualify for vacation cashout, an employee must have more than eighty (80) hours of accrued vacation.

Bargaining unit members may cash out up to a maximum of forty (40) eighty (80) hours of vacation, so long as the member maintains a balance of at least eighty (80) hours. Elections will be cashed out in December the following year.

5. Benefits Committee (Section 6.1)
Replace Section 6.1 with the following:

6.1 Benefits Committee
During the term of this MOU, the City and Unions shall convene the Benefits Committee for the following purposes:
(1) To continue ongoing discussions regarding cost structures as a part of an overall strategy to maintain balanced enrollment in City plans, (2) To investigate the feasibility of revising medical and/or dental coverage and/or plan(s) and strategies to participate into benefit insurance cost structure, and
(3) The Benefits Committee will commence no later than September 30, 2022.

The Committee will be composed of City labor representatives, not to exceed four (4) representatives and four (alternates) from each participating labor organization and four (4) City representatives. These names will be provide to the City no later than August 31, 2022. (4) $Q\FKDQJHVWRVZRUQPHPEHUV¶EHQHILWVPXVWEHFRQVHQWHGWRE\WKH32$ and made in writing, through the meet and confer process.

6. Article 13 Holidays

13.5 Employees may accrue a maximum of ninety-six (96) one hundred-four (104) hours of holiday leave. Once employees have reached the maximum, they will no longer accrue Holiday Leave.

7. Article 13 Holidays

13.8 Employee may cash-out an additional twelve (12) hours of Holiday Leave per pay period; however, the employee is required to make the request in accordance with the IRS constructive receipt rules. two weeks prior to the pay period in which they desire to receive the cash-out. This is subject to written pre-approval by the Chief and or designee.

Should a request be denied, the request may be appealed to the City Manager.

9.2.c
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Tentative Agreement between the City of East Palo Alto and Police Officers’ Association (POA) - two Year Agreement City of East Palo Alto/POA Negotiations 2022
City of East Palo Alto

Page 3 of 3 ends

Response to POA Proposal Passed on 7/8/22:

The City GRHVQRWDJUHHWR32$¶Vproposed language for proposal items:
- 6) Cash-out for vacation and floating holiday
- 7) Increase caps for accrued time (see counter proposal 6 above) - 8) Benefits Committee (Section 6.1), (see counter proposal 5 above) -

5HYLYHIRUPHU³´UXOH
- 10) Bilingual pay
The City and POA have reached a Tentative Agreement as stated above on 7/8/22 ____________________ ____________________
Matthew Taylor Brenna Rowe
Chief Negotiator, MAJ Labor Sloan Sakai, Chief Negotiator ____________________ ____________________
Spencer Lawrence Sandra Floyd
POA President City of East Palo Alto, HR Manager
____________________
Elizabeth Ceja
POA Bargaining Team
____________________
Andrea Dion
POA Bargaining Team
____________________
Joseph Klein
POA Bargaining Team
/s/ Matthew Taylor

9.2.c
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Tentative Agreement between the City of East Palo Alto and Police Officers’ Association (POA) - two Year Agreement

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Proposed Specific Plan for Bell Street Park in Partnership with the Magical Bridge Foundation
Recommendation
By motion:

1. Accept a status report regarding the exploration by the Magical Bridge Foundation of a potential Magical Bridge project at Bell Street Park;

2. Provide staff with direction regarding the conceptual plan (Attachment 1) for Bell Street Park; and

3. Direct staff to initiate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process to advance the Bell Street Park design process.

Background
In Fiscal Year 2019-2020, the City Council established key priority areas for the City, including “Enhancing Community Services and Parks for Residents.” Since early 2021, the City Council has made several investments in the City’s Parks and Recreation offerings, including initiatives that would advance this priority in the future. See Table 1 below:

TABLE 1
Council Actions to Enhance Community Services and Parks for Residents Item Investment
Contract with Wallace, Roberts, & Todd, LLC (WRT) to complete a Parks, Recreation, Open Space Master Plan $298,506
Contract with Verde Design to complete a master plan for Martin Luther King Jr. Park
$271,713
Contract with the Magical Bridge Foundation to explore the possibility of creating a Magical Bridge at Bell Street Park $80,000

9.3 Packet Pg. 119
Summer Programming in 2020 and 2021 $340,000
Total $990,219
On March 2, 2022, the City Council approved an agreement in the amount of $80,000 with the Magical Bridge Foundation (Magical Bridge) to explore the possibility of creating a Magical Bridge project at Bell Street Park.

Magical Bridge has interacted with the community to develop a proposed plan for Bell Street Park. The purpose of this staff report is to provide the City Council and community with an update regarding this effort with Magical Bridge and outline a proposed plan for Bell Street Park.

Analysis
Progress to Date:

Magical Bridge Foundation is pleased to share progress of the Bell Street Park public planning and design process, as described in Table 2:

TABLE 2
Date Meeting / Action # Attendees
Jan. 2021 Initial meeting between MBF, CCRMS and City staff 5 Mar. 2021
City Council approves comprehensive design services
agreement (“Phase 1”) w/Magical Bridge for Bell St.

Park
25 (?)
Apr. 2021 Phase 1 agreement between City and MBF executed N/A Jan. 2022 Bell Street - Magical Bridge press release N/A Jan. 13 2022 Community meeting #1 via zoom 24
Jan. 27 2022 Community meeting #2 via zoom 17
Feb. 10 2022 Community meeting #3 via zoom 19
Feb. 26 2022 EPA Parks Master Plan in person workshop (MB exhibited) 27
Apr. 6 2022 Senior Advisory Committee Meeting via zoom 10 Mar. 30 2022 In-person meeting at Bell St. Senior Center (with Mrs.

Grant and other magic makers who volunteer there) 7
Community Feedback Themes:

To date, MBF has received the following comments and requests related to the development of Bell Street Park. Highlights of amenities the community wishes for include:
• A place to gather for concerts and events, open spaces and fitness • Excited to have Magical Bridge but may not be enough space for full playground at Bell Street
• Make the Senior Center feel more connected to Bell Street • Multigenerational recreational activities
• Spaces for all ages to enjoy, including teenagers and young adults

9.3 Packet Pg. 120
• A welcoming place for special events like Cinco de Mayo, Juneteenth, and Blues Festival
• A place for families to come together at night too
• Equipment that children and adults with disabilities can use • New accessible walking paths
• A better skate park
• BBQ areas
• More shade
• Provide programming options for everyone
• Local art
• Historical elements that celebrate EPA and its heroes • Picnic area(s)
• A real community space which is safe and clean
• Pop up shops for local residents to use to launch small business and build relations
Some Concerns:
• “Please make the fencing better”
• “It wouldn’t be a good place for a dog park”
• “Please preserve trees”
• “Provide housing solutions for those in and nearby the park” In addition to various outreach efforts through zoom and in-person, Magical Bridge Foundation remains actively engaged in social media groups including FB’s East Palo Alto Neighbors with over 8k members, and Homeowners is East Palo Alto (over 700 members). The Foundation has also identified 12 local “Project Ambassadors” for this specific project to encourage neighborly conversations and honest feedback from as many East Palo Alto residents as possible.

Proposed Design:

Through the use of surveys, community meetings, pop-up events, and other outreach methods, Magical Bridge has developed a conceptual design for Bell Street Park, which is shown in Attachment 1. Team Magical Bridge is also sharing design concepts and communicating with Sobrato and Madison Capital, whose projects border Bell Street Park to ensure all benefits for this community are realized in a meaningful way. We are excited about collaborating on our spaces so that there is a fluidity to the access and these new areas are inclusive for all. Upon completion it is our goal that East Palo Altans experience these spaces as safe, welcoming and reflective of their wishes.

Cost Estimates:

As of the date of this report, Magical Bridge does not have a cost estimate for the draft plan shown in Attachment 1. However, during the meeting on July 19, Magical Bridge will be able to provide a rough estimate of potential costs. An appropriation for these funds would not be requested until CEQA is completed, and it is customary for CEQA to study plans that may have the greatest impacts or amenities to ensure that additional environmental analysis is not required at a later date.

9.3 Packet Pg. 121
If the City eventually implements a comprehensive update to Bell Street Park, the associated costs could be reduced or managed by considering various options, such as the alteration of specific amenities or adopting a phased approach, similar to that utilized by many larger parks in the Bay Area. Time and costs would be reduced by completing the CEQA review for all phases early in the process.

Next Steps:

If the City Council directs staff to move forward, staff will work closely with the City’s consultant who completes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review on behalf of the City.

The City’s FY 22-23 budget included funds for this effort, however, a contract amendment with the City’s CEQA consultant may be required in September. Staff anticipates that the CEQA process may take 6-9 months to complete.

Attachments

1. Draft Plan

9.3 Packet Pg. 122

BELL STREET PARK,

EAST PALO ALTO,

SAN MATEO

COUNTY, CA

BAYSHORE FWY

WILLOW RD

UNIVERSITY AVE

BAYFRONT
EXPY

BELL STREET PARK
all abilities all ages all welcome
Bell Street Park, East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, CA 02.26.2022 9.3.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Draft Plan (2355 : Proposed Specific Plan for Bell Street Park in Partnership with the Magical 1 1
2 3
4 5
6 2
2 2
3 5
6 6
6 4

EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN

ESTACIONAMIENTO EXISTENTE A CONSERVARSE
Bell Street Park, East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, CA 02.26.2022 FEATURES SPACES UNIVERSALLY ACCESSIBLE: MINI PLAYGROUND, BBQ STATIONS, ADULT OUTDOOR GYM, STAGE AMENIDADES ADICIONALES CON ACCESIBILIDAD UNIVERSAL: MINI AREA DE JUEGOS, ASADORES, GIMNASIO PARA

PERSONAS MAYORES, AUDITORIO AL AIRE LIBRE

PEDESTRIAN ENTRIES TO ENHANCE - REINFORCE - CREATE

ENTRADAS PEATONALES A MEJORAR - REINFORZAR - CREAR

EAST PALO ALTO ENTRY GATE - TO BE COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC WOKS FOR SCOPE OUTSIDE THE PARK LIMITS

PORTAL DE ENTRADA A LA CIUDAD DE EAST PALO ALTO - COORDINAR CON EL DEPARTAMENTO DE OBRAS PUBLICAS

SKATE PARK - PROPOSED NEW LOCATION

RELOCALIZACION DE LA PISTA DE PATINAJE

PROPOSED ACTIVITY LAWN

CESPED PROPUESTO PARA ACTIVIDADES
E
U
C
LID
AVE
U
NIV
E
R
SIT
Y
AV
E

BELL ST
SENIOR
CENTER
YMCA
In partnership with the City of East Palo Alto and the community, Magical Bridge Foundation is reimagining Bell Street Park to be a truly “magical” inclusive space for all ages and abilities. Please join us and share your input today!
En asociación con la ciudad de East Palo Alto y la comunidad, Magical Bridge Foundation está remodelando Bell Street Park para que sea un espacio inclusivo verdaderamente “mágico” para todas las edades y habilidades. ¡Únase a nosotros y comparta su opinión hoy!
Highlights of Community Feedback:

Hopes
“A place to gather for concerts and events, open spaces and fitness” “Spaces for all ages to enjoy, including teenagers and young adults” “A place for special events like Cinco de Mayo, Juneteenth, and the Blues Festival is a must”
“A place for young families to come together”
“Equipment that children and adults with disabilties can use” “Create a walking path”
“A better skate park”
“BBQ areas”
“More shade”
“Local art”
Concerns
“We don’t want a destination playground, the park isn’t that large” “Please make the fencing better”
“It wouldn’t be a good place for a dog park”
“Please preserve trees”
“Provide housing solutions for those in and nearby the park” all abilities all ages all welcome

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Draft Plan (2355 : Proposed Specific Plan for Bell Street Park in Partnership with the Magical Bridge Foundation) SENIOR
CENTER

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
YMCA
FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT
FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT
EUCLID AVE.

BELL ST.

UNIVERSITY AVENUE

PARK PEDESTRIAN ENTRIES

ENTRADAS PEATONALES AL PARQUE

LIGHT FIXTURES, DIFFERENT TYPES ACCORDINGLY WITH CONTEXT AND SAFETY REQUIRERMENTS

LUMINARIAS DE DIFERERNTES TIPO DE ACUERDO CON EL CONTEXTO Y REQUERIMIENTOS DE SEGURIDAD

MAIN RECREATIONAL LAWN

CESPED PRINCIPAL PARA ACTIVIDADES RECREATIVAS

ORCHARD COURTYARD

PATIO DE HORTALIZAS
ENHANCED PATH WITH SEATING AND WHEEL STOPPERS AT SENIOR CENTER.

SENDERO PEATONAL MEJORADO CON BANCAS Y TOPES PARA LLANTAS

ACCESIBLE BATHROOMS

BANOS ACCESIBLES

CHESS COURTYARD

PATIO DE AJEDREZ
EXISTING PARKING LOT TO RENOVATE TO BE FLUSH WITH SENIOR CENTER’S SIDEWALK

ESTACIONAMIENTO EXISTENTE A RENOVAR A NIVEL CON BANQUETA DEL CENTRO DE ADULTOS MAYORES

SHADE STRUCTURE

ESTRUCTURA PARA SOMBRA

FEATUREE PLAZA AND DONOR WALL

PLAZA Y MURO DE DONADORES

OUTDOOR SOFAS - CONCRETE BASE WITH RUBBER FINISH

SOFAS EXTERIORES - CONCRETEO CON RECUBRIMIENTO DE GOMA

ACCESSIBLE RAISED PLANTING BEDS - SCIENCE CORRIDOR

CAMAS DE PLANTACION ACCESIBLE PARA VEGETALES - CORREDOR DE CIENCIAS

ENTRY SIGN AND WAYFINDING

SENALAMIENTO DE ENTRADA Y CIRCULACION

BIORETENTION BASIN

AREA DE INFILTRACION DE AGUAS PLUVIALES

CURBLESS DROP-OFF AREA

AREA DE DESCENSO A NIVEL

EAST PALO ALTO PORTAL - THRESHOLD LANDMARKS

HITOS - PORTAL DE ENTRADA A LA CIUDAD DE EAST PALO ALTO

BIKE RACKS

ESTACIONAMIENTO PARA BICICLETAS

SPECIAL PAVING ATP ENTRY PORTAL

PAVIMENTO ESPECIAL EN EL PORTAL DE ENTRADA

EUCLID CORRIDOR

CORREDOR EUCLID

U SHAPE COMMUNITY SEATS

ASIENTOS COMUNITARIOS EN FORMA DE U

OUTDOOR COMMUNITY GATHERING PLAZA WITH FIXED AND MOVABLE FURNISHINGS

PLAZA DE ESTAR COMUNITARIA CON MOBILIARIO FIJO Y MOVIBLE

AMPHITHEATER

ANFITEATRO

HALF BASKETBALL COURTS

MEDIAS CANCHAS DE BASKETBALL

TACTILE GUIDEWAYS AT PAVING

GUIAS TACTILES EN PAVIMENTO
FOCAL ELEMENT - I.E. CONCESSION KIOSK, WATERFEATURE, TBC AT DESIGN PHASE ELEMENTO FOCAL: KIOSKO DE CONCESION, FUENTE. CONFIRMACION EN LA ETAPA DE DISEÑO

OUTDOOR GYM FOR ADULTS AND SENIORS

GIMNASIO AL AIRE LIBRE PARA ADULTOS

POTENTIAL ENTRIES FROM ADJACENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

ENTRADAS POTENCIALES DESDE LOS PROYECTOS DE DESARROLLO COLINDANTES

SKATIE COURT

PISTA DE PATINAJE

BBQ AND PICNIC AREA

AREA DE PICNIC Y BBQ

STUDY OUTDOOR STATIONS POWERED WITH PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS

ESTACIONES EXTERIORES DE ESTUDIO CON CELDAS DE ENERGIA SOLAR

ALL ABILITIES, ALL AGES UNIVERSAL PLAYGROUND

ZONA DE JUEGOS PARA TODAS LAS HABILIDADES Y CUALQUIER EDAD MULTI-USE COURTS: BASKETBALL AND SPEED SOCCER
CANCHAS MULTIUSO: BASKETBALL Y FUTBOL DE SALON

OUTDOOR LEARNING PODS

MINIPLAZAS DE INSTRUCCION AL AIRE LIBRE
1 1
1 1
1 10
10 10
10 19 19
19 28
2 2
11 11
20 20
29 3
3 12
12 21
22 21
30 31
32 33
4 4
7 7
5 5 7
5 13
13 22
5 14
14 14
23 23
6 6 6
15 15
24 7
16 16
25 8
8 17
17 17 10
17 17
17 26
9 9
9 18
18 27
Bell Street Park 07.19.2022 all abilities all ages all welcome City of East Palo Alto - Magical Bridge Foundation

9.3.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Draft Plan (2355 : Proposed Specific Plan for Bell Street Park in Partnership with the Magical Bridge Foundation)

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Patrick Heisinger, Interim City Manager
BY: Rachel Horst, Housing and Economic Development Manager Karen Camacho, Housing Project Manager
SUBJECT: Update on the Draft Housing Element
Recommendation
Receive the report, provide feedback on the Draft Housing Element, and authorize release of the document for a 30-day public review period.

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

Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
Housing Element
Since 1969, California has required all local governments to plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. This requirement is met by adopting a Housing Element as part of the General Plan, also required by the state. The General Plan serves as the blueprint for how the city will grow and develop and includes at least eight mandated elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing.

California’s Housing Element Law acknowledges that, for the private market to provide adequate housing statewide, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development.

Every eight years the City is required by State law to update its Housing Element. This includes planning to meet existing and projected housing needs, including our share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”).

9.4 Packet Pg. 126
Housing Element Update Process
Staff has provided updates to the City Council and Planning Commission and sought feedback on the Housing Element on the following dates:

City Council Feedback on the Housing Element
May 10, 2021 Brief Informational update to Planning Commission on Housing Element
March 14, 2022 Update to Planning Commission on 2021 Housing Element and General Plan Annual Progress Report1
March 15, 2022 City Council Authorization to Submit 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report, 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report, and Housing Successor Agency Report to State Agencies2 April 26, 2022 Joint Study Session with Planning Commission and City Council3 July 11, 2022 Planning Commission Housing Element Drafting Update July 19, 2022 City Council Housing Element Drafting Update Staff has also sought public feedback via meetings on the following dates:

Public Feedback on the Housing Element
March –
December 2021
Let's Talk Housing! 4-part webinar series in San Mateo County June 2, 2021 Community Meeting about Outreach Strategies July 19, 2021 Community Meeting #1 (virtual; in English & Spanish)4 February 24,
2022
Community Meeting #2 (virtual; in English & Spanish)5
May 2, 2022 Equity Advisory Group Meeting
May 5, 2022 Community Meeting #3 (in-person and virtual; in English, Spanish & Tongan)6
June 8, 2022 &
June 15, 2022
Intercept Surveys at East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Market February 24,
2022 – July
2022
Online Surveys (Jamboard Survey and Policies & Programs Survey)
May 25, 2022 –
July 2022
Balancing Act Online Survey
Housing Element Drafting and Current Status
Staff is currently drafting the Housing Element update in anticipation of releasing a draft for 1 March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1482&MinutesID=1517&FileFormat=doc&Format=Mi nutes&MediaFileFormat=mpeg4
2 March 15, 2022 City Council Meeting:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1804&MinutesID=1518&FileFormat=pdf&Format=Mi nutes&MediaFileFormat=mpeg4
3 April 26, 2022 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1808&MinutesID=1529&Format=Minutes&MediaFile Format=mpeg4
4 July 19, 2021 Community Meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI7o9ejCmIo 5 February 24, 2022 Community Meeting: https://vimeo.com/681972749 (English); https://vimeo.com/681972604 (Spanish) 6 May 5, 2022 Community Meeting: https://vimeo.com/711354897

9.4 Packet Pg. 127
public review in August. HCD requires a 30-day public review period, followed by submittal to HCD, after which the agency has 90 days to return comments to the City. Staff will incorporate HCD’s comments into a final draft and bring this draft to the Planning Commission in a public hearing forum, followed by a public hearing at the City Council by December 2022. A rough timeline is shown below:

Timeframe Activity
Early 2020 Staff began preparation for Housing Element: biweekly 21 Elements meetings, review of current Housing Element, review of new Housing Element laws, etc.

Spring 2021 Staff began analysis with 21 Elements: review of “sites strategies,” planning for community meetings, applications for funding and T.A.

June 2021 –
June 2022
Community Outreach to inform drafting
July-August
2022
Draft chapters of Housing Element (30-day public review period following release of full draft, minimum of 10 days for public comment incorporation)
July 11, 2022 Planning Commission review and input on some chapter drafts July 19, 2022 City Council review and input on some chapter drafts August 2022 Full Housing Element draft released for public review (30-day public review period, followed by 10-day period to incorporate comments) September
2022
(Upon conclusion of public review period) Submit to Department of Housing & Community Development for review
November
2022
Planning Commission Public Hearing
December
2022
City Council adopt Housing Element
January
2023
Housing Elements due to HCD (required by statue)
January
2026
Re-zoning to accommodate the RHNA (on sites identified in the Sites Inventory) completed
The Housing Element consists of the following main sections, or chapters. Please note, these are the main components of the document; some shorter, “miscellaneous” sections are not included here but will be in the final Housing Element.

1. Introduction and Background of East Palo Alto

2. Overview of Housing Element Public Participation/Community Engagement

3. Review of Prior Housing Element

4. Housing Needs Assessment and Analysis of Housing Needs for Special Populations

5. Housing Supply and Review of Affordable Housing At-Risk of Conversion to MarketRate

6. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment and Action Plan

7. Analysis of Actual and Potential Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints

8. Existing Housing Resources and Programs

9. Analysis of Zoning and Availability of Sites for a Variety of Housing Types

9.4 Packet Pg. 128

10.Sites Inventory and Analysis

11.Goals, Policies, and Programs
The purpose of this staff report is to share an update on Housing Element drafting progress, with a focus on findings and highlights of the bolded chapters above (2, 4, 6, 10, and all).

Significant portions of these drafts have been completed and, for the purposes of discussion, are provided for reference in Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Staff continues to draft additional sections for each of these chapters, including additional background, charts, and maps, in the weeks leading up to the public review period.

Staff presented an earlier version of this report to the Planning Commission on July 11, 2022.

To highlight key findings and provide further background on each of these sections, the staff report is broken down into four corresponding sections:
• Section I Overview of Housing Element Public Participation • Section II Housing Needs Assessment and Analysis of Housing Needs for Special Populations
• Section III Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment and Action Plan • Section IV Sites Inventory and Analysis
• Section V Policies & Programs
Analysis
SECTION I: Overview of Housing Element Public Participation/Community Engagement Outreach Strategies
The Housing Element must reflect the vision of its residents, and to accomplish this, the City of East Palo Alto developed a broad and diverse outreach plan designed to reach as many community members who live and work in the city as possible. Given the inability to hold inperson events due to the COVID-19 pandemic, staff developed different community outreach and engagement strategies, including virtual meetings, digital tools, and safe in-person interactions once the shelter-in-place order lifted. Attachment 1 summarizes the outreach activities. These include:
• Website and social media updates
• City Mailer
• Email Alerts & City Newsletters
• Virtual community meetings
• Virtual Planning Commission and City Council public meetings • Hybrid (virtual & in-person) community meeting
• Online surveys (via Jamboard, Google Forms, and Balancing Act webpage) • Intercept surveys at the East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Market • Flyer distribution
Policies and Programs Community Engagement
At the joint study session on April 26, 2022, the City Council and Planning Commission received an update on the community engagement on Housing Element policies and

9.4 Packet Pg. 129
programs. Since then, staff hosted a public community meeting on May 5, 2022, through a hybrid in-person and virtual forum. This meeting included an online Housing Element survey.7 Staff received 45 survey submissions assessing the City’s performance on key policy and program areas. Attachment 1 provides an overview of the survey results.

In summary, the main areas where the City can improve based on survey results include:
a. Increasing homeownership opportunities for income-qualified households (focused on existing residents and workers in East Palo Alto).
b. Improving housing and neighborhood conditions.
c. Balancing development that link housing to jobs.

Sites Inventory Community Engagement
Residents also provided input on the potential sites inventory through the Balancing Act webpage,8 a simulation tool that helps residents visualize and identify where new housing development could be prioritized in the City, and the preferred density (measured by number of dwelling units per acre of land) of new housing development.

The City of East Palo Alto received the second-highest engagement compared to other California cities participating in this simulation tool, with 12 respondents total. Our extensive outreach via the City’s website, City newsletters, direct email communications, social media, and in-person flyer distribution helped us receive 196 page views for a total of 20 hours of site use; despite these efforts, the response rate was only 6%. This outcome illustrates the challenges of engaging residents through tools that require tech-savviness.

The following table summarizes the Balancing Act survey results:

East Palo Alto Balancing Act Sites Inventory Survey Results Respondents
Choosing
“Higher
Density”
Respondents
Choosing
“Lower
Density”
Respondents
Choosing
“No housing”
Average
Unit Count
Selected
1a - RBD Zoned for
Housing 75% 25% 0% 592
1b - RBD Zoned for
Housing 50% 50% 0% 127
2 - Four Corners 67% 25% 8% 397
3 - South of Weeks 42% 25% 25% 80
4 - EPA Waterfront 25% 33% 42% 152
5 - Harvest Affordable
Housing Proposal 42% 0% 17% 73
6A - Pulgas East Site 1 42% 17% 42% 57
7 Housing Element Update Survey:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScT5ZIkH1lLYaDItYNhw4rOqyrZxKi0PkUGF7WkB0fb0d1frg/viewform (English) and
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSczDXPzp5XjAhgCWJSr_D0nbKGBXzGfHiM87UptVB5ASbpL2A/viewfor m (Spanish); Jamboard Survey: https://jamboard.google.com/d/1- Wre_PIgoPBYurKEKY_rxKrzfF121jziT2VuYkcE2uE/viewer.
8 East Palo Alto Balancing Act: https://eastpaloalto.abalancingact.com/EPA-balancing-act

9.4 Packet Pg. 130
6B - Pulgas East Site 2 42% 17% 42% 53
6C - Pulgas East Site 3 58% 25% 17% 123
7 - City of East Palo
Alto 50% 8% 42% 13
8 - San Mateo County
Government Center 17% 17% 67% 39
9 - Ravenswood School
District 42% 25% 33% 104
A - Weeks Street 50% 33% 17% 37
B - University Avenue 83% 0% 17% 11
C - Schembri Lane 33% 42% 25% 7
D - Runnymede Street 33% 33% 33% 6
E - Green Street 1 33% 42% 25% 6
F - Green Street 2 33% 42% 25% 4
G - Donohoe Street 50% 25% 25% 7
H - East Bayshore 58% 17% 25% 8
Overall, the Balancing Act survey results demonstrate there is more appetite for housing. Most residents supported higher density housing on the Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Area Plan sites. A majority (50% or more) also supported higher density on the following sites:
a. Pulgas Street East Site 3 (APN 63240310)
b. East Bayshore site (807 E. Bayshore)
c. Weeks Street site (851 Weeks St.)
d. Donohoe Street site (801 Donohoe St.)
e. City of East Palo Alto site (2277 University Avenue) An overwhelming majority supported higher density along University Avenue, and a large majority (67%) did not support housing on the San Mateo County Government Center site at 2415 University Ave., where City Hall is currently located.

Staff also spoke with 30 East Palo Alto residents in-person at East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Markets and received further input on housing density and future housing development. Of the 30 residents staff engaged with, 53% indicated they wanted to see higher-density housing, 20% indicated they wanted to see lower-density housing, and 24% indicated they would visit the City website to learn more. Residents also expressed their thoughts and opinions on the proposed sites inventory, and common input included the need for more affordable housing, ensuring there is a jobs-housing balance, ensuring new jobs do not create displacement pressures on current residents, creating new units that have better habitability, and ensuring there is enough parking.

Key Takeaways from Community Engagement
The key takeaways emerging through the outreach process are detailed in Attachment 1 and summarized below:
a. Housing is personal.
b. The price of housing is a major concern.
c. More housing is needed.
d. More homeownership opportunities are needed.

9.4 Packet Pg. 131
e. Improved housing and neighborhood conditions are needed. f. Single-family neighborhoods are polarizing.
g. Affordable housing is a top concern.
h. The process is too complicated.
i. Better information resources needed.
j. Issues are connected. These include housing, transportation, climate change, employment and education.
k. Equity is on people’s minds.
l. Anti-displacement is important.
m. Environmentally sustainable development is needed.
n. Regional work matters but there’s more to figure out. o. Diversity in participation was a challenge.

This preliminary input informed the following policies and programs that staff is incorporating into the draft Policies & Programs chapter:
a. Reduced constraints and enhanced incentives for housing development. b. Overlay for non-profit-owned properties of a certain size that commit to building 100% affordable housing
c. Further City streamlining for SB 9 projects
d. Encouraging ADU production to address “missing middle” problem. e. Temporary Use permit for temporary housing for unhoused individuals f. Requiring minimum residential density on sites inventory/housing opportunity sites in RBD
g. Waiving fees for affordable projects
h. Reduced parking for affordable projects
Based on community input, many residents expressed that they would like to see greater density and more sites for affordable housing in the Sites Inventory analysis, which will be further discussed in this report.

Feedback from the Public, Planning Commission, and City Council At the joint study session on April 26, 2022, the City Council and Planning Commission received an update on the community engagement on Housing Element policies and programs.

The City Council, Planning Commission, and members of the public may provide further input on the outreach strategies implemented and guidance on future outreach, as well as input on the findings derived from the community outreach process. Public engagement is an ongoing process, and members of the public will be able to continue to provide input at these Planning Commission and City Council meetings, as well as during the 30-day public review period of the Housing Element Update draft before final submittal to HCD by the end of December.

SECTION II: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF HOUSING NEEDS FOR

SPECIAL POPULATIONS
The Housing Needs Assessment consists primarily of data provided by ABAG/MTC in preparation for the Housing Element. Each jurisdiction received a “data packet” prepared to

9.4 Packet Pg. 132
specifically address each of the statutorily required data points.9 The draft East Palo Alto Housing Needs Assessment can be found in Attachment 2. These data help to more robustly describe the state of housing in East Palo Alto and to provide a basis for planning for development over this eight-year planning period.

Several highlights from this extensive data compilation have been incorporated into the community meetings and outreach referenced above. These include:

Demographic Shifts
The majority of East Palo Alto is made up of people of color, including 66.1% Latinx, 10.9% African-American, and 9.6% Asian, while approximately 10% of the population is White. This is a far larger proportion of people of color, particularly Latinx and African-American, than the rest of San Mateo County.

Since 2000, the percentage of residents in East Palo Alto identifying as White has increased, and the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has decreased, by 3.4 percentage points. The largest absolute increase in residents identified as Latinx, while the largest absolute decrease in residents identified as African-American.

Displacement Risk

64.7% of households in East Palo Alto live in neighborhoods that are “susceptible to or experiencing displacement.” Additional data illustrate some of the factors contributing to displacement risk:
• The City’s housing stock consists of 54.1% single family detached, 4.1% single family attached, 3.4% small multiple-family (2-4 units), and 36.6% medium or large multiplefamily (5+ units). The City has a higher proportion of single-family home renters relative to the rest of the County, and a higher proportion of renters overall– 60% in East Palo Alto versus 40% countywide. In addition, while single-family renters benefit from just cause eviction, they are not protected from high rent increases that is one of the major contributing factors to displacement, meaning that many renter households are without most rental/tenant protections.
• One quarter (25%) of households in East Palo Alto are severely cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs, and 28.8% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on rent.
• 25.5% of households in East Palo Alto make less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (“ELI”), compared to 14% countywide. Only 17.4% make more than 100% of the AMI, compared to 49% countywide. These percentages align with tenure: the largest proportion of renters is ELI, while the largest proportion of homeowners earns more than 100% AMI.
• 8.6% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, defined as units with more than 1.5 persons per room. 9 The full list of statutorily required data can be found on page 3 of this Housing Element Checklist by HCD: Housing Element Completeness Checklist (21elements.com)

9.4 Packet Pg. 133
Dramatic Shifts in Housing Market
The reported vacancy rate is 7.4% (for all housing unit types).

The estimated “typical home value” was $936,680 in December 2020, compared to $1,418,330 in San Mateo County. This represents an increase of 151% since 2001 – higher than in the rest of the County and the rest of the Bay Area. Similarly, since 2009, the median rent has increased by 65.7% in East Palo Alto, from $1,210 to $1,630 per month – a much higher increase than in San Mateo County or the Bay Area.

27.5% of East Palo Alto households are larger households with five or more people- illustrating the demand for larger units (3 or more bedrooms).

Special Needs Populations

6.4% of residents in East Palo Alto have a disability, and the most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in East Palo Alto is the home of parent /family /guardian. Please note that staff is working with Housing Choices, a Bay Area nonprofit serving individuals with developmental and other disabilities, to obtain more data on this population in East Palo Alto.

The number of students in East Palo Alto experiencing homelessness in 2019-20 (514) represented 43.9% of the San Mateo County total.

This does not represent an exhaustive list of data or conclusions that may be drawn from them. For a full description, see Attachment 2.

SECTION III: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment and Action Plan The State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) require that all public agencies affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) or take meaningful actions to overcome disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, combat segregation and foster integrated and inclusive communities.

The Housing Element must incorporate an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices. While the AFFH chapter provides an analysis in detail (see Attachment 3), AFFH considerations are incorporated throughout all the Housing Element chapters.

Identifying AFFH Issues
A County-wide AFFH survey was administered to capture residents’ needs regarding affirmatively furthering fair housing, and found the following housing challenges (based on responses from 53 East Palo Alto residents):
a. About 41% of respondents indicated they would like to move but can’t afford anything that is available.
b. About 35% of respondents said their house or apartment is too small for their family.

9.4 Packet Pg. 134
c. About 20% of respondents said they are often late on rent payments and 16% indicated they can’t keep up with utilities.
d. 40% of respondents indicated their neighborhood does not have good sidewalks, walking areas, and/or lighting, and 25% indicated schools in their neighborhood are poor quality.
e. 32% of respondents said they have experienced displacement in the past five years, common reasons for displacement included:
i. Rent increased more than I could pay; and
ii. Landlord wanted to rent to someone else.
f. 29% of respondents indicated they had been discriminated against when looking for housing.

The AFFH Appendix of Attachment 3 compares survey responses with other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, allowing for a comparative analysis. These survey results align with what staff heard in past community engagement activities.

Fair Housing Issues and Possible Contributing Factors
The County-wide AFFH survey helped identify a few key fair housing issues in East Palo Alto.

These key fair housing issues include:
• Cost burden for Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American households • Entire City is considered vulnerable to displacement
• Lack of sidewalks, good street lighting and walkability in some neighborhoods • High rates of fair housing discrimination
• Applicants for mortgage face high rates of denial, highest for Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx applicants
• Higher portion of children than rest of county attending lower-performing schools An analysis of the city’s history of segregation and discrimination helps answer what may be some contributing factors to these fair housing issues. Possible contributing factors include:
• Decades of discrimination in employment, education, and housing markets • Race-blind policies still generate disparate outcomes • Migration to East Palo Alto due to relatively more affordable rents and home prices; neighborhoods with highest performing schools have high housing prices, pushing families into areas with schools that have fewer resources • Low-income residents seeking affordable housing more likely to work low wage jobs that do not support cost of living, resulting in cost burden and overcrowding • K-12 achievement gaps impacting future employment opportunities • Historically low private sector investment
Recommendations to Address Fair Housing Issues
The Housing Elements encourages examining specific policies and programs that may help address systemic challenges to furthering fair housing. The “Housing-specific policies enacted locally” section of Attachment 3 identifies the following policy and program ideas, which may be incorporated into the Policies & Programs chapter:
• Anti-Displacement Plan
• Rental registry
• Homebuyer assistance program

9.4 Packet Pg. 135
• Mortgage and rental assistance (beyond pandemic)
• Foreclosure assistance
• Living wage employment ordinances
• Housing counseling
• Acquisition and unsubsidized properties with affordable rents • Construction of 2-3 bedroom affordable housing units for larger families • Engaging the school district to address performance gaps; • Exploring establishment of cooperatives/community ownership of housing; • Seeking funding from the private sector to add neighborhood improvements communities that have the greatest needs; and
• Establishing a land banking program (with that funding). • Standardized review metrics of housing developments
Some of these policies and programs overlap with those discussed at the April 26, 2022 study session on the Housing Element. Those which were not discussed are still under consideration by staff and may be incorporated into the Goals, Policies, and Programs Chapter of the Draft Housing Element for public review.

SECTION IV: SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Purpose of the Sites Inventory
For the Sites Inventory, HCD requires a site-by-site analysis of parcels in the City where housing development is expected to occur over the eight-year planning period. Using an HCDprovided form, jurisdictions must provide information about each site to illustrate the key assumptions used to calculate the estimated number of units. The total number of units, by income category, from the sites in the Sites Inventory must meet or exceed the City’s RHNA.

Staff has assembled a list of potential sites for the Sites Inventory; this list largely reflects what was provided in the April 26 Study Session on the Housing Element, with additional analysis.

This list may be found in Attachment 4.

According to HCD guidance for choosing suitable sites to accommodate the RHNA, lowerincome housing is best accommodated on sites larger than 0.5 acres or smaller than 10 acres and zoned for a minimum 30 dwelling units per acre density.10 Nonvacant sites should not exceed 50% of all sites in the Sites Inventory.

For reference, zoning designations that allow for a minimum of 30 du/acre include:

Zoning Min/Max Du/Acre
Residential High Density 3 22 to 43
Residential High Density 5 22 to 43
Mixed Use Corridor 1 22 to 65
Mixed use Corridor 2 22 to 65
Mixed Use High 43 to 86
Residential Urban High Density 43 to 86
Bay Rd. Central 0 to 50*
4 Corners 0 to 60*
10 This is the “default density” for lower-income housing for San Mateo and other metropolitan jurisdictions, according to HCD:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning

9.4 Packet Pg. 136
*No minimum specified, but density may be sufficiently high to support assumption of lowerincome development on the site.

Not all sites in the draft Sites Inventory fall within the 0.5-to-10 acre limits. This will require additional justification in the Sites Inventory Analysis, though the sites may be used to account for Above-Moderate (market-rate) units only. There are currently 6 sites smaller than 0.5 acres and 1 site larger than 10 acres on the list. Well over half of the sites are vacant, with some key redevelopment sites.

In Attachment 4 each site is detailed in a chart that contains the following, based on HCD requirements:

Entry Description
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
Size HCD considers the appropriate size range for lower-income housing to be sites that can support 50 to 150 units, or between .5 acres and 10 acres. Smaller or larger sites can be considered for market-rate housing.

General Plan land use
designation
As identified in General Plan.

Zoning designation Existing zoning, e.g., RMD-1, in General Plan and Specific Plan, if applicable
Allowable density
(minimum and maximum)
Density, or dwelling units per acre (“du/acre”)
Development capacity Estimate the number of units likely to be built on the site.

Jurisdictions must justify these estimates and state their assumptions in the narrative section of the Housing Element.

See “capacity adjustment” below.

RHNA affordability levels Indicate which levels of affordability will be served by the site (lower-income, moderate, above-moderate). For lowerincome RHNA, default density of the site must be a minimum of 30 du/acre. HCD encourages jurisdictions to choose sites near transit, high-performing schools, jobs, amenities (e.g. parks, grocery stores, healthcare), with good infrastructure and no environmental mitigation needed.

Existing use If site is nonvacant, describe what is currently on the site.

Publicly owned Any sites owned by City, County or federal government.

Site status Indicate whether the site is available or whether there is a pending project on it.

Infrastructure availability Address whether there are sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities available and accessible to support housing
Development. If not, include a program in the Housing
Element that ensures access and availability to
infrastructure to accommodate development within the
planning period.

Environmental constraints To the extent the information is available, provide a general description of any known environmental or other features

9.4 Packet Pg. 137
(e.g., presence of floodplains, protected wetlands, oak tree preserves, very high fire hazard severity zones) that have the potential to impact the development viability of the identified sites.

Included in prior Housing
Element(s)
If the site was used in a prior sites inventory, the jurisdiction must demonstrate why it is likely that the parcel will develop in the next RHNA cycle.

Overview of Types of Sites in the Sites Inventory
The number of estimated units total over the eight-year planning period from all sites included in the Sites Inventory, also referred to as “Housing Opportunity Sites” and shown in Attachment 4, is summarized below:

Total Units from Sites Inventory Sites vs. RHNA 6
VLI LI MOD Above-Mod Total
Housing
Opportunity
Sites
472 206 34 1011 1723
RHNA 6 165 95 159 410 829
Difference 231 103 -125 580 830
Percentage
difference 186% over 117% over 79% under 147% over 108% over *Totals do not include ADUs.

As discussed in prior staff reports, the East Palo Alto Sites Inventory contains many “pipeline units,” or units in projects that have been entitled or received SB 35 Zoning Clearance, and that are expected to apply for a building permit or begin construction later in 2022 or in subsequent years. All such units can be counted towards the next RHNA cycle, as was shown in Attachment 2 to the April 26 Study Session staff report. Taking these unit counts into account, the City can meet or slightly exceed the RHNA in nearly every category, except for Moderate-Income units.

For other sites in the Sites Inventory, there is an active development application with a high level of confidence they will lead to construction of units within the eight-year Housing Element cycle (2023-2031)-- or there is significant developer interest and potential feasibility, but the ability to develop residential units relies on a re-zoning of the parcel. For these reasons, in calculating the realistic capacity of the sites, staff relied in many cases on the development proposal or preapplication. If staff estimated the number of units using a different methodology, this is indicated in Attachment 4.
21 Elements, the technical assistance provider for Housing Elements in San Mateo County, recommends a “buffer” of 30% for lower-income units. As the chart above shows, the City’s Sites Inventory unit totals exceed the VLI, LI, and Above-Mod RHNA by more than twice the amount required, while MOD units fall short by 79%. Staff is working with HCD to determine how to accommodate more MOD units from the RHNA through methodological adjustments or other means.

9.4 Packet Pg. 138
The Sites Inventory shown in Attachment 4 is broken down into the following types of sites, each with its own description:

Entitled or Ministerially-Approved Projects
Site Size Zoned
Density
Assumed
Density
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
965 Weeks

2.52 22 to 43
or 40 54 42 93 1 136
1804 Bay Rd.
.99 22 to 65
or 50 75 10 65 75
2331 University .89 22 to 65 37 4 3 26 33
1201 Runnymede
.932
22 to 43
or 40 34 3 3 26 32
760 Weeks .52 12 to 22 19 1 1 8 10
120-126 Maple
Lane
.177
(total) 12 to 15 15 4 4
APN 063265300
Runnymede/Clarke .156 12 to 15 12 1 2 3
Here and in all subsequent charts, “Zoned Density” refers to the density permitted for that zoning type; “Assumed Density” is the density of the proposed project and/or the density used to calculate the number of units in each income category. It is provided in dwelling units per acre. Some contain two zoned densities: one from the General Plan and one from the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan.

Projects Not Approved, but High Probability of Development This additional “pipeline” category includes sites with a minimum 30 du/acre and size between

0.5 and 10 acres, which can support lower-income housing, in addition to some lower-density or smaller infill sites with an active Planning application. Multiple sites zoned RMD-2, with allowable density between 12-22 du/acre, have seen development interest. Where the developer has agreed to meet the requirements of the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, this results in a small number of affordable units in the project.

Site Size
(acres)
Zoned
Density
Assumed
Density
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
Woodland Park
Euclid
Improvements11 3.9
22 to 43
or
43 to 86 155 444 444
Four Corners 6.02 43 to 86 30 36 144 180
11 Woodland Park is proposing to provide between 75 and 89 inclusionary units off-site (an in-lieu fee will be paid for the difference if not all 89 are built off-site), which will be deed-restricted to 35-60% AMI. The project will demolish and rebuilding 160 rent-controlled units as a part of the new development, which remain restricted to the Annual General Adjustment (AGA) each year or revert to market-rate if these units are or become vacant upon the completion of the new development. In this chart, only the net-new, market-rate units are counted.

9.4 Packet Pg. 139
or
up to 40
717 Donahoe .66 12 to 22 21 1 1 12 14
990 Garden 1.32 up to 12 6 2 6 8
2340 Cooley .26 12 to 22 31 1 7 8
Projects with Lower Probability of Development, But Development Interest This category consists largely of very low-density, above-moderate developments with single family-home or townhome subdivisions and some smaller sites (less than 0.5 acres). It contains one site suitable for lower-income housing.

Site Size
(acres)
Zoned
Density
Assumed
Density
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
547
Runnymede
.45 12 to 22 15 7 7
1062
Runnymede
.92 up to 12 6 6 6
812 Green .89 up to 12 6 5 5
842 Green .59 up to 12 6 4 4
801
Donahoe
.45 12 to 22 6 5 5
755
Schembri

1.435 12 to 15 4 17 17
807 E.

Bayshore
.55 up to 22 15 12 12
Lincoln St.
(APN
063186270)
.254 up to 12 8 1 2 3
851 Weeks .65 22 to 43
or up to
40 40 16 10 26
Publicly-Owned Sites with Potential for Development or Redevelopment These sites include a City-owned site, the Senior Center, County-owned Government Center, and a site owned by the Ravenswood Elementary School District.

Site Size Zoned
Density
Assumed
Density
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
2277
University
.36 up to
60 30 19 1 20
560 Bell .736 n/a 30 14 8 22
2415
University

2.045 22 to
65 or
up to
50 55 60 1 61
Bay Rd.
(APN
063090080)
n/a 30 26 26 26 78

9.4 Packet Pg. 140
Nonresidential Zoning, but Residential Development Application (RBD) These sites are in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Area and reliant on the rezoning process that will occur starting in Fall 2022.

Site Size Zoned
Density
Assumed
Density
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
EPA
Waterfront

29.6 (9
usable)
n/a 29 52 208 260
1103 Weeks
St. (Harvest
offsite)

1.6 n/a 59 95 95
Weeks St
(APN
063271490)

2.7 n/a 30 51 30 81
Sites with (Re)development Potential in Ravenswood Business District These sites are located in the RBD area and are zoned for relatively dense housing.

Site Size Zoned
Density
Assumed
Density
VLI LI MOD AboveModTotal
791
Weeks
.89 22 to 43
or up to
40 30 22 12 34
1923 Bay
Rd.
.99 22 to 65
or
up to 50
40 25 15 40
Accessory Dwelling Units
This category includes projected ADUs and JADUs for the eight-year planning period. These units may be counted towards the RHNA; numbers based on past production.

Since 2019, the City has issued an average of 15.6 ADU permits per year.12 Based on the annual average since 2019,13 the City would project 125 ADUs being permitted over the eightyear planning period. Using ABAG’s survey data to distribute the projected units by income category produces the following estimates:

ADU Estimates for RHNA 6 Period
Income Category Percentage Total
Very low 30% 38
Low 30% 37
Moderate 30% 37
Above moderate 10% 13
12 The number of ADUs per year since 2019: 8 in 2019, 10 in 2020, 29 in 2021. 13 Most cities base their determination of annual ADU permits by averaging the building permits approved each year since 2019, when state law made it easier to construct the units.

9.4 Packet Pg. 141
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Considerations for Sites Inventory The Sites Inventory must demonstrate that the sites chosen are not concentrated in one area of a jurisdiction, especially when a jurisdiction has sites of varying “opportunity” levels, as based on the TCAC Opportunity Map.14 Furthermore, the Sites Inventory should limit the number of lower-income housing sites in areas deemed Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (“R/ECAPs”).15
As the maps provided in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing overview demonstrate, East Palo Alto does not have high variation in terms of “opportunity” areas, nor does it contain R/ECAPs. However, in 2019, three Census tracts deemed “edge R/ECAPs” existed in East Palo Alto—which means they are majority people of color and have a poverty rate two times higher than the countywide Census tract average. Given the overall data on housing needs, location of housing sites is less of a concern within the City than within the region in which East Palo Alto is situated.

The selection of sites in the Sites Inventory reflects different areas of the City, with an emphasis on larger parcels in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Area (“RBD”). The Sites Inventory also reflects denser housing development not concentrated on the Westside, where most of the City’s rental housing stock is located, with the exception of Woodland Park.

Staff does not find that the selection of sites in the Sites Inventory would contribute further to the trends identified in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing assessment.

Addressing Infrastructural and Other Factors Affecting the Sites Inventory Constraints of any kind, whether non-governmental or governmental, must be addressed in the Housing Element wherever relevant to the production of housing. At a minimum, jurisdictions must list these constraints in the Analysis of Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints to Housing chapter of the Housing Element and describe the ways that the jurisdiction is working to reduce or eliminate them. In addition, where infrastructure limitations are known impediments to the development of individual Housing Opportunity Sites, the jurisdiction must also address them in the Sites Inventory and Analysis.

Staff continues to collect key data and draft the Analysis of Governmental and NonGovernmental Constraints to Housing, a chapter that is not a focus of tonight’s discussion on the Housing Element. However, staff finds that information pertaining to infrastructure is directly relevant to the discussion of individual sites and is therefore including a brief overview of water and sewer availability as well as fee processing and permit times for contextual purposes in this staff report.

Water and Sewer Infrastructure Availability
In addition to requiring jurisdictions to analyze each site for water and infrastructure availability, 14 TCAC opportunity map: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2022-tcac-opportunity-map 15 According to the AFFH analysis provided, R/ECAPs “are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity.” Racial Concentrated Areas of Affluence (“RCAAs ”), on the other hand, “are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.” HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is: a census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majorityminority people of color) AND a poverty rate of 40% or more; OR a census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-people of color) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County, whichever is lower.

9.4 Packet Pg. 142
the Housing Element also should include a detailed description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other utilities supply citywide, past challenges related to infrastructure, and how the City has responded since the last Housing Element.

In East Palo Alto, one of the main impediments to the production of residential units has historically been lack of water supply, ultimately leading to a 2016 moratorium on all new development due to the water emergency. In July 2017, the City entered into an agreement with the City of Mountain View for $5 million to receive $1 million gallons of water per day, and in 2018, the City received .5 million gallons per day from Palo Alto, allowing the City to resume development. Since the end of the water moratorium, the City has seen a major increase in development proposals.

While the City’s securing of these permanent water transfers has improved the overall water supply, the City continues to face the challenge of water distribution and storage. However, the City has taken major steps to address these shortfalls over the last five years.

The City is currently working with EKI Environment & Water to draft an updated Water System Master Plan (“WSMP”), a draft of which is available online.16 The WSMP will identify costeffective strategies to upgrade the existing distribution system to meet the current and future water demand by providing a 20-year capital improvement program to help guide future capital expenditures in the City and a calibrated distribution system hydraulic model using the City’s geographical information system.

The City also has initiated and completed several key capital improvement projects aimed at improving water storage and distribution citywide:
• O’Brien Turnout Connection Upgrade Project - completed • Purdue Ave. 16-inch transmission main, which includes installation of a new turnout connection to the SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission) system to feed the Ravenswood Business District – design complete
• Gloria Bay Well – completed
• Pad D Standby Well to secure an emergency source of potable water supplies in the event of an emergency interruption of supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission) – under construction
• University Ave and Cooley Ave 12-inch Water Transmission Main – design 100% complete and projected completion early 2023
• Water System Master Plan 2022 which will be used to create a water capital improvement program that includes both maintenance and expansion of the City system- underway
With these improvements in place, the City will be much better positioned to accommodate existing and future water demand and to ensure the health and safety of all residents.

As discussed in the April 26 Study Session staff report, many development projects have experienced delays due to the lack of a sewer connection from the East Palo Alto Sanitary District (“EPASD”). If sewer issues with EPASD are not resolved, East Palo Alto will continue to fall behind on its RHNA. It will be essential to document in the Housing Element the process and outcomes of the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (“SMCLAFCo”) 16 See: Water System Master Plan 2022 | City of East Palo Alto (cityofepa.org)

9.4 Packet Pg. 143
Municipal Service Review (“MSR”) and sphere of influence update, adopted by SMCLAFCo on June 15, 2022,17 and subsequent actions by EPASD addressed by City Council on June 21, 2022.18 A City Council study session to discuss next steps based on the SMCLAFCo recommendations is tentatively scheduled for the end of July.

Permitting Fees and Processing Times
East Palo Alto participated in the 21 Elements survey of jurisdictions’ fees and average processing times to inform the Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints analysis in the Housing Element. While a much deeper analysis will be provided in the Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints chapter, this comparison across 21 jurisdictions is helpful to understand how development may be affected by jurisdiction-specific costs and lengths of time required to begin construction.

The below chart shows a comparison of East Palo Alto’s responses with the other jurisdictions in San Mateo County (please note that some results may change as jurisdictions update their numbers). The responses were provided for single family homes, a prototypical 10-unit multiple-family building, and a prototypical 100-unit multiple-family building.

Total Fees (includes entitlement, building permits, and impact fees) per Unit Single Family Small Multiple-Unit Large Multiple-Unit
Atherton $15,941 No Data No Data
Brisbane $24,940 $11,678 No Data
Burlingame $69,425 $30,345 $23,229
Colma $6,760 $167,210 $16,795
Daly City $24,202 $32,558 $12,271
East Palo Alto $80,866 $30,812 $19,181
Foster City $67,886 $47,179 $11,288
Half Moon Bay $52,569 $16,974 No Data
Hillsborough $71,092 No Data No Data
Millbrae $97,756 $6,824 $55,186
Pacifica $33,725 $40,151 No Data
Portola Valley $52,923 No Data No Data
Redwood City $20,795 $18,537 $62,696
San Bruno $58,209 $72,148 $39,412
San Mateo $99,003 $133,658 $44,907
South San Francisco $81,366 $76,156 $32,471
Unincorporated San
Mateo $36,429 $27,978 $10,012
Woodside $70,957 $82,764 No Data
Source: 21 Elements Fee survey; East Palo Alto.
17See: East Palo Alto Sanitary District, City of East Palo Alto, West Bay Sanitary District - 2021-2022 | County of San Mateo, CA (smcgov.org)
18 See: Update and Next Steps following SMLAFCo Adoption of the Municipal Service Review for the City of East Palo Alto, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, and West Bay Sanitary District - City of East Palo Alto (iqm2.com)

9.4 Packet Pg. 144
As is shown above, East Palo Alto’s fees for multiple-family units fall within the mid- to lower range, while the per-unit single family home fee is among the higher fees. This may be attributed to the City’s Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee, a portion of which is required for a single-family development and are most easily calculated for this type; it is unclear if inclusionary fees were assumed in other jurisdictions. Please note that the fee survey did not include outside agencies’ fees, such as school districts, fire districts, or sanitary districts. 21 Elements then placed these costs into the context of total development costs for multiplefamily housing in the area, based on a report by Century Urban. Based on the estimated development costs, East Palo Alto’s fees comprise approximately 4% of those costs for all three development types. This is comparable to other jurisdictions.

The 21 Elements survey also included processing times for different levels of complexity.

Please note that there are some characteristics specific to each jurisdiction that may shorten or lengthen an average timeline. For example, in East Palo Alto, most projects are reviewed by the Planning Commission, so that “Discretionary By-Right” projects would still require some level of Planning Commission review. In addition, these processing times include both Planning and Building phases:

Permit Processing Times (in months)
ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Hearing
Officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
Atherton 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 4 N/A 2 to 4 2 to 6
Brisbane 1 to 2 2 to 6 N/A N/A 4 to 12 6 to 14
Burlingame 1 to 2 2 to 3 2 to 3 N/A 3-4 standard
project; 12
major project
13 months
Colma 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 4 N/A 4 to 8
Daly City 1 to 2 2 to 4 N/A N/A 4 to 8 8 to 12
East Palo Alto 2 to 5 2 to 5 6 to 20 6 to 12 9 to 18 12 to 24 Foster City 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 2 3 to 6 6 to 12
Half Moon Bay 1 to 2 2 to 4 3 to 6 4 to 12 6 to 15
Hillsborough - - - - - -
Millbrae 0 to 2 3 to 6 1 to 3 3 to 8 3 to 8 4 to 9
Pacifica 1 to 2 2 to 3 4 to 5 5 to 6 5 to 6 7 to 8
Redwood City 2 to 3 3 to 4 N/A 8 to 10 12 to 18 18 to 24 San Bruno 2 3 to 6 N/A 3 to 6 9 to 24 9 to 24
San Mateo 4 to 8 1 to 2 4 to 7 N/A 9 to 12 9 to 13
South San
Francisco
1 1 2 to 3 2 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 9
Unincorporated
San Mateo
1 to 3 3 to 6 4 to 9 6 to 12 6 to 18 9 to 24
Woodside 1 to 2 1 to 2 N/A N/A 2 to 6 3 to 8
While staff responded to this survey as written, staff finds it is most appropriate to separate out

9.4 Packet Pg. 145
the types of development processes into those specific to East Palo Alto.

The chart below shows average processing times for each:

Note: Assume 30 days for initial review and 30 days maximum upon resubmittal for Planning and 30 days initial review and 2 weeks maximum upon resubmittal for Engineering or Building.

Type Assumed Actions Length of Time
ADU/JADU Zoning Clearance and
Building review/inspection
1-2 months
Single Family Administrative Design
Review, Site Plan Review,
Building review/inspection
4-6 months
Moderate-Sized Multiplefamily Tentative Map Review,
Design Review, CEQA -
Categorical Exemption,
On/Offsite Improvements,
Building review/inspection
8-10 months for less
complex projects
12-18 months if Initial
Study required, consultant
team, etc.

Large Multiple-family Tentative Map Review,
Design Review, CEQA -
EIR, Zoning Change,
major grading, On/Offsite
Improvements, Building
review/inspection
18-24 months
There are several other typical actions not included in the “assumed actions” above that may affect a project’s timeline but are not directly related to staff processing of the application.

For example, Planning Commission approval is required for projects not subject to ministerial review (SB 35 projects, ADUs/JADUs) or single-family homes. Allotting time to each development on the Planning Commission agenda with a limited number of meetings and several developments in the queue can increase the amount of time a project requires to obtain Planning approval.

Similarly, the City’s community outreach policy,19 which was adopted in May 2019, requires developers to engage in different levels of outreach based on the size of their project. While community outreach is a necessary and desired component of the development process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to fulfill these requirements, and they must do so in a timely manner.

The above timeframes may still reflect unforeseen delays due to several additional factors, both internal and external. As with all jurisdictions processing unprecedented numbers of development applications, City staff has made strides towards processing of ADUs and other types of Zoning Clearance, such as SB 35 projects, but staff also continues to seek ways to improve processing of applications. Beyond processing times, it is necessary to acknowledge that outside agency review times and infrastructure demands, as discussed above, have placed delays on projects, in some cases by months to years. 19Please see: https://www.cityofepa.org/planning/page/community-outreach-policy

9.4 Packet Pg. 146
SECTION V. POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
As referenced at the April 26 study session and discussed in the Outreach Summary and AFFH sections above, the Policies & Programs chapter of the Housing Element incorporates themes and findings from several sections of the Housing Element, including: input from the community through various channels of community outreach; analysis of fair housing issues; review of housing needs data; review of governmental and non-governmental constraints; and evaluation of the current Housing Element.

The goals, policies, and programs in this chapter are intended to respond to these findings and constitute the actions that the City will take over the coming eight years to address the City’s housing challenges and improve the overall state of housing in East Palo Alto. HCD places emphasis on “operationalizing” the policies and programs described in a jurisdiction’s Housing Element, meaning that they will be scrutinized for specificity and thoughtfulness regarding the timeline, staffing, and other resources needed to accomplish each one.

Staff continues to refine and properly format each of the policy suggestions discussed at length at the April 26 study session and further elaborated upon in community meetings. The table below summarizes staff recommendations and additional direction form City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners on April 26:

Theme/Goal Policy or Program Idea
Environmental Justice/Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing
• Develop environmental “overlay” to avoid
building housing in at-risk areas
• Resolve issues with EPASD to improve
sanitary sewer infrastructure and reduce
processing delays
Incentives for affordable housing
development
• Affordable housing overlay zone – study
citywide and nonprofit-specific
• Minimum density on housing opportunity sites
• Fee waivers for affordable projects
• Reduced parking for affordable projects
Encouraging smaller-scale housing like
duplexes/triplexes and (market-rate)
ADUs
• Next phase of streamlining for ADUs
• Fee reductions or delay of payment of fees
• Outreach targeting smaller developers
ADUs as lower-income affordable
housing
• Formalized amnesty and legalization process
of unpermitted second units
• Public/private partnerships to fund
rehab/repairs
• Additional loan programs, like CalHome, to
build deed- restricted affordable ADUs
Promoting homeownership opportunities • Leverage all available federal funding support for downpayment and first-time homebuyer
assistance
• City first-time homeowner program or
strengthened partnership with HEART
• Advocate for these programs at regional level
Anti-displacement/Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing
• Jobs-housing linkage that links production of
commercial office space to affordable housing

9.4 Packet Pg. 147
production (especially in RBD)
• Strengthen housing replacement requirements
• Preservation/rehabilitation
Governmental Transparency • Improved website/communications on Housing issues
Conversion of Commercial or Retail to
Housing
• Study feasibility of Gateway 101 Shopping
Center retail to housing conversion
Special Needs Populations • Temporary Use Permit for temporary housing The following additional policy ideas originated from public feedback obtained through surveys and community meetings, in addition to staff additions from AFFH analysis and preliminary review of governmental and non-governmental constraints.

Theme/Goal Policy or Program Idea
Anti-Displacement • Exploring establishment of cooperatives and community ownership of housing
• Direct assistance for first and last month’s
rent/deposit assistance
• Opportunity to Purchase Act
• Commercial Linkage Fee update
• Anti-Displacement/Tenant Education Services
RFP
Encouraging ADUs • Preapproved ADU designs/plans
Safe and Healthy Housing • Strengthen monitoring/enforcement of habitability issues
• Formalized legalization process for
unpermitted units (and code enforcement
violations in general)
• Inventory of “at-risk” housing
• Preservation rehab of aging housing stock
• Providing childcare in affordable housing
Funds for Affordable Housing • Gross receipts tax ballot measure • Affordable Housing Fund plan
• Prohousing designation from HCD
Reducing development costs and
processing times
• Objective development and design standards
• Address issues with EPASD
Stewardship of affordable housing/BMR
portfolio
• RFP for future BMR Program management
• Rent registry
Development of public lands • Study feasibility of affordable housing at public sites in the sites inventory
Promote first-time homeownership and
support homeowners
• City-supported financial literacy program
• Foreclosure prevention/California Dream for All
Improved infrastructure to support
housing
• Water System Master Plan and other City
improvements
• Resolution with EPASD
Special Needs Populations • Longer-term solutions to RVs parked in public right of way
• Initiatives to address homelessness and

9.4 Packet Pg. 148
collaboration with County
Implementation of Housing Element
Workplan + other Housing work
• Participate in countywide shared housing staff
program
• Collaborate with Planning on key updates to
Development Code
The draft Policies and Programs can be found in Attachment 5.

Next Steps
Pending City Council direction, staff will release the Draft Housing Element for the 30-day public review period before end of August 2022 and submit the document, with revisions as needed to HCD for its 90-day review period in September 2022. Following receipt of HCD comments, a revised Draft Housing Element will be presented to the City Council for adoption by December 2022.

Fiscal Impact
None associated with 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.

Environmental
The action being considered at this time 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.

Adoption of the final Housing Element at the end of 2022 will require CEQA clearance.

Attachments

1. Draft Outreach Summary Chapter

2. Draft Housing Needs Data Report

3. Draft Fair Housing Assessment

4. Draft Sites Inventory Chapter

5. Draft Policies and Programs

9.4 Packet Pg. 149
Community Outreach Summary
RHNA 6 Housing Element Update
Overview
The Housing Element is an important document that will shape the future of our community. Therefore, it is important that it reflects the vision of the people who make the City of East Palo Alto special. To accomplish this, the City of East Palo Alto developed a broad and diverse outreach plan designed to reach as many community members who live and work here as possible. A summary of public participation and community outreach activities and key takeaways are included here.

The City’s goals outreach goals were as follows:
• Reduce barriers to access to ensure a robust community participation process that is representative of the full range of demographics, perspectives, and experiences in East Palo Alto • Build a level of transparency in the update process to ensure successful support and implementation after adoption
• Raise awareness among residents of the importance of the Housing Element update on shaping the future of our community
Given the inability to hold in-person events due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City developed different community outreach and engagement strategies, including virtual meetings, digital tools, and safe inperson interactions to ensure that community members who do not have access to technology were still able to participate and provide their input. The City also proactively engaged residents for whom English is not spoken at home, families that would need childcare in order to participate and engage in conversations, and renters living in multi-family and in single-family housing with little access to public transportation.

For many years, the community has participated and engaged in conversations about affordable housing, tenant rights, displacement and fair housing. In addition to conversations focused on the Housing Element, the City’s efforts to establish sustainable funding sources for affordable housing production and homelessness prevention, to discuss the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Area Plan, develop an affordable housing workplan, among many other initiatives, have provided opportunities for many additional collaborative outreach activities.

For other outreach work, we partnered with other San Mateo County jurisdictions for a first-of-its-kind countywide outreach effort, through an award-winning collaboration called 21 Elements. Specific activities included:

Website, Social Media and Printed Mailing: The City of East Palo Alto launched a Housing Element Update webpage, and conducted extensive social media outreach beginning March 2021. Physical mailers were sent city-wide in April 2022.

We also participated in and helped shape a the Let’s Talk Housing initiative. City staff and consultants developed a countywide website available in five languages, a city webpage detailing our timeline, engagement activities, and resources that also linked to our city website, videos about the process in several languages, and a social media presence. As of February 2022, the website has been visited more than 17,000 times, with more than 20% from mobile devices.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Email Alerts: We sent alerts and updates via the City’s city-wide weekly newsletter, and created a Housing Element Update mailing list where residents interested in the Housing Element process received updates on upcoming community meetings or ways to participate in the Housing Element Update.

Community Meetings: The city organized three public Housing Element community meetings and presented at 6 public commission/council meetings. These include:
o Planning Commission Informational Update 05/10/21
o Community Meeting about Outreach Strategies 06/02/21
o Community Meeting #1 07/19/21
o Community Meeting #2 02/24/22
o Planning Commission Meeting 03/14/22
o City Council Meeting 03/15/22
o Planning Commission and City Council Joint Study Session 04/26/22 o Community Meeting #3 05/05/22
o Planning Commission Meeting 07/11/22
o City Council Meeting 07/19/22
The City also conducted a focus group presentation with the San Mateo County Equity Advisory Group on 05/02/22.

The City also participated in several meetings and webinars in partnership with 21 Elements, including:
 Let’s Talk Housing - Introduction to the Housing Element – A housing element overview with breakout discussion rooms that was part of a series of introductory meetings attended by one community member and two East Palo Alto stakeholders and over 1,000 community members countywide.
o 03/25/21 (Joint with Millbrae, Burlingame, Hillsborough and San Mateo); continued on 05/06/21 due to technological issues
o 07/26/21 (Virtual countywide meeting about the Housing Element update in Spanish)  All About RHNA webinar – An in-depth dive into sites methodology. (4/23/21 - countywide)  Stakeholder Listening Sessions – Four meetings where jurisdictions could listen to and interact with stakeholder groups arranged by topic. More than 30 groups participated. o Fair Housing 09/27/21
o Housing Advocates 10/18/21
o Builders 10/01/21
o Service Providers 11/15/21
 Creating an Affordable Future webinars – A four-part series to help educate community members about local housing issues.

Outreach Activities: City staff conducted three online surveys, an in-person intercept survey at pop-up Farmer’s Markets, and a Balancing Act survey with sites inventory-specific questions. These efforts included:
 Online Surveys 02/24/22 to 07/15/22
 Balancing Act Survey 05/25/22 to 07/15/22
 Intercept Survey at East Palo Alto Farmer’s Market 06/08/22  Intercept Survey at East Palo Alto Farmer’s Market 06/15/22

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
The City also supported an Equity Advisory Group with 21 Elements to ensure outreach was set up to meet people where they were at as much as possible.

It is more important than ever to include as many voices as possible in the Housing Element. Housing Elements at their best can provide an opportunity for everyone to add their voice to the conversation.

However, many people are too often left out of the process. Renters, workers, young families, youth, people of color, immigrants, refugees, non-English speakers, and people with disabilities are often unable to participate in outreach activities when scheduled, don’t know how to get involved, or don’t trust the process. Our goal was to change that. Specifically, we:
• Ensured foreign language translation and interpretation was included in our meetings and materials
• Designed a website that was mobile friendly, with accessibility features and available in multiple languages. (Lower income residents, young adults and people of color are more likely to use their phones)
• Formed an Equity Advisory Group consisting of 18 organizations across San Mateo County that provided feedback on outreach and materials, and shared information about the Housing Element Update and how to participate in the process with the communities they serve • Held meetings in partnership with community organizations (including an Introductory meeting in Spanish with English interpretation focusing on community outreach strategies) • Developed an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing survey Key Takeaways
Below is a summary of key takeaways that emerged throughout the outreach process.  Housing is personal: People often have differing views on housing because it is a very personal issue tied to feelings of safety, belonging and identify. Often the comments reflected people’s current housing situation. Those with safe, stable housing that they can afford were more concerned with change. Those without were more interested in bolder policies and more housing generally. Many people shared meaningful stories of being priced out of their communities or of their children not being able to live in the community where they grew up. Click here for a sample story.
 The price of housing is a major concern: Many voiced concerns about the high cost to rent or buy a home today, either for themselves, friends, or family. It is an issue that touches a lot of lives.  More housing is needed: Generally, people believe we need more housing, particularly affordable housing. However, there are diverging views on how to accomplish this, where housing should go, and what it should look like.
 Single-family neighborhoods are polarizing: While some people voiced their interest in upzoning single-family neighborhoods or eliminating them altogether, other homeowners want to protect them and in turn, the investment they have made.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
 Affordable housing is a top concern: Many felt that more needed to be done to promote affordable housing. They also felt that developers should be eligible for incentives and opportunities that make them more competitive.
 The process is too complicated: There was significant concern that the development process was too slow and there was too much uncertainty.
 Better information resources: People wanted to know how to find affordable housing in their communities and navigate the process of applying for it.  Issues are connected: Transportation, climate change, access to living wage jobs and education opportunities are all tied to housing and quality of life. These issues are not siloed in people’s lives and there is a desire to address them in interconnected ways.  Equity is on people’s minds: People want to talk about housing inequities and, even more so, discuss how to solve them. There was interest in ways to create new opportunities for housing and asset building for all that also address past exclusions.  Regional input matters but there’s more to figure out: It was valuable to build a broader sense of community and share resources at the countywide level. However, it was challenging to engage non-resident community members on jurisdiction-specific input.  Diversity in participation was a challenge: Despite partnering with organizations to engage with the hardest to reach communities and providing multilingual outreach, achieving diversity in participation was challenging. In the wake of Covid-19, organizations already operating on limited resources were focused on supporting immediate needs, while the added stresses of life coupled with the digital divide added additional barriers for many.

What We Accomplished
The City of East Palo Alto developed a diverse outreach plan to hear from as many community members as possible. Below is a summary of engagement efforts.

1. Website, Social Media
As a starting point for accomplishing extensive outreach, the City of East Palo Alto developed a clear online presence with all the information needed to understand the update process and know how to participate.
 City of East Palo Alto Website and Social Media
The City launched a Housing Element Update webpage on its City website in March 2021, where community members can find the latest updates on the Housing Element Update and a list of upcoming community meetings. The City webpage also provides links to previous commission/council reports and recordings to community meetings and public meetings. The City also provided updates and invitations to community meetings on social media. All outreach communications were conducted in English and Spanish. Appendix A provides an overview of the webpage and social media outreach performance.
 Let’s Talk Housing Website and East Palo Alto Webpage To reach a broader audience and supplement the city webpage, we launched the Let’s Talk Housing website with 21 Elements in March 2021. Our goal was to clearly explain what a housing

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
element is, why it matters, and how to get involved. It was made available in Arabic, Chinese, English, Spanish and Tagalog, designed to be responsive on all types of devices and included accessibility features. As part of this effort, we also developed an East Palo Alto webpage with our timeline, engagement activities like surveys and housing balancing exercises, and resources that also linked to our city website. As of January 2022, the Let’s Talk Housing website has been viewed more than 17,000 times, with more than 20 percent occurring from mobile devices. Let’s Talk Housing Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube accounts were also created and maintained to keep people informed about upcoming or past event.  Informational Videos on the Housing Element Update
After completing a series of introductory Meetings to the Housing Element Update (see below), we supported 21 Elements in developing shorter 4-minute snippets to ensure information was more accessible and less onerous than watching an hour-long meeting. Two videos were produced–What is a Housing Element and How it Works and Countywide Trends and Why Housing Elements Matter–in Arabic, Chinese, English, Spanish, and Tagalog. They were made available on the Let’s Talk Housing YouTube channel and website and shared on social media.

2. Email Alerts
The City sent updates about the Housing Element process via the City’s city-wide weekly newsletter, which updates residents on any upcoming City meetings and programs. The City also created a Housing Element Update mailing list to provide updates. Appendix B provides an overview of these email alerts.

3. Public Meetings and Hearings
The City of East Palo Alto held and participated in a variety of virtual and in-person meetings to inform the public about the Housing Element and hear what matters to the community. [Placeholder for pending Demographic Tracking Tool Data].
 Countywide Introductory Meeting to the Housing Element Update The City of East Palo Alto helped develop and facilitate a 90-minute virtual countywide meeting about the Housing Element update. Held on March 30, 2021 and continued May 6, 2021 due to technological issues, the meeting provided community members with an introduction to the Housing Element update, why it matters, information on the Let’s Talk Housing outreach effort, and countywide trends. The City of East Palo Alto staff then facilitated a breakout room discussion with community members on housing needs, concerns, and opportunities, and answered any questions. A poll was given during the meeting, to identify who was joining us and more importantly who was missing from the conversation, including if they rent or own, who they live with, their age, and ethnicity. Time for questions was allotted throughout, and meeting surveys were provided to all participants after the meeting along with all discussed resources and links.

In total six introductory meetings were held across the county between March and May 2021, and 1,024 registered for the series. Of those who registered, the majority identified as White (66%) or Asian (15%) and were 50 years or older; nearly half were 50 to 69 years old and almost a fifth were over 70. Almost half had lived over 21 years in their homes and three-fourths owned their homes. One East Palo Alto resident and fourteen other stakeholders participated in the East Palo Alto breakout group. A meeting summary can be found in Appendix D.

On July 26th, the City of East Palo Alto joined a virtual countywide meeting about the Housing Element update in Spanish, hosted by El Comité, a trusted community organization. English interpretation was provided so non-Spanish speaking staff to participate in the conversation. In

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
total, 57 people participated. A recording of this meeting was made available after and can be viewed here.
 All About RHNA Webinar
The City of East Palo Alto joined a webinar with 21 Elements in April 2021 to provide information and answer community questions about the RHNA process. 264 people registered and 80 questions were answered over three hours. The recording of this meeting and the FAQ can be found here.
 City Meetings
o Community Meetings
 Outreach Strategies Community Meeting: The City conducted a community meeting virtually on June 2, 2021 that focused on outreach strategies.  Housing Element Update Community Meeting #1: The City conducted its first city-specific community meeting virtually on July 19, 2021, which provided introductory information on the Housing Element Update and sought community input. Spanish interpretation was available. A recording of this meeting was made available after and can be viewed here.
 Housing Element Update Community Meeting #2: The City conducted a second community meeting virtually on February 24, 2022, which provided introductory information and sought input on RHNA, policies and programs, and environmental constraints. Spanish interpretation was available. A recording of this meeting was made available after and can be viewed here in English and here in Spanish.
 Housing Element Update Community Meeting #3: The City conducted a third community meeting and first hybrid meeting (held both in-person and virtually) on May 5, 2022. Spanish and Tongan interpretation was interpretation available both in-person and on Zoom. The meeting also had childcare, free food, and a free shuttle bus. The meeting provided introductory information and sought input on policies and programs and sites inventory. A recording of this meeting was made available after and can be viewed in both English and Spanish here. Due to technological issues, we were unable to record the Tongan interpretation. o Public Meetings
 May 10, 2021 Brief Informational Update on Housing Element to Planning Commission.
 March 14, 2022 Update on 2021 Housing Element and General Plan Annual Progress Report
 March 15, 2022 City Council Authorization to Submit 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report, 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report, and Housing Successor Agency Report to State Agencies
 April 26, 2022 Joint study session with Planning Commission and City Council  July 11, 2022 Planning Commission update
 July 19, 2022 City Council update
 Stakeholder Listening Session Series
The City of East Palo Alto joined 21 Elements for a facilitated series of listening sessions held between September and November 2021 to hear from various stakeholders who operate countywide or across multiple jurisdictions. The four sessions convened more than 30 groups including fair housing organizations, housing advocates, builders/developers (affordable and

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
market-rate), and service providers, to provide observations on housing needs and input for policy consideration.

Summaries for each session can be found here. Key themes and stakeholder groups included:
 Fair Housing: Concern for the end of the eviction moratorium, the importance of transitoriented affordable housing and anti-displacement policies, and the need for education around accessibility regulations and tenant protections. 8 stakeholder groups provided this feedback, including the following:
 Center for Independence www.cidsanmateo.org
 Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) www.clsepa.org  Housing Equality Law Project www.housingequality.org
 Legal Aid for San Mateo County www.legalaidsmc.org
 Project Sentinel www.housing.org
 Housing Choices www.housingchoices.org
 Public Interest Law Project www.pilpca.org
 Root Policy Research www.rootpolicy.com
 Housing Advocates: Concern for rent increases and the need for ongoing outreach to underserved and diverse communities, workforce housing, deeply affordable and dense infill, and tenant protections for the most vulnerable. 6 stakeholder groups provided this feedback, including the following:
 Housing Leadership Council www.hlcsmc.org
 Faith in Action www.faithinactionba.org
 Greenbelt Alliance www.greenbelt.org
 San Mateo County Central Labor Council www.sanmateolaborcouncil.org  Peninsula for Everyone www.peninsulaforeveryone.org
 San Mateo County Association of Realtors www.samcar.org  Builders and Developers: Local funding, tax credit availability, and concern that appropriate sites limit affordable housing while sites, construction costs, and city processes limit market-rate housing. 12 stakeholder groups provided this feedback, including the following:
 Affirmed Housing (Affordable) www.affirmedhousing.com  BRIDGE Housing (Affordable) www.bridgehousing.com
 The Core Companies (Affordable, Market Rate) www.thecorecompanies.com  Eden Housing (Affordable) www.edenhousing.org
 Greystar (Market Rate) www.greystar.com
 Habitat for Humanity (Affordable) www.habitatsf.org
 HIP Housing (Affordable) www.hiphousing.org
 Mercy Housing (Affordable) www.mercyhousing.org
 MidPen Housing (Affordable) www.midpen-housing.org
 Sand Hill Property Company (Affordable, Market Rate) www.shpco.com  Sares | Regis (Market Rate) www.srgnc.com
 Summerhill Apartment Communities (Market Rate) www.shapartments.com  Service Providers: More affordable housing and vouchers or subsidies for market-rate housing are needed, along with on-site services and housing near transit, and jurisdictions

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
should work with providers and people experiencing issues before creating programs. 10 stakeholder groups provided this feedback, including the following:
 Abode Services www.adobeservices.org
 Daly City Partnership www.dcpartnership.org
 El Concilio www.elconcilio.org
 HIP Housing www.hiphousing.org
 LifeMoves www.lifemoves.org
 Mental Health Association of San Mateo County www.mhasmc.org  National Alliance on Mental Illness www.namisanmateo.org  Ombudsman of San Mateo County www.ossmc.org
 Samaritan House San Mateo www.samaritanhousesanmateo.org  Youth Leadership Institute www.yil.org
 Creating an Affordable Future Webinar Series
The City of East Palo Alto and 21 Elements offered a 4-part countywide webinar series in the fall of 2021 to help educate community members about local housing issues. The sessions were advertised and offered in Cantonese, Mandarin and Spanish, though participation in non-English channels was limited. All meetings and materials can be found here. The following topics, and how each intersects with regional housing challenges and opportunities, were explored:
 Why Affordability Matters: Why housing affordability matters to public health, community fabric and to county residents, families, workers and employers.  Housing and Racial Equity: Why and how our communities have become segregated by race, why it is a problem and how it has become embedded in our policies and systems.  Housing in a Climate of Change: What is the connection between housing policy and climate change and a walk through the Housing & Climate Readiness Toolkit.  Putting it All Together for a Better Future: How design and planning for much-needed new infill housing can be an opportunity to address existing challenges in our communities.

The series included speaker presentations, audience Q&A, breakout sessions for connection, and debrief discussions. Participants were eager to discuss and learn more about housing challenges in their community. They asked questions and commented in the chat and shared their thoughts in a post-event survey. Overall, comments were mostly positive and in favor of more housing, though some were focused on the need for new affordable housing. There was a lot of interest in seeing more housing built (especially housing that is affordable), concern about change or impact to schools, parking, and quality of life, and personal struggles with finding housing that is affordable and accessible shared. Some participants wanted more in-depth education and discussion of next steps, while others had more basic questions they wanted answered.

In total, 754 registered for the series. Of those who shared, the majority identified as White (55%) or Asian (24%) and ranged between 30 and 70 years old. Over half have lived in the county for over 21 years and nearly two-thirds owned their homes. For more information, see the Summary here.

4. Other Outreach Activities
The City of East Palo Alto set out to collect as much feedback as possible from the community, from their general concerns and ideas to where new housing could go. It was also important to us to consider community outreach best practices and consult and partner with organizations working in

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
the community, to ensure we were reaching as many people as possible and doing so thoughtfully.

Appendix E provides an overview of the survey results.
 Jamboard Survey
An online whiteboard where community members can provide their input on what types of housing they want to see, what locations/sites they want to see explored, what environmental issues bring them the most concern, and what environmental considerations should we have when zoning for new housing. See the survey here.  Policies and Programs Survey
A survey to hear residents’ thoughts on how we are doing with our housing policies and programs, which policies we should keep, and which new policies we should consider to prioritize for the next 8 years. See the survey in English here and in Spanish here.  East Palo Alto Balancing Act Survey
The Balancing Act is a housing simulation tool where residents may provide their input on the location of potential housing sites to be included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

This simulation tool is a great way for residents to explore the location of housing sites and the number of potential housing units on those identified sites. See the Balancing Act page here.
 Intercept Survey
Intercept surveys on housing inventory and density were also conducted at two of the East Palo Alto Farmer’s Markets. This in-person survey helped reach Spanish-speaking residents and lower-income residents who may not necessarily be active in public meetings.
 Equity Advisory Group
In alignment with community outreach best practices, it was important to include the guidance of and foster partnerships with community organizations to help ensure everyone’s voices were heard during the Housing Element update. In response, an Equity Advisory Group (EAG) was formed consisting of 15 organizations or leaders across the county that are advancing equity and affordable housing. A stipend of $1,500 was originally provided for meeting four to five times over 12 months to advise on Housing Element outreach and helping get the word out to the communities they work with.

After meeting twice in 2021, it was decided the best use of the EAG moving forward would be to provide more focused support in 2022 based on jurisdiction need and organization expertise. To date, EAG members have facilitated and hosted community meetings in partnership with 21 Elements, collected community housing stories to put a face to housing needs, advised on messaging, and amplified events and activities to their communities. The EAG continue to work collaboratively with jurisdictions and deepen partnerships, as well as connect community members to the Housing Element Update process. All participating organizations are featured on the Let’s Talk Housing website and include the following:
 Ayudando Lations A Soñar (ALAS) www.alasdreams.com
 Community Legal Services www.clsepa.org

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary  El Comité de Vecinos del Lado Oeste (El Comité) www.tenantstogether.org/resources/elcomité-de-vecinos-del-lado-oeste-east-palo-alto  EPACANDO www.epacando.org
 Faith in Action www.faithinaction.org/federation/faith-in-action-bay-area/  Housing Choices www.housingchoices.org
 Housing Leadership Council www.hlcsmc.org
 Menlo Together www.menlotogether.org
 Nuestra Casa www.nuestracasa.org
 One San Mateo www.onesanmateo.org
 Peninsula for Everyone www.peninsulaforeveryone.org
 Puente de la Costa Sur www.mypuente.org
 San Mateo County Health www.gethealthysmc.org
 Youth Leadership Institute www.yli.org/region/san-mateo  Youth United for Community Action www.youthunited.net  Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Survey
A Fair Housing Assessment was conducted for all San Mateo County jurisdictions and had a statistically significant number of East Palo Alto residents participate (53 East Palo Alto residents total). Some primary findings in the Fair Housing Assessment include:
• Hispanic/Latinx & Black/African American households have a high cost burden • The entire City is considered vulnerable to displacement. • There is a lack of sidewalks, good street lighting and walkability in some neighborhoods • East Palo Alto has high rates of fair housing discrimination • Applicants for mortgage face high rates of denial, highest for Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx applicants
• East Palo Alto has a higher portion of children than county, going to lower-performing schools
The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Chapter provides an overview of the survey results. In addition, Appendix F shows the Equity Advisory Group’s recommendations as a minimum to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

How We Incorporated What We Heard into the Plan
The extensive outreach and community engagement conducted over the past year played a significant role in the development of the goals, policies, and programs within the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Feedback and insights from people who face the greatest barriers to participation, including tenants, nonEnglish speakers, and lower-income residents helped to highlight new policy opportunities and ways to strengthen and improve existing policies. There was an overarching need and appetite for more housing affordability and availability. In addition, themes such as investing in infrastructure and anti-displacement measures and addressing climate change helped inform policies in the Housing Element Update. The following is a summary list of topics that were added or improved as a result of that community and stakeholder feedback.

Theme: Environmental Constraints
• Use environmental “overlay” to avoid housing in at-risk areas • Resolve issues with EPASD to improve sanitary sewer infrastructure

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Theme: Incentives for affordable housing development
• Affordable housing overlay zone
Theme: Encouraging smaller-scale, “missing middle” housing like duplexes/triplexes and (market-rate) ADUs
• Streamlining
• Fee reductions
• Outreach targeting smaller developers
Theme: ADUs as lower-income affordable housing
• Amnesty and legalization of unpermitted second units
• Public/private partnerships to fund rehab/repairs
• Additional loan programs to build deed-restricted affordable ADUs Theme: Promote homeownership opportunities
• Leverage all available federal funding support for down payment and first-time homebuyer assistance
• Advocate for these programs at regional level
Theme: Need for anti-displacement
• Jobs-housing linkage that links production of commercial office space to affordable housing production
• Strengthen housing replacement requirements
• Preservation/rehabilitation
• Exploring establishment of cooperatives/community ownership of housing Theme: Need for infrastructure improvements
• Seeking funding from the private sector to add neighborhood improvements communities that have the greatest needs and establishing a land banking program with that funding The following is an overview of the rationale behind some of the policies and programs recommended.

Policy or Program Rationale
Overlay for nonprofit-owned properties of
a certain size that commit to building
100% affordable housing
Some nonprofit property owners, such as faith communities, own sufficiently large (and “underutilized”) parcels to build affordable housing and have interest in serving community need. With an overlay, the City may reduce costs by allowing projects of a certain scale.

City-level streamlining for SB 9 projects
SB 9 facilitates multiple units on parcels zoned single family.

Duplexes, triplexes, and ADUs can help to add “missing
middle” units to the housing stock.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Encouraging ADU production
ADUs address the “missing middle” problem and allow for additional units on a variety of parcels. The City has made ADUs a priority since 2018 and may wish to update
this strategy as a Housing Element “program” to support the City’s projections of ADU production over the next 8 years.

Temporary Use Permit for temporary
housing for unhoused individuals
City Council directed staff to develop a “Master TUP” process as described in the April 5, 2022 staff report. Facilitating temporary housing for unhoused individuals helps to address the needs of special populations, as required in the Housing Element.

Requiring minimum residential density on
Sites Inventory/Housing Opportunity sites
in the Ravenswood Business District
Different uses are allowed in the RBD. Allowing residential as one of multiple uses, e.g., office or R&D, does not guarantee that housing units will be built on a parcel.

Waiving fees for affordable projects
Analysis by 21 Elements partner firm EcoNorthwest found that waiving some fees for affordable projects would increase market feasibility for affordable units citywide, in many cases more than upzoning certain parcels.

Reduced parking for affordable projects
Analysis by 21 Elements partner firm EcoNorthwest found that reducing parking requirements for affordable projects would increase market feasibility for affordable units citywide, in many cases more than upzoning certain parcels.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Appendix A. Website and Social Media Performance
Webpage Performance
The following is a report of the City’s Housing Element Webpage analytics from its launch date of March 22, 2021 to July 7, 2022. As shown, the webpage had 640 desktop views, 79 mobile views, and 1 tablet view. The average time a resident spent on the page was 3 minutes. This is 0.15% of the total views the City of East Palo Alto website received in the same timeframe.

Social Media Performance
The City promoted events and surveys on the City’s Facebook page, which has a total of 3.1K followers, in both English and Spanish (with an option to translate into other languages available to users).

Data analytics on Facebook post performance is only available for 90 days, between the dates of April 8, 2022 to July 7, 2022. Post reach provides the number of people who saw any of the posts at least once (and does not include multiple views by the same people), while post engagement provides the number of times people engaged with the posts through reactions, comments shares, views and clicks.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
In summary:
 Our “Help us balance East Palo Alto’s potential future housing development” post on June 3, 2022 reached 494 people, and engaged 33 people.
 Our “We’re updating East Palo Alto’s housing plan, and we want you to be part of the conversation” post on May 4, 2022 promoting the May 5, 2022 Community Meeting reached 3386 people and engaged 149 people.
 Our “Join us on May 5th at 6pm!” post on May 3, 2022 promoting the May 5, 2022 Community Meeting reached 1284 people and engaged 79 people.
 Our “Join us in-person on Thursday, May 5th at 6pm for a community meeting” post on April 28, 2022 promoting the May 5, 2022 Community Meeting reached 662 people and engaged 39.  Our “Join the joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the Housing Element Update tonight at 6pm!” post promoting a public meeting held on April 26, 2022 reached 354 and engaged 5 people.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
The following is an example of our highest-performing social media post, demonstrating that short text, strong visuals, and direct links perform better in reaching people:

Data analytics on Event Page performance show a lower success rate in reaching people via event pages compared to posts.
 Our May 5, 2022 Community Meeting event page reached 87 people and received 10 responses.  Our February 24, 2022 Community Meeting event page reached 205 people and received 5 responses.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Appendix B. Email Alerts Performance
The City of East Palo Alto sent email alerts to 15 community members subscribed to the Housing Element Update email alerts, and to 486 community members subscribed to the Ravenwood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan email list interested in the Housing Element Update process. The email alerts averaged a 54% open rate and a 10% click rate.

July 19, 2021 Community Meeting Alert:

February 24, 2022 Community Meeting Alert:

April 28, 2022 Joint Planning Commission and
City Council Study Session Alert:

May 5, 2022 Community Meeting Alert
Balancing Act Survey Alert:

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Sample Email Alert – Campaign Preview
1 2 3
Sample Email Alert – Plain Text Preview
*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*
Community meeting on Thursday, May 5 at 6pm.

Reunión comunitaria el jueves, 5 de mayo a las 6pm.

Register | Regístrese | Lesisita (https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_a9WceWfNQYeAoS9VbiaZg) ** Community Meeting
------------------------------------------------------------ ** Housing Element Update
------------------------------------------------------------ We're holding an in-person community meeting to gather your input on the City of East Palo Alto's housing plan.

WHEN: Thursday, May 5, 2022 from 6:00-8:00 PM
WHERE: Cooley Landing (at the end of Bay Road) or Zoom
REGISTER: www.tinyurl.com/EPAHousingElement3

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
If you can't join us in-person you can watch the meeting as a webinar online. Spanish, Tongan, and Samoan interpretation will be available. We will also have free food and childcare. Note that COVID-19 safety precautions will be taken. Please register for the meeting details.

There are other ways to also engage:
* Fill out (https://tinyurl.com/HousingElementSurvey) this survey (https://tinyurl.com/HousingElementSurvey) on Housing Element policies and programs. We want to hear your thoughts on how we are doing with our housing policies and programs, which policies we should keep, and which new policies we should consider to prioritize for the next 8 years! * Visit (https://tinyurl.com/HousingElementJamboard) Jamboard (https://tinyurl.com/HousingElementJamboard) to share your ideas about the following: what types of housing do you want to see, what locations/sites do you want to see explored, what environmental issues bring you the most concern, and what environmental considerations should we have when zoning for new housing.
* Watch the recent joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the Housing Element Update here
(http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1808&MinutesID=1529&Fo rmat=Minutes&MediaFileFormat=mpeg4) .
* Visit the Housing Element Update (https://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/housing/page/housingelement-update-community-meeting-0) webpage.

What is the Housing Element?
The Housing Element is a chapter in the City’s General Plan that is updated every 8 years to plan for new housing and lays out the goals, policies and programs to meet the community’s housing needs. Every California city and county adopts a Housing Element! Why is my participation in the Housing Element Update important? Your participation in the Housing Element, Safety Element, and Environmental Justice Element updates will help shape our City’s planning documents and determine the goals, policies and programs that will shape our community's future. Your participation helps us ensure our process is as inclusive and community driven as possible.

What if I can’t make it?
Stay up-to-date and explore our Housing Element page at www.cityofepa.org/housing. You can also submit your comments to [email protected], using “Housing Element Update” in the subject line.

Find Out More (https://www.cityofepa.org/housing/page/housing-element-update-1) *|FORWARD|* Forward this Email (*|FORWARD|*)
** Reunión Comunitaria
------------------------------------------------------------ ** Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda
------------------------------------------------------------ La Ciudad tendrá una reunión comunitaria en persona para obtener su opinión sobre el plan de vivienda de la Ciudad de East Palo Alto.

CUÁNDO: Jueves, 5 de mayo del 2022 de las 6:00-8:00 PM
DÓNDE: Cooley Landing (al final de Bay Road) o Zoom
REGÍSTRESE: www.tinyurl.com/EPAHousingElement3
Si no puede asistir en persona puede mirar la reunión como un seminario en línea. Habrá interpretación al español, tongano y samoano. También habrá comida gratis y cuidado de niños.

Tenga en cuenta que tomaremos precauciones de salud para evitar el contagio de COVID-19. Por favor regístrese para los detalles de la junta.

Hay otras maneras de también involucrarse:
* Complete esta encuesta (https://tinyurl.com/HousingElementEncuesta) sobre las políticas y los programas del Elemento de Vivienda. ¡Queremos escuchar sus opiniones de cómo nos va con nuestras

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
políticas y programas de vivienda, qué políticas debemos mantener y qué nuevas políticas debemos considerar para priorizar durante los próximos 8 años!
* Visite Jamboard (https://tinyurl.com/HousingElementJamboard) para compartir sus ideas sobre lo siguiente: qué tipos de viviendas le gustaría ver, qué ubicaciones/sitios le gustaría ver explorados, qué problemas medioambientales le preocupan más y qué consideraciones medioambientales deberíamos tener al zonificar para nuevas viviendas. * Mire la Sesión Especial reciente con el Concejo Municipal y la Comisión de Planificación sobre el Elemento de Vivienda aquí
(http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1808&MinutesID=1529&Fo rmat=Minutes&MediaFileFormat=mpeg4) .
* Visite la página sobre la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda (https://www.ci.east-paloalto.ca.us/housing/page/housing-element-update-community-meeting-0) . ¿Qué es el Elemento Vivienda?
El Elemento de Vivienda es un capítulo del Plan General de la Ciudad que se actualiza cada 8 años para planificar el desarrollo de nuevas viviendas y establece las metas, pólizas y programas para satisfacer las necesidades de vivienda de la comunidad. ¡Todas las ciudades y condados de California adoptan un Elemento de Vivienda!
¿Por qué es importante mi participación en la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda? Su participación en las actualizaciones del Elemento de Vivienda, Elemento de Seguridad y Elemento de Justicia Ambiental ayudará a dar forma a los documentos de planificación de nuestra Ciudad y a determinar las metas, políticas y programas que darán forma al futuro de nuestra comunidad. Su participación nos ayuda a garantizar que nuestro proceso sea lo más inclusivo y comunitario posible.
¿Qué pasa si no puedo participar?
Manténgase actualizado/a visitando nuestra página de Elemento de Vivienda en www.cityofepa.org/housing. También puede enviar sus comentarios a [email protected], utilizando "Elemento de Vivienda" en la línea de asunto.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Appendix C. Community Meetings Report
The following is a summary of community meeting participation in the East Palo Alto community meetings and surveys, and how that compares to 2020 census demographics data.

Demographics Summary
Owner vs Renter Occupancy: Approximately 48% of community members that engaged in the Housing Element Update process were homeowners, and 52% were renters. This compares to a 40:60 ratio of owners vs. renters in the city.

Age: A majority of community members that engaged in the Housing Element Update process were between 30-49 years old; the second-largest engaged group were 50-69 year-olds. The City has a large young population of 18 years or under, and a small older population of 70+ years. 40%
60%
48%
52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Ownver vs Renter Occupancy
% of East Palo Alto Benchmark % of Total Outreach
28%
21%
30%
16%
4%
9% 9%
47%
27%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Under 18 18-29 30-49 50-69 70+
Age
% of East Palo Alto Benchmark % of Total Outreach

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Race & Ethnicity: Approximately 46% of community members that engaged in the Housing Element Update process were Hispanic/Latinx, 19% were non-Hispanic White, 16% were Black/African American, and 16% were Asian/Pacific Islander. The largest East Palo Alto population is Hispanic/Latinx of 66%. 0%
10% 11%
66%
3%
10%
0%
16% 16%
46%
3%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
American Indian
or Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API,
Non-Hispanic
Black or African
American, NonHispanic
Hispanic or
Latinx
Other Race or
Multiple Races,
Non-Hispanic
White, NonHispanic
Race & Ethnicity
% of East Palo Alto Benchmark % of Total Outreach

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Demographic Breakdown by Community Meeting
Community Meeting #1 – July 19, 2021
No registrant or participant data is available.

Community Meeting #2 - Feburary 24, 2022
Registration & Participation Report
Registration
Time Participated Race/Ethnicity Housing Situation Neighborhood Primary
Language Age
1/28/2022 19:41 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 1/28/2022 21:53 Yes Black/African American Tenant (single-family/duplex) The Gardens English 40 – 59 1/28/2022 23:30 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 1/29/2022 8:49 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 1/29/2022 10:16 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 1/31/2022 17:20 Yes Other Live but not work in EPA Not applicable English 25 – 29 2/3/2022 12:36 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/3/2022 14:01 Yes White/European Landlord Weeks Area English 60+ 2/5/2022 6:48 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/5/2022 13:07 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/5/2022 15:59 Yes Asian Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/8/2022 11:29 No White/European Tenant (multi-family) Midtown English 30 – 39 2/9/2022 17:27 Yes Asian Work but not live in EPA Not applicable English 30 – 39 2/16/2022 8:51 Yes Black/African American Homeowner The Westside English 60+ 2/16/2022 14:51 No Hispanic/Latinx Other Not applicable English 40 – 59 2/17/2022 15:08 No Black/African American Landlord The Village English 60+ 2/18/2022 16:03 No Asian Homeowner The Gardens Other 40 – 59 2/18/2022 16:28 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/18/2022 16:48 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) The Westside English 40 – 59 2/18/2022 17:15 Yes Black/African American Homeowner The Gardens English Unknown 2/18/2022 18:26 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/18/2022 19:59 Yes White/European Homeowner with tenants Midtown English 60+ 2/18/2022 22:33 No Black/African American Live but not work in EPA The Westside English 60+ 2/18/2022 23:23 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Unknown Español 30 – 39 2/19/2022 6:33 No White/European Unknown Unknown English Unknown 2/19/2022 6:59 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/20/2022 7:41 No White/European Homeowner The Westside English 60+ 2/20/2022 20:23 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside Español 40 – 59 2/21/2022 9:09 No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/21/2022 9:27 Yes White/European Live but not work in EPA Not applicable English 60+ 2/21/2022 11:18 No Other Tenant (multi-family) The Westside English 60+ 2/21/2022 14:07 Yes White/European Other Not applicable English 60+ 2/24/2022 8:35 Yes White/European Other Not applicable English Unknown 2/24/2022 9:57 Yes Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside English 25 – 29 2/24/2022 11:00 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/24/2022 17:09 Yes Hispanic/Latinx Homeowner The Gardens English 40 – 59 2/24/2022 17:56 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/24/2022 17:59 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2/24/2022 18:01 Yes Asian Tenant (multi-family) Not applicable English 18 – 24

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Registrant & Participant Demographics
Participation Rate:

Race/Ethnicity:

Housing Situation:

Neighborhood:

Language:

Age:

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Community Meeting #3 – May 5, 2022
Registration & Participation Report
Registration
Time Participated Race/Ethnicity Housing Situation Neighborhood Age Language
Interpretation
Used
Shuttle
4/28/2022 9:25 Yes, virtually American Indian/Alaska Native Unknown Unknown English 4/28/2022 9:30 Yes, virtually Black/African American Work but not live in EPA The Village 30 – 39 English 5/3/2022 13:20
Yes virtually &
in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) Unknown 40 – 59 Español Yes 5/3/2022 14:47 Yes, virtually Black/African American Homeowner The Gardens 60+ English 5/3/2022 15:07 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) Unknown 30 – 39 English 5/3/2022 15:56 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Unknown 40 – 59 Español 5/3/2022 19:13 Yes, virtually Black/African American Homeowner Not applicable 60+ English 5/4/2022 1:40 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Other Unknown 30 – 39 Español 5/4/2022 12:20 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 40 – 59 Español 5/4/2022 15:00 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Work but not live in EPA Not applicable 30 – 39 English 5/4/2022 15:57 Yes, virtually Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Single family home landlord Midtown 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 7:19 Yes, virtually Unknown Unknown Unknown English 5/5/2022 9:07
Yes virtually &
in-person Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Homeowner Not applicable 40 – 59 Tongan 5/5/2022 10:29 Yes, virtually Asian Work but not live in EPA Not applicable 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 16:42 Yes, virtually Black/African American Homeowner The Gardens 60+ English 5/5/2022 17:36 Yes, virtually Asian Landlord Not applicable 60+ English 5/5/2022 17:41 Yes, virtually Asian Single family home landlord Not applicable 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 17:42 Yes, virtually Unknown Unknown Unknown English 5/5/2022 17:49 Yes, virtually Unknown Unknown Unknown English 5/5/2022 17:49 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Homeowner Unknown 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 17:57 Yes, virtually Black/African American Work but not live in EPA Unknown 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 17:59 Yes, virtually White/European Homeowner Unknown 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 17:59 Yes, virtually Asian Homeowner Unknown 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 17:59 Yes, virtually Asian Work but not live in EPA Not applicable 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 18:05 Yes, virtually White/European Work but not live in EPA Not applicable 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 18:05 Yes, virtually Asian Homeowner The Gardens 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 18:05 Yes, virtually Asian Homeowner Unknown 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 18:21 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 18:31 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Other The Gardens 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 18:32 Yes, virtually Unknown Unknown English
5/5/2022 18:52 Yes, virtually Hispanic/Latinx Landlord Unknown 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 19:12 Yes, virtually Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 19:40 Yes, virtually White/European Homeowner Midtown 40 – 59 English 4/28/2022 9:34 Yes, in-person Asian Homeowner Not applicable 25 – 29 English 5/2/2022 17:12 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 40 – 59 English Yes 5/3/2022 21:00 Yes, in-person Black/African American Unknown Unknown 60+ English 5/4/2022 19:48 Yes, in-person Black/African American Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 40 – 59 English 5/5/2022 8:51 Yes, in-person White/European Homeowner Not applicable 60+ English 5/5/2022 16:46 Yes, in-person Asian, Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 25 – 29 English 5/5/2022 16:49 Yes, in-person
Hispanic/Latinx, Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other Midtown 18 – 24 English 5/5/2022 16:54 Yes, in-person Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Work but not live in EPA The Westside 18 – 24 English 4/28/2022 9:29 No Black/African American Tenant (single-family/duplex) The Village 30 – 39 English 4/28/2022 10:48 No Black/African American Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 40 – 59 English 4/28/2022 15:07 No Other Other Not applicable 60+ English

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
4/29/2022 19:10 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) Unknown 40 – 59 Español 4/30/2022 11:10 No Unknown Unknown Unknown 40 – 59 English 4/30/2022 11:48 No Hispanic/Latinx Landlord Not applicable 40 – 59 English 5/1/2022 19:02 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Unknown 40 – 59 English Yes 5/3/2022 8:28 No Unknown Work but not live in EPA Unknown English 5/3/2022 14:22 No Black/African American Homeowner Midtown 60+ English 5/3/2022 14:52 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Unknown 25 – 29 English 5/3/2022 14:57 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) The Gardens 30 – 39 English 5/3/2022 20:24 No Black/African American Homeowner The Gardens 60+ English 5/3/2022 21:02 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Village 40 – 59 English 5/3/2022 22:55 No Black/African American Tenant (single-family/duplex) The Gardens 40 – 59 English Yes 5/4/2022 7:31 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (ADU) The Westside 30 – 39 Español Yes 5/4/2022 9:52 No Black/African American Homeowner The Gardens 40 – 59 English 5/4/2022 11:07 No Black/African American Other Unknown 40 – 59 English 5/4/2022 11:29 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 25 – 29 English Yes 5/4/2022 14:47 No Hispanic/Latinx Other Midtown 30 – 39 English 5/4/2022 19:00 No Hispanic/Latinx Single family home landlord The Gardens 40 – 59 Español 5/4/2022 22:52 No Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Unknown 30 – 39 Español 5/5/2022 10:39 No Hispanic/Latinx Other Midtown 40 – 59 Español 5/5/2022 12:54 No White/European Homeowner Unknown 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 16:40 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (multi-family) The Westside 18 – 24 English 5/5/2022 16:53 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Midtown 18 – 24 English 5/5/2022 18:36 No White/European Homeowner The Gardens 30 – 39 English 5/5/2022 18:42 No Unknown Unknown Unknown 40 – 59 Español 5/5/2022 19:04 No Hispanic/Latinx Tenant (single-family/duplex) Unknown 60+ English Yes 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant Unknown 18-29 English Yes 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person White/European Homeowner Unknown 50-69 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person White/European Homeowner Unknown 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Unknown Unknown 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Asian, Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Unknown 50-69 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Asian, Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Unknown 50-69 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant The Westside 30-49 Español 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant The Westside 30-49 Español 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Tenant The Westside 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Black/African American Tenant Unknown 70+ English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Black/African American Unknown Unknown 50-69 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person White/European Unknown Unknown 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Black/African American Unknown The Westside 50-69 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Unknown 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Unknown 30-49 English 5/5/2022 18:00 Yes, in-person Black/African American Unknown Unknown 50-69 English

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Photos from May 5, 2022 Hybrid (In-Person and Virtual) Community Meeting

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Appendix D. Countywide Meeting Summary
A series of countywide meetings about the Housing Element update were held from March to May 2021. Each meeting provided community members with an introduction the Housing Element update, why it matters, information on the Let’s Talk Housing outreach effort and countywide trends. Breakout room discussions with individual cities and towns followed.

Who We Heard From
In total 1,024 registered for the series and 264 registered for the All About RHNA meeting. Of those who registered for the series, the majority identified as White (66%) or Asian (15%), and were 50 years or older; nearly half were 50 to 69 years old and almost a fifth were over 70. Almost half had lived over 21 years in their homes, and three-fourths owned their own homes.

East Palo Alto was part of the March 30th introductory meeting, along with Burlingame, Hillsborough, Millbrae and San Mateo City. Due to technical difficulties, a second meeting was held on May 6th. One person who lives in East Palo Alto registered as a participant. She was a renter who had lived in the city between 0 and 5 years. Demographically, she was a White woman between the ages of 50 and 69. This is not an appropriate sample of the participants, however, because between 10 and 15 people participated in the breakout room. 9%
12%
6%
14%
15%
44%
How long lived in City?
Composition of total LTH meetings
Don't live here
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21+ years
21+
66%
15%
4%
4%
3%
8%
Race & Ethnicity
Composition of total LTH meetings
White
Asian
Middle Eastern
Black
American Indian /
Alaskan Native
Hispanic/Latino
Native Hawaiian /
Pacific Islander

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
What We Heard
Main Meeting
People were asked to share a word in the chat describing housing now at the beginning of the meeting, and the housing they envisioned in their communities ten years from now.

Now In 2030
Breakout Session
There was a lively discussion with approximately 10-15 people in attendance. There was a feeling that East Palo Alto was doing a lot, with one participant saying “It seems like EPA is the most ambitious city on the peninsula,” but that a lot is not enough. The primary concern heard from the group was the lack of affordable housing. This applied to both housing for extremely low-income households as well as moderate income/ownership opportunities. There was support for tiny homes and looking at employers to do more.

Post Event Survey
The post-event survey reflected the variety of opinions present on issues ranging from a desire to preserve communities as they are, to an appeal for more and diverse housing everywhere in the county. Despite the technical difficulties, community members responded that they valued the space and the information provided within it and looked forward to spaces where more meaningful and engaged discussion could take place.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Appendix E. Surveys Report
Whiteboard Survey
Results
Input at July 19, 2021 Community Meeting
Jamboard Survey
Results
Slide 1 – Input from May 5, 2022 – July 7, 2022

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Slide 2 - Input from February 24, 2022 – July 7, 2022
Survey Themes
• Improved housing & neighborhood conditions
• Deeper housing affordability
• More homeownership opportunities
• Reduced constraints to affordable housing
• Environmentally sustainable development
• Anti-displacement
Slide 3 - Input from February 24, 2022 – July 7, 2022

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Slide 4 - Input from February 24, 2022 – July 7, 2022
May 5, 2022 Community Meeting In-Person Survey Results

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
[Placeholder for other in-person survey results]

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Policies and Programs Survey
Survey Results

1. Which of the following goals is most important to you? Options:

1. GOAL 1: Meet the RHNA & produce all housing types

2. GOAL 2: Link jobs + housing

3. GOAL 3: Available sites for the development of housing

4. GOAL 4: Reduced constraints & enhanced incentives for housing development

5. GOAL 5: Special needs housing

6. GOAL 6: Financial or policy assistance to low-income households

7. GOAL 7: Increased homeownership opportunities

8. GOAL 8: Minimized tenant displacement

9. GOAL 9: Improved housing & neighborhood conditions

10. GOAL 10: Fair Housing & decent, safe living environments for all

11. GOAL 11: Implementation & use of housing policies

12. GOAL 12: Energy efficiency

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Goal 1: Sufficient numbers and varieties of housing units (houses, townhomes, condominiums, and apartments) needed to: meet the State’s mandate to replace affordable units/bedrooms demolished due to Redevelopment Agency action; address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Determination; and facilitate housing development for all incomes segments within East Palo Alto, including extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, and above-moderate income housing.

GOAL 2: Balanced development that links housing to jobs.

GOAL 3: Available residential sites for the development of a range of housing types.

GOAL 4: Reduced constraints and enhanced incentives for housing development within the city, particularly in regards to affordable housing.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
GOAL 5: Adequate housing for special needs groups in the city, including seniors, physically challenged, HIV positive or living with AIDS, homeless, at-risk youth (leaving the foster care system), small and large families, veterans, farm workers, people with developmental disabilities, and female headed households.

GOAL 6: Financial and policy assistance for low- and moderate-income households to ease housing cost burden and overcrowding.

GOAL 7: Increased homeownership opportunities for income-qualified households (focused on existing residents and workers in East Palo Alto).

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
GOAL 8: Minimized Displacement of Renter.

GOAL 9: Improved Housing and Neighborhood Conditions in East Palo Alto.

GOAL 10: Decent, safe living environments for City residents regardless of age, gender, race, color, ancestry, national origin, familial status, marital status, sexual preference, religion, disability, language, or any other arbitrary factor.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
GOAL 11: Implemented housing policies and broad participation in associated programs.

GOAL 12: Increased energy efficiency in existing and new housing development, in part as a means of reducing housing cost.

Balancing Act Survey
Balancing Act Page Preview

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Sample Survey Questions
Performance Analytics

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
The City of East Palo Alto received the second-highest engagement compared to other California cities participating in this simulation tool, with 12 unique respondents total.

Extensive outreach via the City’s website, City newsletters, direct email communications, social media, and in-person flyer distribution helped us receive 196 page views for a total of 20 hours of site use; despite these efforts, the response rate was only 6%. This outcome illustrates the challenges of engaging residents through tools that require technological knowledge.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Balancing Act Survey Respondent Demographics
Resident Age Race/ Ethnicity Neighborhood Housing Situation 1 Yes 40 - 59 Other Westside Tenant (single-family/duplex) 2 Yes 30 - 39 Asian Westside Homeowner
3 Yes 40 - 59 White/European Gardens Homeowner
4 Yes 40 - 59 White/European Gardens Homeowner
5 No 60+ White/European Not applicable Work in EPA but live elsewhere 6 Yes 60+ White/European Unknown Single family home landlord 7 Yes 60+ White/European Unknown Homeowner
8 No 40 - 59 White/European Not applicable Work in EPA but live elsewhere 9 Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Homeowner
10 Yes 40 - 59 Other Village Tenant (single-family/duplex) 11 Yes 30 - 39 Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Tenant (single-family/duplex) 12 Yes 40 - 59 Hispanic/Latinx Unknown Other
Balancing Act Survey Results
The following table summarizes the Balancing Act survey results:

East Palo Alto Balancing Act Sites Inventory Survey Results

Respondents
Choosing
“Higher Density”
Respondents
Choosing
“Lower
Density”
Respondents
Choosing “No
housing”
Average Unit
Count Selected
1a - RBD Zoned for Housing 75% 25% 0% 592
1b - RBD Zoned for Housing 50% 50% 0% 127
2 - Four Corners 67% 25% 8% 397
3 - South of Weeks 42% 25% 25% 80
4 - EPA Waterfront 25% 33% 42% 152
5 - Harvest Affordable Housing Proposal 42% 0% 17% 73
6A - Pulgas East Site 1 42% 17% 42% 57
6B - Pulgas East Site 2 42% 17% 42% 53
6C - Pulgas East Site 3 58% 25% 17% 123
7 - City of East Palo Alto 50% 8% 42% 13
8 - San Mateo County Government Center 17% 17% 67% 39
9 - Ravenswood School District 42% 25% 33% 104
A - Weeks Street 50% 33% 17% 37
B - University Avenue 83% 0% 17% 11
C - Schembri Lane 33% 42% 25% 7
D - Runnymede Street 33% 33% 33% 6
E - Green Street 1 33% 42% 25% 6
F - Green Street 2 33% 42% 25% 4
G - Donohoe Street 50% 25% 25% 7
H - East Bayshore 58% 17% 25% 8

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
The Balancing Act survey results demonstrate there is more appetite for housing. Most residents supported higher density housing on the Ravenswood/Four Corners Specific Area Plan sites. A majority (50% or more) also supported higher density on the following sites:
a. Pulgas Street East Site 3 (APN 63240310)
b. East Bayshore site (807 East Bayshore)
c. Weeks Street site (851 Weeks Street)
d. Donohoe Street site (801 Donohoe Street)
e. City of East Palo Alto site (2277 University Avenue) An overwhelming majority supported higher density along University Avenue, and a large majority (67%) did not support housing on the San Mateo County Government Center site at 2415 University Ave., where the East Palo Alto City Hall is currently located.

Intercept Survey
Survey Results
On June 18, 2022 and June 15, 2022, we spoke with 30 East Palo Alto residents in-person at East Palo Alto Community Farmer’s Markets and received further input on housing density and future housing development. Of the 30 residents we engaged, 53% indicated they wanted to see higher-density housing, 20% indicated they wanted to see lower-density housing, and 24% indicated they would visit the City website to learn more. Residents also expressed their thoughts and opinions on the proposed sites inventory, and common input included the need for more affordable housing, ensuring there is a jobshousing balance, ensuring new jobs do not create displacement pressures on current residents, creating new units that have better habitability, and ensuring there is enough parking.

Respondent Demographics
Of the 30 respondents, approximately 13 were homeowners, 15 were tenants, and 2 were young people under the age of 18 and living with their parents.

The majority of respondents (80%) were monolingual Spanish-speakers. 40%
60%
46%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Ownver vs Renter Occupancy
% of East Palo Alto Benchmark % of Total Outreach

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
The majority of respondents were women between the ages of 30-49. 0%
10% 11%
66%
3%
10%
0%
7% 3%
80%
3% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native, NonHispanic
Asian / API,
Non-Hispanic
Black or
African
American,
Non-Hispanic
Hispanic or
Latinx
Other Race
or Multiple
Races, NonHispanic
White, NonHispanic
Race & Ethnicity
% of East Palo Alto Benchmark % of Total Outreach
28%
21%
30%
16%
4%
7% 7%
61%
18%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Under 18 18-29 30-49 50-69 70+
Age
% of East Palo Alto Benchmark % of Total Outreach

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Appendix F. Equity Advisory Group Input
To the 21 Elements team and all San Mateo County jurisdictions, The Equity Advisory Group exists to help San Mateo County jurisdictions implement policies that promote fair housing choice and access to opportunity for members of historically marginalized groups. We are a group of service providers and housing activists, convened to inform equitable policy making in housing elements. Thank you to the 21 Elements team for promoting the EAG, and thank you to the city staff that are giving us this opportunity to share our perspectives.

With this letter, the EAG proposes specific policies San Mateo County jurisdictions can implement to promote equity through their housing elements. These policies were selected by EAG members because of their proven track record for promoting equity goals, primarily the production of affordable homes and protection of renters. As service providers and advocates, we take a broad approach to housing equity. To us, equity means that everyone in a community, regardless of background, has access to safe, stable, affordable housing.

However, housing equity does not stop at a jurisdiction’s borders. True equity means that no one is excluded from a community because of lack of access to housing. “Lack of access” can come in many forms, whether that be physical inaccessibility, language barriers, distance from community resources, or prohibitive cost. In order to ensure that no one is excluded from a community, jurisdictions must affirmatively promote fair housing for all by regularly changing regulations to facilitate a wider range of housing types.

In practice, equity can be controversial, because increasing equity sometimes requires changes to status quo policies. We see this process as an opportunity for jurisdictions to commit to implementing new policies with the support of the state of California behind you.

Policy Recommendations
Guidance from HCD on how to affirmatively further fair housing states that jurisdictions must promote fair housing choice and access to opportunity in their goals, policies, and programs.

HCD defines fair housing choice as encompassing:
● Actual choice, meaning the existence of realistic housing options ● Protected choice, meaning housing that can be accessed without discrimination; and ● Enabled choice, meaning realistic access to sufficient information regarding options so that any choice is informed.

Jurisdictions cannot meet the requirement to promote fair housing choice and access to opportunity without first completing a thorough and meaningful assessment of the housing needs of residents, including factors which may limit fair housing choice as well as both governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production. Jurisdictions should complete all relevant analyses before formulating their policies and programs. As such, appropriate policies and programs for each jurisdiction will vary based on the needs of your specific community.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
Below are a list of general policies which the EAG would recommend as a minimum to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in your jurisdiction. Programs to implement these policies, as defined by HCD, must include concrete steps, timelines, and measurable outcomes.

Policy Description How does it AFFH?
Just cause eviction,
relocation benefits, and
first right of return
Tenant protections beyond
state law. (Ex: Oakland
Just Cause for Eviction
Ordinance; Redwood City
Relocation Assistance
Program, LAHD Rent
Stabilization Ordinance)
Implemented in tandem, this set of
policies can protect lower-income
tenants living in NOAH who are
evicted through no fault of their own,
providing them the resources to
relocate or the option to first right of
return.

Prioritize city affordable
housing funds,
city-owned land, and
land dedicated to
affordable housing for
projects which include
more units at deeper
levels of affordability or
for special needs
populations at greatest
risk of homelessness or
displacement.

Scoring guidelines for
RFPs for these city
resources should give
greater preference for
projects which include
more units at deeper levels
of affordability or target
special needs populations.

In 2021, the SMC HSA Center on
Homelessness reported that 96% of
Homeless Outreach and Shelter
Clients were extremely low income.

Jurisdictions cannot begin to address
the needs of the unhoused and other
at-risk populations without
addressing the lack of deeply
affordable housing.

Expand local funding
sources for
development of
affordable housing
Can include policies such
as commercial linkage
fees, vacancy taxes,
transfer tax, etc. (Ex: San
Jose Measure E)
Most affordable housing projects
require a source of gap funding in
order to be financially feasible,
especially if they are targeting
deeper levels of affordability. Local
investment in these projects can also
make them more competitive for
state and federal funding.

Rent stabilization Tenant protections beyond
state law. (Ex: Oakland
Rent Adjustment Program,
LAHD Rent Stabilization
Ordinance)
Stagnant wages for the lowest
income residents have not kept pace
with rising housing costs, becoming
one of the largest contributors to our
current housing crisis. Local rent
control with greater protections
beyond state law will help to keep
more lower income renters stably
housed.

Fee exemptions for
100% affordable
housing projects
According to the 21 Elements Fee
Survey, jurisdictions charge fees
ranging from $6,824-$167,210 per

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
unit in multifamily housing. These
additional fees can make many
affordable housing projects, which
rely on public subsidy, infeasible.

Waiving or lowering fees for 100%
affordable housing projects can
promote the production of more
affordable housing across a
spectrum of income levels.

Allow exceptions to
development standards
for 100% affordable
housing projects
Can include but is not
limited to reduced/waived
parking requirements,
Minimum lot sizes, widths,
setbacks, etc (Ex: Half
Moon Bay)
Many projects utilize State Density
Bonus Law (SDBL) to increase
financial feasibility of projects
through incentives and concessions.

Local exceptions to development
standards for 100% affordable
housing projects increases feasibility
above and beyond what would be
enabled through SDBL.

Implement inclusive
design standards
Implement design
standards beyond state
and federal law to increase
cross-disability access to
housing (Refer to The
Kelsey’s Housing Design
Standards for Inclusion and
Accessibility)
While landlords are required to
approve reasonable
accommodations requested by
persons with disabilities, often the
burden of financing physical
modifications of a unit falls upon the
tenant, many of whom cannot afford
these expensive renovations.

Inclusive design can significantly
reduce requests for reasonable
accommodations and lower overall
costs of modifying units. Inclusive
design also supports cross-disability
access.

Increase language
accessibility
Require affirmative
marketing of units to
non-English speakers,
make multilingual
applications available, and
perform active outreach to
newly arrived immigrants
and refugees.

Language can create one of the
highest barriers to access for
affordable housing. Affirmative
marketing to non-English speakers
will ensure all members of our
communities can access the
resources available to them,
regardless of country of origin.

Promote fair housing
information to residents
Provide residents with
information about renter
protections and monetary
relief available to victims of
unlawful housing practices.

Post information in easily
Renters are often unaware of the
protection and resources afforded
them under California state law.

Jurisdictions can help promote fair
housing by proactively ensuring that
renters are aware of their rights.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
available locations on
jurisdiction websites and
send regular mailers to
renters within the
community.

Analyze past racially
discriminatory policies
and report data
regarding ongoing
impacts
1) Conduct a systematic
review of the preliminary
title report and eradicate
any language of racially
restrictive covenants.
2) Provide information re:
location and ratio of renters
and owners and their
correlation with the
patterns of racial and
ethnic segregation in San
Mateo County.
3) Provide information re:
demographics and
environmental health –
identify disparities in
access to environmentally
healthy neighborhoods.

Jurisdictions are most likely to
reduce the racial homeownership
gap if they actively identify the ways
in which past racially restrictive
regulations and current barriers to
affordable housing create our
socioeconomic disparity in home
ownership. Home ownership is one
of the most powerful vehicles for
multigenerational economic security.

Employing a health-equity lens
throughout planning and re-zoning
efforts will further fair housing policy
goals.

Affordable housing
overlay for nonprofits
and religious institutions
Create a housing overlay
allowing at least the local
mullin density (20 or 30
du/ac) on all nonprofit- or
religious institution-owned
land throughout the entirety
of jurisdiction. Relax design
standards and zoning
regulations for projects with
20% extremely low income,
30% very low income, or
50% low income units.

Jurisdictions promote equity when
they allow affordable, multi-family
housing in new areas. Nonprofits and
religious institutions have strong
incentives to promote affordable
housing development. By facilitating
affordable housing on land owned by
religious institutions, regardless of
local zoning, jurisdictions can help
those institutions accomplish their
missions of providing for the needy
while also affirmatively furthering fair
housing in new areas.

Accessible housing near
transit
Reduce parking minimums
for developments within 0.5
miles of transit. Eliminate
parking minimums entirely
for developments within 0.5
miles of transit that serve
residents with disabilities
Parking minimums raise the price of
housing and de facto subsidize car
ownership. Especially when located
near transit, these policies impose a
significant burden on housing. In the
cases of low-income households,
which can typically afford no or

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) Community Outreach Summary
and low-, very low-, or
extremely low-income
households.
limited car ownership, and the
disabled, these policies become
entirely superfluous.

The Equity Advisory Group recommends that every jurisdiction in San Mateo County implement these proposals to the best of their abilities. Implementing these policies will demonstrate your community’s commitment to affirmatively furthering fair housing for all.

Thank you for your consideration,
Kalisha Webster
Senior Housing Advocate, Housing Choices
Hyun-mi Kim
Housing Advocacy Director, Puente de la Costa Sur
Jeremy Levine
Policy Manager, Housing Leadership Council
Signed on behalf of the 21 Elements Equity Advisory Group

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Draft Outreach Summary Chapter (2350 : Housing Element Update) 1 HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: EAST

PALO ALTO
ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning
2021-04-02

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 2 0.1 Table of content

0.1 Table of content.................................................................................................... 2

0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3

0.3 List of tables ........................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5 2 Summary of Key Facts .................................................................................................. 6 3 Looking to the Future: Regional Housing Needs .................................................................. 9

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination......................................................................... 9

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................. 9 4 Population, Employment and Household Characteristics ..................................................... 11

4.1 Population ..........................................................................................................11

4.2 Age...................................................................................................................12

4.3 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................14

4.4 Employment Trends ...............................................................................................15

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers...............................................................................15

4.4.2 Sector Composition ..........................................................................................19

4.4.3 Unemployment ...............................................................................................20

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households.............................................................................21

4.6 Tenure...............................................................................................................25

4.7 Displacement .......................................................................................................29 5 Housing Stock Characteristics ...................................................................................... 31

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits............................................................31

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion......................................................34

5.3 Substandard Housing..............................................................................................35

5.4 Home and Rent Values............................................................................................36

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding ................................................................................39 6 Special Housing Needs................................................................................................ 48

6.1 Large Households ..................................................................................................48

6.2 Female-Headed Households......................................................................................49

6.3 Seniors...............................................................................................................51

6.4 People with Disabilities ..........................................................................................52

6.5 Homelessness.......................................................................................................54

6.6 Farmworkers .......................................................................................................59

6.7 Non-English Speakers .............................................................................................60

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends .......................................................................................12 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019...................................................................................13 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race ..........................................................................14 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 .................................................................................15 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction .............................................................................................16 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence.........................17 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ...........................................................................18 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio .............................................................................................19 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry ..............................................................................20 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate.............................................................................................21 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level......................................................................23 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure ...........................................................................24 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race..........................................................................................25 Figure 14: Housing Tenure...................................................................................................26 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder .....................................................................27 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age..........................................................................................28 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type ..............................................................................29 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure...............................................................30 Figure 19: Housing Type Trends ............................................................................................31 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ........................................................................32 Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type............................................................................................33 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues.....................................................................................36 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units.......................................................................37 Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)...............................................................................37 Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units...................................................................38 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent ...........................................................................................39 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure ..........................................................................................40 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level ..................................................................................41 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race.............................................................................................42 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................43 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ........................................................44 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ........................................................................45 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ................................................................46 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race...........................................................................................47 Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure ......................................................................................48 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms .......................................................................49 Figure 37: Household Type ..................................................................................................50 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status ..............................................................51 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure....................................................................52 Figure 40: Disability by Type ................................................................................................53 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County ..............................55 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County.........................56 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County.................................57 Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County...................58 Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, San Mateo County .........................................60 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency.................................................................61

0.3 List of tables

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 4 Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology ..................................10 Table 2: Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................11 Table 3: Housing Permitting.................................................................................................33 Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion.............................................................................34 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ..........................................................54 Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence...................................................54 Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ...............................................59 Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population .............................................................................59

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 5 1 INTRODUCTION
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for more housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of East Palo Alto.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 6 2 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
• Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of East Palo Alto increased by 4.4% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay Area.
• Age – In 2019, East Palo Alto’s youth population under the age of 18 was 8,381 and senior population 65 and older was 2,033. These age groups represent 28.3% and 6.9%, respectively, of East Palo Alto’s population.
• Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 10.1% of East Palo Alto’s population was White while 10.9% was African American, 9.6% was Asian, and 66.1% was Latinx. People of color in East Palo Alto comprise a proportion above the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.1 • Employment – East Palo Alto residents most commonly work in the Health & Educational Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in East Palo Alto decreased by 5.4 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 470 (13.2%). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in East Palo Alto has increased from 0.37 in 2002 to 0.57 jobs per household in 2018.
• Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in East Palo Alto increased, 1.3% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for San Mateo County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period.
• Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all East Palo Alto residents to live and thrive in the community.
– Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $750k-$1M in 2019. Home prices increased by 160.0% from 2010 to 2020. – Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in East Palo Alto was $1,630 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 65.7% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $65,560 per year.2 • Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 54.1% of homes in East Palo Alto were single family detached, 4.1% were single family attached, 3.4% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 36.6% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of

1 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source. 2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 7 single-family units increased more than multi-family units. Generally, in East Palo Alto, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region.
• Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs.

A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In East Palo Alto, 28.8% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 25.2% of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, 64.7% of households in East Palo Alto live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification. 0.0% of households in East Palo Alto live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built. • Neighborhood – 0.0% of residents in East Palo Alto live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 100.0% of residents live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.3
• Special Housing Needs – Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In East Palo Alto, 6.4% of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 27.5% of East Palo Alto households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 20.6% of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

Note on Data
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of

3 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as part of new Housing Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. ABAG/MTC will be providing jurisdictions with technical assistance on this topic this summer, following the release of additional guidance from HCD.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 8 respondents had been reached. We use the five-year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for the smaller cities, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly.

Additionally, there may be instances where there is no data available for a jurisdiction for particular data point, or where a value is 0 and the automatically generated text cannot perform a calculation. In these cases, the automatically generated text is “NODATA.” Staff should reword these sentences before using them in the context of the Housing Element or other documents.

Note on Figures
Any figure that does not specify geography in the figure name represents data for East Palo Alto.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 9 3 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination
The Plan Bay Area 20504 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year time frame covered by this Housing Element Update, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very low-income households to market rate housing.5 This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from California Department of Finance, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households, and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.6 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State Housing Element Law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to 441,776. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needsallocation Almost all jurisdictions in the Bay Area are likely to receive a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last cycle, primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared to previous cycles.

In January 2021, ABAG adopted a Draft RHNA Methodology, which is currently being reviewed by HCD.

For East Palo Alto, the proposed RHNA to be planned for this cycle is 829 units, a slated increase from the last cycle. Please note that the previously stated figures are merely illustrative, as ABAG has yet to issue Final RHNA allocations. The Final RHNA allocations that local jurisdictions will use for

4 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing and transportation 5 HCD divides the RHND into the following four income categories:

Very Low-income: 0-50% of Area Median Income
Low-income: 50-80% of Area Median Income
Moderate-income: 80-120% of Area Median Income
Above Moderate-income: 120% or more of Area Median Income 6 For more information on HCD’s RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on June 9, 2020: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-final060920(r).pdf

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 10 their Housing Elements will be released at the end of 2021. The potential allocation that East Palo Alto would receive from the Draft RHNA Methodology is broken down by income category as follows:

Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology Income Group East Palo
Alto Units
San Mateo
County
Units
Bay Area
Units
East Palo
Alto Percent
San Mateo
County
Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI) 165 12196 114442 19.9% 25.6% 25.9%
Low Income (50%-
80% of AMI) 95 7023 65892 11.5% 14.7% 14.9%
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of AMI) 159 7937 72712 19.2% 16.6% 16.5%
Above Moderate
Income (>120% of
AMI)
410 20531 188130 49.5% 43.1% 42.6%
Total 829 47687 441176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Methodology and tentative numbers were approved by ABAG’s Executive board on January 21, 2021 (Resolution No. 02-2021). The numbers were submitted for review to California Housing and Community Development in February 2021, after which an appeals process will take place during the Summer and Fall of 2021.

THESE NUMBERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER HCD REVIEW

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 11 4 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD

CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, East Palo Alto’s population has increased by

4.4%; this rate is below that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In East Palo Alto, roughly 10.6% of its population moved during the past year, a number 2.8 percentage points smaller than the regional rate of 13.4%.

Table 2: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
East Palo Alto 23451 24710 29506 32080 28155 30236 30794 San Mateo County 649623 685354 707163 719844 718451 761748 773244 Bay Area 6020147 6381961 6784348 7073912 7150739 7595694 7790537 Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

In 2020, the population of East Palo Alto was estimated to be 30,794 (see Table 2). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 25.8%, while it decreased by 4.6% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 9.4%. The population of East Palo Alto makes up

4.0% of San Mateo County.
7 7 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e. percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 12 Figure 1: Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year.

For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts.

DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

4.2 Age
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.

In East Palo Alto, the median age in 2000 was 25.8; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 30 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-and-over population has increased (see Figure 2).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 13 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.

Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.

People of color8 make up 68.2% of seniors and 65.9% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3).

8 Here, we count all non-white racial groups

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 14 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02.

4.3 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today9. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in East Palo Alto identifying as White has increased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has decreased – by 3.4 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 2,991 (see Figure 4). In absolute terms, the Hispanic or Latinx population increased the most while the Black or African American, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.

9 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 15 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-02.

4.4 Employment Trends

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in East Palo Alto increased by 46.9% (see Figure 5).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 16 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.

There are 15,101 employed residents, and 5,225 jobs10 in East Palo Alto - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 0.35; East Palo Alto is a net exporter of workers.

Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively lowincome workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. East Palo Alto has more low-wage residents than low-wage jobs (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the

10 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 17 wage spectrum, the city has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000) (see Figure 6).11
Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence
Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.

Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7).

11 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 18 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.

Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.

New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in East Palo Alto has increased from 0.37 in 2002, to 0.57 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 19 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.

4.4.2 Sector Composition
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which East Palo Alto residents work is Health & Educational Services, and the largest sector in which San Mateo residents work is Health & Educational Services (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 20 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables:

Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail:

C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information: C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06.

4.4.3 Unemployment
In East Palo Alto, there was a 5.4 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 21 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonallyadjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.

Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15.

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state12.

In East Palo Alto, 17.4% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)13, compared to 25.5% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 11).

12 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
13 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 22 Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than 30% AMI. In San Mateo County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $44,000 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

Note on Estimating the Projected Number of Extremely Low-Income Households Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. For more information, visit HCD’s Building Blocks page on Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs.

This document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households, as Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers. Once East Palo Alto receives its 6th Cycle RHNA, staff can estimate the projected extremely low-income households using one of the following three methodologies:

Option A: Assume that 59.8% of East Palo Alto’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.

According to HCD’s Regional Housing Need Determination for the Bay Area, 15.5% of the region’s housing need is for 0-30% AMI households while 25.9% is for 0-50% AMI households. Therefore, extremely low-income housing need represents 59.8% of the region’s very low-income housing need, as 15.5 divided by 25.9 is 59.8%. This option aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, as HCD uses U.S. Census data to calculate the Regional Housing Need Determination.

Option B: Assume that 50.0% of East Palo Alto’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.

According to the data shown below (Figure 11), 3,837 of East Palo Alto’s households are 0-50% AMI while 1,918 are extremely low-income. Therefore, extremely low-income households represent 50.0% of households who are 0-50% AMI, as 1,918 divided by 3,837 is 50.0%. This option aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, as the information in Figure 11 represents a tabulation of Census Bureau Data.

Option C: Assume that 50% of East Palo Alto’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.

HCD’s guidance notes that instead of using use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, local jurisdictions can presume that 50% of their RHNA for very low-income households qualifies for extremely low-income households.

percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 23 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA numbers.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01.

Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.

In East Palo Alto, the largest proportion of renters falls in the 0%-30% of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure 12).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 24 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents.14 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In East Palo Alto, American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure 13).

14 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 25 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.

4.6 Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In East Palo Alto there are a total of 7,724 housing units, and more residents rent than own their homes: 60.2% versus 39.8% (see Figure 14). By comparison, 39.8% of households in San Mateo County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 26 Figure 14: Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16.

Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.15 In East Palo Alto, 60.2% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 60.0% for Asian households, 27.7% for Latinx households, and 31.9% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.

15 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 27 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.

The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In East Palo Alto, 74.3% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 26.4% of householders over 65 are (see Figure 16).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 28 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18.

In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In East Palo Alto, 63.6% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 6.0% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 17).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 29 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-22.

4.7 Displacement
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.

The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in East Palo Alto, 64.7% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification.

Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 0.0% of households in East Palo Alto live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.16

16 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 30 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: LowIncome/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 31 5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

The housing stock of East Palo Alto in 2020 was made up of 54.1% single family detached homes, 4.1% single family attached homes, 3.4% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 36.6% multifamily homes with 5 or more units, and 1.9% mobile homes (see Figure 19). In East Palo Alto, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Detached.

Figure 19: Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-01.

Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In East Palo Alto, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1940 to 1959, with 3,262 units constructed during this period (see Figure 20). Since 2010, 1.5% of the current housing stock was built, which is 128 units.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 32 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.

Vacant units make up 7.4% of the overall housing stock in East Palo Alto. The rental vacancy stands at

8.5%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 2.4%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is For Rent (see Figure 21).17
Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for shortterm periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.18 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting

17 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (7.4%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant. 18 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 33 in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.19
Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.

Between 2015 and 2019, 95 housing units were issued permits in East Palo Alto. 6.3% of permits issued in East Palo Alto were for above moderate-income housing, 36.8% were for moderate-income housing, and 56.8% were for low- or very low-income housing (see Table 3).

Table 3: Housing Permitting
Income Group value
Moderate Income Permits 35
Low Income Permits 34
Very Low Income Permits 20
Above Moderate Income Permits 6
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the

19 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 34 county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HSG-11.

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.

The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 466 assisted units in East Palo Alto in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 0.0% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.20 Note on At-Risk Assisted Housing Developments
HCD requires that Housing Elements list the assisted housing developments at risk of converting to market-rate uses. For more information on the specific properties that are at Moderate Risk, High Risk, or Very High Risk of conversion, local jurisdiction staff should contact Danielle Mazzella, Preservation & Data Manager at the California Housing Partnership, at [email protected].

Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income East Palo Alto San Mateo County Bay Area
Low 466 4656 110177
Moderate 0 191 3375
High 0 359 1854
Very High 0 58 1053
Total Assisted Units in Database 466 5264 116459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

20 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 35 Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing developments at-risk of converting to market rate uses. This document provides aggregate numbers of at-risk units for each jurisdiction, but local planning staff should contact Danielle Mazzella with the California Housing Partnership at [email protected] to obtain a list of affordable properties that fall under this designation. California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are atrisk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Low Risk: affordable homes that are atrisk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table RISK-01.

5.3 Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in East Palo Alto. For example, 2.0% of renters in East Palo Alto reported lacking a kitchen and 1.6% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.0% of owners who lack a kitchen and 1.5% of owners who lack plumbing.

Note on Substandard Housing
HCD requires Housing Elements to estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. As a data source for housing units in need of rehabilitation and replacement is not available for all jurisdictions in the region, ABAG was not able to provide this required data point in this document. To produce an estimate of housing needs in need of rehabilitation and replacement, staff can supplement the data below on substandard housing issues with additional local information from code enforcement, recent windshield surveys of properties, building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations. For more information, visit HCD’s Building Blocks page on Housing Stock Characteristics.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 36 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06.

5.4 Home and Rent Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in East Palo Alto was estimated at $936,680 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $750k-$1M (see Figure 23). By comparison, the typical home value is $1,418,330 in San Mateo County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $1m-$1.5m (county) and $500k-$750k (region).

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 151.0% in East Palo Alto from $373,130 to $936,680. This change is above the change in San Mateo County, and above the change for the region (see Figure 24).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 37 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07.

Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 38 ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts.

Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.

Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.

Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In East Palo Alto, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $1500-$2000 category, totaling 30.7%, followed by 25.6% of units renting in the Rent $1000-$1500 category (see Figure 25).

Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $3000 or more category (county) compared to the $1500-$2000 category for the region as a whole.

Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.

Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 65.7% in East Palo Alto, from $1,210 to $1,630 per month (see Figure 26). In San Mateo County, the median rent has increased 41.1%, from $1,560 to $2,200. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.21

21 While the data on home values shown in Figure 24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 39 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 40 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06.

Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in East Palo Alto, 26.2% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 19.8% of those that own (see Figure 27). Additionally, 29.4% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 21.9% of owners are severely cost-burdened.

In East Palo Alto, 25.2% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 28.8% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 28). For example,

67.5% of East Palo Alto households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For East Palo Alto residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 0.0% are severely costburdened, and 93.2% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 41 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 42.2% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened with 29.6% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 29).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 42 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In East Palo Alto, 29.0% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 24.8% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 28.7% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 25.3% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 30).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 43 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 55.8% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, 84.7% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 31).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 44 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In East Palo Alto, 17.5% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 3.2% of households that own (see Figure 32). In East Palo Alto, 18.3% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 7.9% for those own.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 45 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 8.6% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 7.9% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 33).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 46 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In East Palo Alto, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Hispanic or Latinx (see Figure 34)

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 47 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and nonHispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 48 6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

6.1 Large Households
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In East Palo Alto, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (63.3%) are renter occupied (see Figure 35). In 2017, 48.3% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).

Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.

The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.

Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 3,678 units in East Palo Alto. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 32.3% are owner-occupied and 67.7% are renter occupied (see Figure 36).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 49 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05.

6.2 Female-Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly femaleheaded households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In East Palo Alto, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 48.1% of total, while Female-Headed Households make up 20.6% of all households.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 50 Figure 37: Household Type
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.

Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

In East Palo Alto, 30.9% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 1.0% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 38).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 51 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.

6.3 Seniors
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0%-30% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group 0%-30% of AMI (see Figure 39).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 52 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

6.4 People with Disabilities
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 40 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of East Palo Alto. Overall, 6.4% of people in East Palo Alto have a disability of any kind.22

22 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 53 Figure 40: Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:

Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty:
has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.

State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.23 In East Palo Alto, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 50.0%, while adults account for 50.0%.

23 For more information or data on developmental disabilities in your jurisdiction, contact the Golden Gate Regional Center for Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; the North Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties; the Regional Center for the East Bay for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 54 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group value
Age 18+ 93
Age Under 18 93
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.

The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in East Palo Alto is the home of parent /family /guardian.

Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type value
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 173
Independent /Supported Living 13
Other 0
Foster /Family Home 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Community Care Facility 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.

6.5 Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In San Mateo County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.5% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in transitional housing (see Figure 41).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 55 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01.

People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In San Mateo County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for

66.6% of the homeless population, while making up 50.6% of the overall population (see Figure 42).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 56 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table.

Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02.

In San Mateo, Latinx residents represent 38.1% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 24.7% of the general population (see Figure 43).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 57 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, San Mateo County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In San Mateo County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 305 reporting this condition (see Figure 12). Of those, some 62.0% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

Note on Homelessness Data
Notably all the data on homelessness provided above is for the entire county. This data comes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Point in Time count, which is the most comprehensive publicly available data source on people experiencing homelessness. HUD only provides this data at the countylevel and not for specific jurisdictions. However, Housing Element law requires local jurisdictions to estimate or count of the daily average number of people lacking shelter. Therefore, staff will need to supplement the data in this document with additional local data on the number of people experiencing homelessness. If staff do not have estimates of people experiencing homelessness in their jurisdiction readily available, HCD recommends contacting local service providers such as continuum-of-care providers, local homeless shelter and service providers, food

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 58 programs, operators of transitional housing programs, local drug and alcohol program service providers, and county mental health and social service departments.24
Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

In East Palo Alto, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 524 during the 2019-20 school year and decreased by 31.7% since the 2016-17 school year. By comparison, San Mateo County has seen a 37.5% decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%.

During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

The number of students in East Palo Alto experiencing homelessness in 2019 represents 43.9% of the San Mateo County total and 3.8% of the Bay Area total.

24 For more information, see HCD’s Building Blocks webpage for People Experiencing Homelessness:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/people-experiencinghomelessness.shtml

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 59 Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness AcademicYear East Palo Alto San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 767 1910 14990
2017-18 441 1337 15142
2018-19 946 1934 15427
2019-20 524 1194 13718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.

6.6 Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

In East Palo Alto, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 57.1% decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year.

Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population
AcademicYear East Palo Alto San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 58 657 4630
2017-18 0 418 4607
2018-19 0 307 4075
2019-20 0 282 3976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in San Mateo County has decreased since 2002, totaling 978 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 343 in 2017 (see Figure 45).

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 60 Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, San Mateo County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.

6.7 Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In East Palo Alto, 13.8% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is above the proportion for San Mateo County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) 61 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Draft Housing Needs Data Report (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 1
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
What is AFFH?
The State of California’s 2018 Assembly Bill (AB 686) requires that all public agencies in the state affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.

AB 686 requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation”1
AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14. 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 2
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
History of segregation in the region. The
United States’ oldest cities have a history of
mandating segregated living patterns—and
Northern California cities are no exception. ABAG, in
its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment,
attributes segregation in the Bay Area to historically
discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and
discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as
“structural inequities” in society, and “self
segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar
people).

Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color
of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our
Government Segregated America chronicles how
the public sector contributed to the segregation that
exists today. Rothstein highlights several significant
developments in the Bay Area region that played a
large role in where the region’s non-White residents
settled.

Pre-civil rights San Mateo County faced resistance to racial integration, yet it was reportedly less direct than in some Northern California communities, taking the form of “blockbusting” and “steering” or intervention by public officials. These local discriminatory practices were exacerbated by actions of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) which excluded low income neighborhoods, where the majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program.

According to the San Mateo County Historical Association, San Mateo County’s early African Americans worked in a variety of industries, from logging, to agriculture, to restaurants and entertainment. Expansion of jobs, particularly related to shipbuilding during and after World War II attracted many new residents into the Peninsula, including the first sizable migration of African Americans. Enforcement of racial covenants after the war forced the migration of the county’s African Americans into neighborhoods where they were allowed to occupy housing—housing segregated into less desirable areas, next to highways, and concentrated in public housing and urban renewal developments.

The private sector contributed to segregation through activities that discouraged (blockbusting) or prohibited (restrictive covenants) integrated neighborhoods. The segregatory effect of blockbusting activities, which exploited racial fear to encourage segregation, is well-documented in East Palo Alto. In 1954, after a White family in East Palo Alto sold their home to an African American family, the then-president of the California Real Estate Association set up an office in East Palo Alto to scare White families into selling their homes (“for fear of declining property values”) to agents and speculators. These This history of segregation
in the region is important
not only to understand how
residential settlement
patterns came about—but,
more importantly, to
explain differences in
housing opportunity among
residents today. In sum, not
all residents had the ability
to build housing wealth or
achieve economic
opportunity. This
historically unequal playing
field in part determines why
residents have different
housing needs today.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 3
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
agents then marketed and sold these homes at over-inflated prices to African American buyers, some of whom had trouble making their payments. Within six years, East Palo Alto—initially established with “Whites only” neighborhoods—became 82% African American. The FHA and Veterans Administration prevented re-integration by refusing to insure mortgages held by White buyers wanting to reside in East Palo Alto. This discrimination was further enforced by state-regulated insurance companies that declared as policy not to issue mortgages to Whites in integrated neighborhoods.

As a consequence, within six years, East Palo Alto’s population became 82% Black and African American. Exclusion from other Bay Area neighborhoods forced many Black and African American households to double-up in single family homes, creating conditions for neighborhood deterioration.

Throughout the county, neighborhood associations and city leaders attempted to thwart integration of communities. Although some neighborhood residents supported integration, most did not, and it was not unusual for neighborhood associations to require acceptance of all new buyers. Builders with intentions to develop for all types of buyers (regardless of race) found that their development sites were rezoned by planning councils, required very large minimum lot sizes, and\or were denied public infrastructure to support their developments or charged prohibitively high amounts for infrastructure.

The timeline of major federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appears on the following page.

As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s.

Courts struck down only the most discriminatory, and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act.

For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for people of color, including immigrants.

The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning ordinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over low income housing toward locally-tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 4
Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 5
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
The widening of the Highway 101 in the late 1950’s was another major contributing factor to today’s segregation and disparities, as it destroyed the City’s once-thriving business district, the Whiskey Gulch. In the same decade, Palo Alto and Menlo Park annexed land from East Palo Alto, decreasing the area and size of the City to 2.5 square miles.

Romic Environmental Technologies and its predecessor hazardous waste management facilities that operated in East Palo Alto since the 1950’s until 2007, contaminated the soil and ground water beneath. Today, several parts of the Ravenswood Business District/Four Corners Specific Plan, the new designated area for the city’s missing business district, lie on this contaminated land that requires further remediation to allow for mixed-use development.

The lack of political power and agency over County and regional agency decisions, in addition to other factors led to the City’s long fight for incorporation from the late 1950’s until the City’s incorporation in 1983. Following incorporation, the City struggled with its revenue sources as it had previously depended on San Mateo County resources. This disinvestment and other systematic issues such as poverty and the criminalization of Black communities created new challenges, including environmental, health and racial disparities.

East Palo Alto receives a meager 1.9 million gallons per day from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, allocated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), because the City was not incorporated when San Mateo County made the deal with SFPUC to divide the shares. This is the lowest per-capita amount on the Peninsula. In 2016, East Palo Alto adopted a water moratorium due to its city-wide water supply shortage, creating a de facto development moratorium. In 2017, the City went into an agreement with the City of Mountain View to pay $5 million for 1 million gallons of water per day that would help supply the northern part of the city. In 2018, East Palo Alto received a half-million gallons per day of water at no cost from Palo Alto to resume development, including the development of a 120-unit low-income affordable housing development at 965 Weeks Street, two commercial developments and a primary school.

The water moratorium was lifted in 2018, creating an influx of development proposals.

Today, the majority of the City’s multi-family affordable housing lies west of the Highway 101, while the majority of the single-family housing, unaffordable to younger generations, lies east of the highway. The City has the potential to allocate more affordable housing development on the eastside to balance the housing stock disparity created by the Highway 101.

The City of East Palo Alto is at a crossroads. Data show that East Palo Alto residents have higher rates of asthma, diabetes, and poor health outcomes than the County. Continued exposure to carbon emissions due to the city’s high-transit location, low access to affordable 2–3-bedroom housing for larger family sizes, lack of infrastructure and active transportation systems, lack of access to fresh foods, and ongoing home and rent increase

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 6
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
pressures from the tech industry, as well as other issues will continue to impact the City’s health outcomes if transformational steps are not taken.

Report content and organization. This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021 State of California State Guidance for AFFH. The study was conducted as part of the 21 Elements process, which facilitates the completion of Housing Elements for all San Mateo County jurisdictions.

Primary Findings, Contributing Factors, and Fair Housing Action Plan identifies the primary factors contributing to fair housing challenges and the plan for taking meaningful actions to improve access to housing and economic opportunity.

Section I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement actions/complaints against the jurisdiction; compliance with state fair housing laws and regulations; and jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.

Section II. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.

Section III. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.

Section IV. Disparate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk.

Appendices.
 Map and Data packet—includes data tables and maps that support this section  Resident survey results—findings from a survey of San Mateo County residents on their experience finding and remaining in housing
 Disparate Access to Educational Opportunities—findings from a countywide analysis of access to education and educational outcomes by protected class.  State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations—summary of key state laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice.

Primary findings. This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for East Palo Alto including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the city’s fair housing action plan.  9% (five complaints) of fair housing complaints filed in San Mateo County from 2017 to 2021 were in East Palo Alto—the city accounts for only 4% of the county’s

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 7
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
population. The issues cited were terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities (4 complaints), and refusal to rent (one complaint).  The majority of residents living in East Palo Alto are renters (60%). Female headed households are the most likely to be renters, with seven out of ten female-headed households renting. The area of the city bordering Menlo Park has a higher concentration of households made up of female-headed households with children.  Compared to the county, East Palo Alto has a relatively high share of households that include children (49% in the city v. 33% countywide).
 East Palo Alto is also home to larger share of Hispanic or Latinx and Black or African American residents compared to the county (Figure II-1). Although not presented separately under ABAG’s estimates, East Palo Alto also has a larger share of Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian population, accounting for 4.6% of the total population; in comparison, the county share is 1.3%. The share of the Black or African American population decreased significantly from 23% to 11% since 2000, while the Hispanic or Latinx population increased from 60% to 66% and the non-Hispanic White population increased from 7% to 10%.
 Most Racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population in East Palo Alto. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities, especially Hispanic and Black or African American residents, are more likely to be denied for a home mortgage loan.
 Racial and ethnic minorities have higher rates of poverty (Figure II-5) and lower household incomes (Figure II-4) compared to the non-Hispanic White population in East Palo Alto.
 Overcrowding in the city is significantly higher than the county (Figure IV-15).

Hispanic households have the highest share of overcrowded households, while Black or African American households have the lowest (Figure IV-17).  Countywide, people who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black or African American, White, and Hispanic or Latinx are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population (Figure IV-22).
 Hispanic or Latinx, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Black or African American households have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019 (Figure IV-33).
 Compared to the county, East Palo Alto residents are more likely to be living in poverty (Figure II-28).

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 8
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
 Geospatially, the area bordering Menlo Park and west of Highway 101 tends to be disproportionately impacted by high poverty, low education opportunity, low economic opportunity, low environmental scores, high social vulnerability scores, concentrations of cost burdened households, overcrowding, and low resource scores.

This area also has a concentration of renter households, and female headed households (Figure IV-13 and Figure II-22). These areas have:
 Education opportunity scores between 0 and 0.25—meaning they have the lowest education scores compared to the rest of the city (Figure III-1).  Low economic opportunity scores between zero and 0.25 (Figure III-7).  The composite opportunity score for East Palo Alto shows census tracts in this area of the city fall within low resource areas while the rest of the city is within moderate areas (Figure III-14).
 The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster. This area of the city is more vulnerable according to the SVI (Figure III-15).
 Concentration (60% to 80% of households) of cost burdened renter households (Figure IV-13). Overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened households (Figure IV-19).
 The entire city is considered vulnerable to displacement (Figure IV-28).  The share of the population living with at least one disability is 6% in East Palo Alto, a slightly lower incidence than in San Mateo County. Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability at 18% compared to 4% for residents without a disability in East Palo Alto—particularly when compared to the county (Figure III-20).
 East Palo Alto is served by the Ravenswood City Elementary School District (Ravenswood City Elementary); and the Sequoia Union Unified High School District (Sequoia Union). Eighty-three percent of students qualify for reduced lunch in Ravenswood City Elementary, and 30% of students are experiencing homelessness.

This is an outlier in the county, where overall just 2% are experiencing homelessness.

Ravenswood also has a much higher share of Hispanic students than San Mateo County (84% v. 38%).
 The city has relatively low education opportunity scores overall and disparities are present for minority students:
 Hispanic students at Ravenswood City Elementary are the least likely to have met or exceeded mathematics and English testing standards in the county.  At the high school level, Sequoia Union district has the highest dropout rate in the county (10%), and dropout rates among Pacific Islander (20%), Hispanic (16%), and Black (12%) students are much higher.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 9
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
 Almost 60% of all renter households in East Palo Alto are cost burdened— spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and close to one third are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs (Figure IV-9). Hispanic (58%) households experience the highest rates of cost burden, followed by Black or African American households (55%).

Resident needs collected through local survey. A survey administered to capture residents’ needs and to support the AFFH found the following housing challenges.

A total of 53 residents completed the survey:
 About 41% of respondents indicated they would like to move but can’t afford anything that is available.
 About 35% of respondents said their house or apartment is too small for their family.  About 20% of respondents said they are often late on rent payments and 16% indicated they can’t keep up with utilities.
 40% of respondents indicated their neighborhood does not have good sidewalks, walking areas, and/or lighting, and 25% indicated schools in their neighborhood are poor quality.
 32% of respondents said they have experienced displacement in the past five years, common reasons for displacement included:
 Rent increased more than I could pay; and
 Landlord wanted to rent to someone else.
 29% of respondents indicated they had been discriminated against when looking for housing.

Contributing factors and Fair Housing Action Plan. The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, the inability of the broader region to respond to housing demand, concentrations of low income populations within East Palo Alto, regional barriers to open housing choice, and, until recently, very limited resources to respond to needs. Specifically, Fair housing issue: Disproportionate housing needs are found in higher rates of cost burden for Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American households and overcrowding for Hispanic households.

Contributing factors:
 Higher poverty rates among East Palo Alto’s Black/African American and Hispanic residents stem from decades of discrimination in employment, education, and housing markets. These residents have faced greater challenges building wealth through economic mobility and homeownership because of employment and housing market discrimination.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 10
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
 East Palo Alto offers relatively more affordable housing opportunities than surrounding cities. As such, households needing affordable housing migrate to East Palo Alto for the city’s housing opportunities which leads to a concentration of affordable housing and low income households in the city.

The limited opportunity of residents to reside in surrounding areas leads to higher shares of poverty-level and low income households in East Palo Alto.  Low income residents seeking affordable housing are more likely than other types of households to work low wage jobs that do not support the city’s— and the region’s—housing prices, resulting in cost burden and overcrowding.
 Future employment opportunities by low income households and Black/African American and Hispanic households are further constrained by K-12 achievement gaps and being less likely to meet university admission standards.

Fair housing issue: The entire city of East Palo Alto is considered vulnerable to displacement.

Contributing factors:
 Concentration of low income households in East Palo Alto due to limited opportunity of residents to reside in surrounding areas leaves residents in East Palo Alto vulnerable to displacement.
 Lower income households are more likely to be renters and the majority of residents living in East Palo Alto are renters (60%). Furthermore, female headed households are the most likely to be renters, with seven out of ten female-headed households renting. The area of the city bordering Menlo Park has a higher concentration of households made up of female-headed households with children, a population that is particularly vulnerable to displacement.

Fair housing issue: In some neighborhoods, East Palo Alto residents lack sidewalks, good street lighting, and walkability. This limits recreational opportunities and affects safety.

Contributing factors:
 Historically low private sector investment.
 Inadequate public sector resources to respond to needs.

Fair housing issue: East Palo Alto residents face high rates of fair housing discrimination.

Contributing factors:
 Discrimination that disproportionately affects people of color.

Fair housing issue: East Palo Alto applicants for mortgage loans face high rates of denial; denials are highest for Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx applicants.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 11
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Contributing factors:
 Historic discrimination in employment and housing markets that has limited the ability of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx households to accumulate wealth and be competitive in the current housing market.  Despite the fact that discrimination in most housing transactions has been illegal since the 1960s, recent research2 shows that non-White and Hispanic/Latinx homeowners still face financial discrimination. This is because race-blind policies may still generate outcomes which are not raceneutral, as well as the under-valuation of land and property due to past discriminatory practices, like blockbusting.

Fair housing issue: East Palo Alto has a higher proportion of children than in the county, and these children are much more likely to attend lower performing schools than children in the county overall.

Contributing factors:
 The schools that serve East Palo Alto have high concentrations of poverty and children living in homelessness.
 Neighborhoods in the county with the highest performing schools have very high housing prices, pushing families into areas that are relatively affordable but which feed schools that have fewer resources to adequately address the complexities of child poverty and homelessness.

The Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) below details how the City of East Palo Alto proposes to respond to the factors contributing to the fair housing challenges identified in this analysis.
2 The Assessment Gap: Racial Inequalities in Property Taxation. https://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/the_assessment_gap_- _racial_inequalities_in_property_taxation.pdf

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 12
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and
Outreach Capacity
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity.

Fair housing legal cases and inquiries. California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to the FHA protected classes—race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income (including federal housing assistance vouchers).

The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”.3 DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD.

DFEH’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.4 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

Additionally, San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the county.

From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—9% of complaints were in East Palo Alto (five complaints). Countywide, most complaints cited disability status as the bias (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial status (14%). In East Palo Alto, 3 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/
4 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 13
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
the issues cited were terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities (4 complaints), and refusal to rent (one complaint).

Countywide, no cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints. Fair housing inquiries in 2020 were primarily submitted from the City of San Mateo, followed by Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park.

Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to 5, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached 6 by mid-2021.

Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%).

Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county.

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
 First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership.  Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment—1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.  Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies—reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.5
5 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 14
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Outreach and capacity. East Palo Alto City’s website provides easy to follow links to the rent stabilization program and housing programs, as well as the opportunity to share input on the Housing Element. The City could improve the accessibility of fair housing information on the website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. This could be improved by providing contact information for local fair housing organizations, legal assistance, and general information about the Fair Housing Act and discrimination. Language accessibility could be improved by providing some Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021 Number Percent
Disability 32 56%
Race 11 19%
Familial Status 8 14%
National Origin 3 5%
Religion 2 4%
Sex 1 2%
Total cases 57 100%
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021) 26 24
16 9
9 9
7 7
6 6
5 4
2 1
San Mateo
Redwood City
Daly City
Menlo Park
Belmont
Pacifica
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Burlingame
South San Francisco
San Bruno
San Carlos
Woodside
Half Moon Bay
9 6
8 5
2 3
5 0
5 4
4 2
0 1
HUD Fair Housing
Complaints
HCD Fair Housing
Inquiries

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 15
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
information in both English and Spanish, as well as placing the option to select a different language at the top of the website, rather than at the bottom.

Compliance with state law. East Palo Alto is compliant with the following state laws that promote fair and affordable housing. The city has not been alleged or found in violation of the following:
 Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocations;
 No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to accommodate unmet RHNA allocations;
 Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.1);
 Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.2);  Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5).

Housing specific policies enacted locally. East Palo Alto identified, according to the 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey and community input, the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the city.

Local policies and programs in place
to encourage affordable housing
development.
 Inclusionary in-lieu fee encouraging
on-site construction of affordable
housing
 Measure O gross receipts tax revenue
for general fund purposes, such as
funding programs to increase
affordable housing, protect local
residents from displacement and from
homelessness.
 Measure HH commercial office space
special parcel tax for the creation of
new affordable or supportive housing
and for access to job opportunities
 CalHOME program for creation of
affordable ADU units and ADU
streamlining
Local barriers to affordable housing
development.
 High parking requirements
 Lengthy processing times and
requirements to develop multi-family
properties
 Development impact fees
 Missing ADU legalization program to
complement ADU streamlining
 Low staffing capacity in the Building,
Code Enforcement, Planning, and
Housing departments
 Infrastructure needs in sanitary sewer
services

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 16
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Local policies and programs that are
NOT in place but would provide the
best outcomes in addressing housing
shortages.
 Homebuyer assistance programs
 Tenant Opportunity to Purchase
Act/Community Opportunity to
Purchase Act
 Mortgage and rental assistance
(beyond pandemic)
Local policies that are NOT in place,
but have potential Council interest for
further exploration.
 Anti-Displacement Plan
 Rental registry
 Homebuyer assistance program
 Foreclosure assistance
 Living wage employment ordinances
 Housing counseling
 Acquisition of unsubsidized properties
with affordable rents
 Engaging the school district to address
performance gaps
 Construction of 2-3 bedroom
affordable housing units for larger
families
 Seeking funding from private sector to
improve infrastructure needs
 Exploring establishment of
cooperatives/community ownership of
housing
 Standardized review metrics and
objective design standards to increase
development process predictability
and streamline permitting process
Local policies and programs in place
to mitigate or prevent displacement
of low income households.
 Rent stabilization/rent control
 Rent review board and/or mediation
 Mobile home rent
stabilization/relocation and
displacement prevention
 Condominium conversion regulations
 Affordable housing impact/linkage fee
on new commercial development
 Inclusionary zoning
 Community land trusts
 First source hiring ordinances
 Just cause eviction
 Tenant relocation requirements
 Fair housing legal services
 Local preference
 Rental assistance and tenant
education and empowerment (e.g.
security deposit/1st and last month’s
rent assistance)
 Fund home sharing program (HIP
Housing)

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 17
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), East Palo Alto does not have any public housing buildings.

However, the city does have a moderate (5% to 15%) share of households using housing vouchers.

Compared to nearby Menlo Park and Palo Alto, East Palo Alto appears accommodating to renters with housing vouchers because the city has a greater share of voucher holders compared to the surrounding communities. The presence of housing voucher users indicates available rental supply to house these residents and a reduced exclusionary behavior from landlords in the city.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 18
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
SECTION II. Integration and Segregation
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

Integration and Segregation
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.

Race and ethnicity. The population distribution by race and ethnicity in East Palo Alto is more diverse compared to the county. East Palo Alto shows the largest portion of the population being Hispanic or Latinx (66% v. 24% in the county), followed by Black or African American (11% v. 2% in the county).6 The Asian and non-Hispanic White population make up 10% of the population each. Although not presented separately under ABAG’s estimates, East Palo Alto also has a larger share of Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian population, accounting for 4.6% of the total population; in comparison, the county share is

1.3%. The share of the Black or African American population decreased significantly from 23% to 11% since 2000, while the Hispanic or Latinx population increased from 60% to 66% and the non-Hispanic White increased from 7% to 10%. The share of the Asian population has remained stable.

The share of the population age 65 and over that is Black or African American is 30% compared to only 6% of the population under age 17.
6 The share of the population that identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native is less than 1%.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 19
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty and lower household incomes compared to the non-Hispanic White population in East Palo Alto.

Geospatially, East Palo Alto has no non-Hispanic White majority census tracts7 and a couple of Hispanic or Latinx-majority census tracts.8
Dissimilarity and isolation indices. The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community. The DI is an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the county overall.

DI values range from 0 to 100—where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation. Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

The isolation index is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident shares an area with a member of the same minority, it ranges from 0 to 100 and higher values of isolation tend to indicate higher levels of segregation.

ABAG and UC Merced completed an analysis of segregation in East Palo Alto. Several indices were used to assess segregation in the city and determine how East Palo Alto differs from patterns of segregation and integration in the region overall. That analysis found:
 The isolation index is highest for Hispanic/Latinx residents and much higher than for any other racial group. Hispanic/Latinx residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups.  Overall, however, as measured by the dissimilarity index, segregation is very low in East Palo Alto. Segregation is lower in East Palo Alto than the Bay area overall for all racial groups. The Black/African American population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.
 Very Low-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in East Palo Alto. Very Low-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups. Among all income 7 Majority census tracts show the predominant racial or ethnic group by tract compared to the next most populous. 8 Redlining maps, otherwise known as Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps, are not available for San Mateo County.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 20
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
groups, the Very Low-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
 Segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has decreased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in East Palo Alto between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

Disability status. The share of the population living with at least one disability is 6% in East Palo Alto, slightly lower than in San Mateo County’s 8%. There are no census tracts in the city with a share of the population living with a disability that reach 10%.

Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicates the area has ample access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this population.

Familial status. East Palo Alto is home to more large households (5-person or more) than the county with 27% of households compared to only 11% in the county. Additionally, there are fewer married couple households in the city and more female-headed family households compared to the county (21% v. 10% in the county). Female-headed households tend to have higher poverty rates, be younger and more diverse than the overall population.

East Palo alto also has a higher share of households with children compared to the county (49% v. 33%). The area of the city bordering Menlo Park has a higher concentration of single female with children households.

The majority of residents living in East Palo Alto are renters (60%). Female headed households are the most likely to be renters, with seven out of ten female-headed households renting.

Household income. The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in East Palo Alto is more concentrated at lower incomes than the county. In East Palo Alto 50% of households have incomes below 50% AMI compared to 24% in the county.

There are several census block groups in the city that have median incomes below the 2020 state median income of $87,100. In addition, census block groups with median incomes below $55,000 are located in the central part of the city and west of Highway 101.

Compared to the county, East Palo Alto has higher poverty rates between 10% and 20% but the city has no concentrations of census tracts with poverty rates between 20% and 30%.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 21
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly non-Hispanic White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for Segregation and Integration
Population by Protected Class
East Palo Alto City San Mateo County
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH 0% 0%
Asian / API, NH 10% 30%
Black or African American, NH 11% 2%
White, Non-Hispanic (NH) 10% 39%
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH 3% 4%
Hispanic or Latinx 66% 24%
Disability Status
With a disability 6% 8%
Without a disability 94% 92%
Familial Status
Female-Headed Family Households 21% 10%
Male-headed Family Households 7% 5%
Married-couple Family Households 48% 55%
Other Non-Family Households 8% 8%
Single-person Households 17% 22%
Household Income
0%-30% of AMI 25% 13%
31%-50% of AMI 25% 11%
51%-80% of AMI 22% 16%
81%-100% of AMI 10% 10%
Greater than 100% of AMI 17% 49%
0%
10%
11%
10%
3%
66%
0%
30%
2%
39%
4%
24%
6%
94%
8%
92%
21%
7%
48%
8%
17%
10%
5%
55%
8%
22%
25%
25%
22%
10%
17%
13%
11%
16%
10%
49%

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 22
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.9 It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

R/ECAPs
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:
 A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority people of color) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR
 A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majoritypeople of color) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County, whichever is lower.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.

For this study, the poverty threshold used was three times the average tract poverty rate for the County—or 19.1%. In addition to R/ECAPs that meet the HUD threshold, this study includes edge or emerging R/ECAPs which hit two thirds of the HUD defined threshold for poverty; emerging R/ECAPs in San Mateo County have 2 times the average tract poverty rate for the county (12.8%).

In 2010 there were three census tracts that qualified as R/ECAPs (19.4% poverty rate) in the county and 11 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (13% poverty rate). One of the R/ECAPs was located in East Palo Alto in 2010, and 2 edge R/ECAPs were located in East Palo Alto covering the entire area of the city east of Highway 101.

In 2019 there were two census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the county and 14 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate). Three of the 2019 edge R/ECAPs are located in East Palo Alto—which means they are majority people of color and have a poverty rate two times higher than the countywide census tract average, and none of the census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs are located in East Palo Alto. The 9 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 23
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
area that used to be an R/ECAP is located west of Menlo Park Business Park area but east of Highway 101. The poverty rate in this area decreased from 26% in 2010 to 11% in 2019.

While the overall share of residents who are people of color remained stable, the share of Black/African American residents decreased and the shares of Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latinx residents increased.

RCAAs. HCD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence is:
 A census tract that has a percentage of total non-Hispanic White population that is

1.25 times higher than the average percentage of total non-Hispanic White population in the given county, and a median income that was 2 times higher than the countywide AMI.

RCAAs are generally understood to be neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households and high household income. There are no RCAAs in East Palo Alto.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 24
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
SECTION III. Access to Opportunity
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.

Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in collaboration with HCD developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents. These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for low income residents—particularly children.

The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

Education. TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, all areas in East Palo Alto score below 0.50—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes. Census tracts bordering Menlo Park and east of Highway 101 score below 0.25.

East Palo Alto is served by the Ravenswood City Elementary School District; and the Sequoia Union Unified High School District.

Enrollment in Ravenswood City Elementary decreased 30%. This represents a much larger decrease than the 1% decrease experienced in the county.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 25
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Enrollment in Sequoia Union increased by 18% from 2010 to 2020.

Ravenswood City Elementary has a much higher share of Hispanic students than San Mateo County (84% v. 38%). The enrollment composition in Sequoia Union is similar to the countywide distribution.

Overall, 29% of public school students in San Mateo County qualify for reduced lunch. This was substantially higher in Ravenswood City Elementary School District, where 83% of students qualify for reduced lunch. In Ravenswood City Elementary, 30% of students are experiencing homelessness. This is an outlier in the county, where overall just 2% are experiencing homelessness.

County-wide, 20% of public school students are English learners. Again, this rate is highest at Ravenswood City Elementary, where 53% of students are English learners.

In addition to the high concentration, Hispanic students at Ravenswood City Elementary are the least likely to have met or exceeded mathematics and English testing standards in the county.

Countywide 27% of Hispanic students met or exceeded mathematics testing standards and 40% met or exceeded English testing standards. These almost double the 15% and 21% in Ravenswood City Elementary.

Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Of the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 69% followed by San Mateo Union High with 68%. Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the Sequoia Union district were less likely to meet the admission standards with rates of 38%, 55%, and 50% respectively.

Despite the high share of students meeting college admission standards, Sequoia Union district has the second to lowest college going rate, at 70%. The highest rate was 77% in San Mateo Union High.

In addition, Sequoia Union district has the highest drop out rate in the County (10%), and drop out rates among Pacific Islander (20%), Hispanic (16%), and Black (12%) students are much higher.

Employment. The top industry by number of jobs in East Palo Alto is the health and educational services, followed by retail, and arts, recreation, and other services. The top industries by workers living in East Palo Alto are the health and educational services, professional and managerial services, and arts, recreation, and other services.

East Palo Alto has a lower job to household ratio when compared to the county at 0.57 and

1.59 respectively. This makes the city an exporter of workers to other communities.

The city also has a higher unemployment rate than the county and the Bay Area, at 8.6% compared to 5.9% in the county and 6.6% in the Bay Area.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 26
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. East Palo Alto scores are below 0.50 and areas with the lowest economic opportunity scores—below 0.25— are concentrated in the part of the city that borders Menlo Park and are east of Highway 101.

HUD’s job proximity index shows these areas are in relatively close proximity to jobs. On a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs the majority of the city scores above 60.

Transportation. This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves East Palo Alto and the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access in the city. The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.

In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in San Mateo and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to East Palo Alto and San Mateo County.
“San Mateo’s PCC and County Health System, as well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked cars blocking sidewalk rightof-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate motorized scooters and wheelchairs. Transportation information, emerging mobility providers, and transit fares were other common themes.

While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”
10 Transit improvements recommended for East Palo Alto include:
10 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 27
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
 “East Palo Alto individuals do not have direct, fixed-route service to San Mateo Medical Center. A transfer and drop off is located at El Camino Real and 37th Avenue, but patients are still required to walk the remaining distance up a hill to the SM Medical Center (County Hospital). The cost of this trip and transfers is a great hardship for low income individuals. Craig added that getting to this medical facility is a hardship for many people because of the distance to the stop and the terrain.” A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco bay, served by MTC.”11
As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.” The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.12 MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18 month pilot project— in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.13
Environment. TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites. 11 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
12 https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_Disabilit ies.html
13 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 28
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
East Palo Alto has worse scores than neighboring communities. The city also scores lower on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC).

The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.14 The area east of Highway 101 close to Menlo Park scores the lowest on the HPI.

Disparities in access to opportunity. Data show that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in low resource areas compared to non-Hispanic White residents. Two thirds (64%) of the population living in low resource areas are Hispanic.

TCAC’s composite opportunity score for East Palo Alto shows census tracts in the west of Highway 101 and Tracts closer to Menlo Park fall within low resource areas while the rest of the city is within moderate resource areas.

The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the CDC—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. The area east of Highway 101 and close to Menlo Park is most vulnerable according to the SVI.

Most of the area east of Highway 101 in East Palo Alto qualifies as a disadvantaged community as defined under SB 535, “disadvantaged communities are defined as the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”15
Disparities specific to the population living with a disability. Six percent of the population in East Palo Alto are living with at least one disability, a lower share than the county. The most common disabilities in East Palo Alto are ambulatory (4%), cognitive (2.6%), and independent living (2.5%).

Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36. 14 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/
15 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 29
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
For the population 65 and over the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases. As mentioned above under access to transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging, therefore this population with a disability is likely to increase.

Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability at 18% compared to 4% for residents without a disability. High unemployment rates among this population points to a need for increased services and resources to connect this population with employment opportunities.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 30
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
East Palo Alto San Mateo County
Jobs to Household Ratio 0.57 1.59
Unemployment Rate 9% 6%
LEP Population 14% 7%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in East Palo Alto Employment by Disability Status
96%
82%
4%
18%
No Disability
With A Disability
East Palo Alto
97%
96%
3%
4%
No Disability
With A Disability
Employed Unemployed
San Mateo County
10% 11% 11% 3% 64% Low Resource or High Segregation
and Poverty Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx
Low Resource or High
Segregation and Poverty Area

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 31
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
SECTION IV. Disparate Housing Needs
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.

Housing needs. Population growth in East Palo Alto accelerated during the 2000’s and experienced a sharp decrease after the Great Recession in the mid-2000s. Between 2009 and 2010 the city lost around 5,000 residents (15%). Since then, population trends have followed countywide trends more closely.

Since 2015, the housing permitted to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate and low income households with 35 and 34 permits issued respectively.

During the same period 20 permits were issued for very low income households and 6 for above moderate income households. The majority of the housing inventory in East Palo Alto was constructed between 1940 to 1980. The Housing Needs Data Report for East Palo Alto indicates new construction has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.” 16
The variety of housing types available in the city in 2020 are predominately single family (54%) and medium to large scale multifamily (37%). From 2010 to 2020, the multifamily inventory increased less than single family, and the city has a lower share of multifamily housing compared to other communities in the region. 17 16 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 17 Housing Needs Data Report: San Mateo, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 32
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Compared to San Mateo County, East Palo Alto’s owner occupied housing market has a greater share of units priced below $1 million—77% of units in the city fall within this price range compared to 44% in the county. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices experienced remarkable growth in the city but have slowed since 2018. East Palo Alto home values remain more affordable than home values in the County and the Bay Area.

Compared to the county, East Palo Alto has more affordable rental units—42% of units rent for less than $1,500 in the city compared to 19% in the county.

Cost burden and severe cost burden. Fifty eight percent of all renter households in East Palo Alto are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and close to one third are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs. Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare. Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness.

The rates of cost burden in East Palo Alto are higher than the county overall. Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. Over two thirds of households earning less than 30% AMI—considered extremely low income households—are severely cost burdened.

There are disparities in housing cost burden in East Palo Alto by race and ethnicity.

Hispanic (58%) and other or multi racial (58%) households experience the highest rates of cost burden in the city, followed by Black or African American (55%) households. NonHispanic White (45%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (47%) households experience the lowest cost burden.

Overcrowding. The rates of overcrowding— indicated by more than one occupant per room —are significantly higher than the county (26% v. 8% in the county). Renter households are significantly more likely to be overcrowded with 35.8% of households with more than one occupant per room compared to 11.1% of owner households.

Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to experience overcrowding. Hispanic households (44%), and other or multiple race households (36%), experience the highest rates of overcrowding. Low and moderate income households are also more likely to be overcrowded.

Geographically, overcrowded households are concentrated in the same areas as cost burdened renter households, to the west of Highway 101 and closer to Menlo Park.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 33
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Substandard housing. Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys.

In East Palo Alto, renter households are also more likely to have substandard kitchen and plumbing facilities compared to owner households. Generally, a low share of households are lacking kitchen or plumbing. For renters, 2% are lacking kitchen facilities while 1.6% are lacking plumbing. For owners, 1.5% are lacking kitchen facilities or plumbing facilities.

Homelessness. In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county (107 people in East Palo Alto), 40% of people were in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children.

People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native (6% homeless, less than 1% general population), Black (13%, 2%), White (67%, 51%), and Hispanic (38%, 28%) are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population. People struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental illness (305), and domestic violence (127) represent a substantial share of the homeless population in 2019.

Displacement. Owner households generally enjoy a greater amount of housing stability whereas renter households are more mobile. In East Palo Alto all of the 466 income assisted rental units are at low risk for displacement. In San Mateo County, 417 units are at risk—8% of the total assisted housing units in the county.

Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
 They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
 Share of very low income residents is above 20%, 2017  AND
 The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 34
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
− Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
− They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
• Percent change in rent above county median for rent
increases, 2012-2017
OR
 Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.

According to the Urban Displacement Project, the entire East Palo Alto area is vulnerable to displacement. An estimated 1,818 owner and 3,158 renter households are susceptible to or experiencing displacement. The highest concentration of renter households (over 80%) is found west of Highway 101.

Access to mortgage loans. Disparities by race and ethnicity are also prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. Hispanic (41% denial rate), and Black or African American (43%) have the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019. Conversely, Asian (22%), and non-Hispanic White households (18%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time.

Zoning and land use.
[Placeholder to discuss local opposition to affordable housing, problematic language in CC&Rs, and zoning practices in neighborhoods where relevant.]

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 35
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, East Palo Alto, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, East Palo Alto, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Substandard Housing, East Palo Alto, 2019
Incomplete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure
Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 6% 0%
Asian / API 6% 30%
Black or African American 13% 2%
White 67% 51%
Other Race or Multiple Races 8% 17%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement East Palo Alto City San Mateo County Number of Units 0 417
% of Assisted Units 0% 8%
18%
25%
52%
71%
93%
14%
50%
41%
22%
7%
68%
25%
7%
7%
0%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

0.0%

1.5%

2.0%

1.6%
Kitchen
Plumbing
Owner Renter

18.3%

17.5%

7.9%

3.2%

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room
More than 1.5 Occupants per Room
Owner Renter Series3

1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) EAST PALO ALTO JURISDICTIONAL SUMMARY, PAGE 36
Ea st P a lo Alt o Fa ir Ho u sin g Asse ssm e n t
Placeholder for Site Inventory Analysis
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing.

Once sites are identified, the analysis will be placed here and will consist of:
 Map of identified sites by lower income, moderate income, and above moderate income units;
 Identification of sites within or proximity to R/ECAPs and edge R/ECAPs and/or low income/poverty concentrations; Proportion of low and very low income units located in that area, as well as concentrations of Housing Choice Vouchers, How the distribution of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units—and the share located in low, moderate, and high resourced areas—will change with proposed site inventory development; Proximity to:
 High proficiency K-12 education institutions;
 High-resourced areas/positive economic outcome areas;  Low social vulnerability;
 Good jobs proximity;
 Access to transportation;
 Healthy places; and
 Flood hazards.

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 1
SECTION I. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Capacity
Figure I-1.

Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, San Mateo County Source: Organization Websites
Name
Project
Sentinel Northern California
1490 El Camino
Real, Santa Clara,
CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Legal Aid
Society of San
Mateo County
San Mateo County
330 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 123,
Redwood City, CA
94065
(650) 558-0915 https://www.legalaidsmc.org/h
ousing-resources
Community
Legal Services
of East Palo
Alto
East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park,
Burlingame,
Mountain View,
Redwood City, and
San Francisco
1861 Bay Road,
East Palo Alto, CA
94303
(650)-326-6440 https://clsepa.org/services/#ho
using
Service Area Address Phone Website

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 2
Figure I-2.

Fair Housing
Complaints
Filed with HUD
by Basis, San
Mateo County,
2017-2021
Source:

HUD.

Figure I-3.

HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021)
Source: Organization Websites.

Disability 8 9 3 9 3 32 56%
Race 3 5 2 1 11 19%
Familial Status 4 3 1 8 14%
National Origin 2 1 3 5%
Religion 1 1 2 4%
Sex 1 1 2%
Total cases 17 18 5 11 6 57 100%
2017-2021 Total
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cases % of Total

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 3
Figure I-4.

FHEO Inquiries by City to HUD, San Mateo County, 2013-2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

9.4.c
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Draft Fair Housing Assessment (2350 : Housing Element Update) MAP AND DATA PACKET, PAGE 4
Figure I-5.

HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Jurisdiction
Atherton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belmont 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 9
Brisbane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burlingame 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 6
Colma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daly City 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 17
East Palo Alto 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
Foster City 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Half Moon Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 11
Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacifica 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 9
Portola Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood City 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 24
San Bruno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
San Carlos 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
San Mateo 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 27
South San Francisco 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
Woodside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Disability Race Total
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex Color

East Palo Alto City CouncilJuly 19, 2022

East Palo Alto City Council
July 19, 2022