Agenda packet — East Palo Alto City Council, February 24, 2026

EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, February 24, 2026, 6:00 PM
EPA Government Center
2415 University Avenue, First Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
NOTICE
This meeting will be held virtually and in-person at the Council Chambers located on 2415 University Ave, First Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303. The virtual portion of this City Council meeting will be conducted in accordance with City of East Palo Alto Resolution adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

The public may participate in the City Council Meeting via Zoom Meeting or by attending inperson in the Council Chambers at 2415 University Ave, First Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303.

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

Please click this URL to join
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85788573016
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: 857 8857 3016
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aMWYF4KT East Palo Alto City Council February 24, 2026 Agenda
1 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 FY 2025-26 Second Quarter Treasury Report

3.2 Appointments to BAWSCA Board and Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority (RFA)

3.3 City Council Meeting Minutes

4. CLOSED SESSION

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

6. ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO THE JOINT SUCCESSOR

AGENCY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING

7. JOINT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD POLICY AND ACTION

7.1 Approval of Defeasance of Series 2015A Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds and Authorization to Implement Actions Necessary for Dissolution of the Successor Agency
Recommendation:

Accept and file the Cash Treasury Report for the month of December 2025.

Recommendation:

By motion, appoint Mayor Webster Lincoln as the City of East Palo Alto representative to the Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority (RFA) for a four-year term beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2029, remove Ruben Abrica as alternate as the enabling act does not authorize alternate members, and reflect that the terms for both the City’s BAWSCA Board and RFA positions expire June 30, 2029.

Recommendation:

Adopt the February 3, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes.

Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution:

East Palo Alto City Council February 24, 2026 Agenda
2 8. ADJOURN JOINT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING TO THE

EAST PALO ALTO REGULAR MEETING

9. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

9.1 Discuss Ordering the Submission of a Measure on Term Limits for a Future Municipal Election

10. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

11.1 Residential Permit Parking Program Ordinance (RPP) First Reading

1. Approving the early cash defeasance of the Series 2015A Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, to be completed in two phases in June 2026 and January 2027, using available residual Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues;

2. Acknowledging and approving a temporary reduction in General Fund revenues in the FY 2025-26 Budget, estimated at $1.7 million, resulting from the use of residual RPTTF revenues to complete Phase 1 of the defeasance, subject to final RPTTF availability and required approvals;

3. Authorizing the City Manager, Finance Director, and/or their designees to execute and submit amended Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules (ROPS) and all other documents, and to take all actions necessary or convenient to implement the defeasance and pursue dissolution of the Successor Agency, consistent with Health and Safety Code section 34187; and

Recommendation: Receive an informational report from staff updating the Council regarding term limits and the submission of a potential ballot measure for a future municipal election, and receive Council direction concerning the same.

Recommendation:

By motion, the City Council should:

1. Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance adding a new Chapter

10.40 (Residential Permit Parking Program) to the East Palo Alto East Palo Alto City Council February 24, 2026 Agenda
3 12. POLICY AND ACTION

12.1 Introduction of Chapter 5.76 – Sidewalk Vendors Ordinance

12.2 Trilateral Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo and EPACANDO to Facilitate Affordable Housing Development and Expansion of Martin Luther King Jr. Park
Municipal Code (or any other substantive amendments proposed by staff or the Council to the original ordinance);

2. Find that the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301 (minor alterations) and 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption); and

3. Direct staff to return to City Council with proposed RPP program details which include permit costs, citation fees, recommended residential Permit Parking Areas, and maximum number of permits per household per area.

Recommendation:

By motion:

1. Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance adding a new Chapter

5.76, Sidewalk Vendors, to update and clarify regulations governing sidewalk vending in the City of East Palo Alto, repeal the prior Chapter

5.76, Vending, make various other conforming amendments to the East Palo Alto Municipal Code as noted in the ordinance, and any amendments proposed by Council; and

2. Direct staff to return with a fee resolution setting the costs associated with the sidewalk vending pilot program; and

3. Find that the proposed action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it is not a “project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), or alternatively, it is exempt pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities); 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) (e) for minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effect on the environment; 15305 (Class 5 –Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations), or 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection).

Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution:

East Palo Alto City Council February 24, 2026 Agenda
4 13. COUNCIL REPORTS

13.1 Call for Review by the City Council of a Decision by the Planning Commission to Not Approve Two Separate Applications to Develop 1675 Bay Road (Townhome and Mixed Use)

14. ADJOURNMENT

1. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute a trilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and any documents required with the County of San Mateo and East Palo Alto Community Alliance and Neighborhood Development Organization (EPACANDO), in forms approved by the City Attorney, to facilitate the potential exchange of real property, interim site control, and future development of a 100% affordable housing project and expansion of Martin Luther King Jr. Park.

2. Finding that the proposed action is exempt from the City’s Purchasing Ordinance pursuant to East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section

2.84.060(10) (contracts with other governmental entities); and

3. Finding that the proposed action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 25, Section 15325 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15325).

Recommendation:

Hold a vote of the City Council to review the Planning Commission’s decisions to:

1. Not adopt a resolution approving the Design Review, Tentative Map, and Tree Removal Permit for the University and Bay at 4 Corners Townhomes Residential Project (Design Review Permit: DR25-004); and finding that the University and Bay at 4 Corners Townhomes Residential Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66; and

2. Not adopt a resolution approving the Design Review, Tentative Map, and Tree Removal Permit for the University and Bay at 4 Corners – MixedUse Project (Design Review Permit: DR25-007); and finding that the University and Bay at 4 Corners – Mixed-Use Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 Upcoming meetings:

March 3, 2026 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM
March 17, 2026 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM
March 24, 2026 Study Session 6:00 PM
East Palo Alto City Council February 24, 2026 Agenda
5 This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) This Notice of Availability of Public Records: All public records relating to an open session item which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, that are distributed to the majority of the City Council will be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the City Council. Such documents may also be available on the East Palo Alto website www.cityofepa.org subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. Information may be obtained by calling (650) 853-3100.

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

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

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

POSTED: February 13, 2026
ATTEST:

James Colin
City Clerk
East Palo Alto City Council February 24, 2026 Agenda
6 CONSENT ITEM 3.1

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 24, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
Jessica Y Caballero, Financial Services Manager
Esther Aguirre, Senior Accountant
SUBJECT: FY 2025-26 Second Quarter Treasury Report
Recommendation
Accept and file the Cash Treasury Report for the month of December 2025.

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

Priority: Governance, Organizational Strength, and Fiscal Sustainability Background
Pursuant to Section 53646 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Treasurer may submit a quarterly report to the City Council regarding the funds and investments of the City. Finance staff provides quarterly reporting to the City Council indicating the summary of investments for the period and denoting the ability of the City to meet its expenditure requirements for the next three months.

Analysis
This report covers primary cash and investments of the City. For investment purposes, City cash is pooled, except for bond proceeds, which are held in trust by a trustee. The City does not have, nor is it legally required to have, separate bank accounts for each individual fund. 7 CONSENT ITEM 3.1
However, all cash is segregated in the City’s accounting records.

As of December 31, 2025, the total deposit value of cash and investments equals $160,898,838, including outstanding checks and other minor adjustments of $929,156. Compared to the prior quarter ending September 2025, the FY 2025-26 second quarter (Q2) ending December 31, 2025, reflects an increase in total book value of approximately $17.9M. The overall increase is primarily attributable to several significant receipts during the quarter, including:
 Current Secured Tax (10.4M)
 AB26 Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) ($3.0M)  Other Tax Distributions ($1.6M)
 Transient Occupancy Tax ($0.8M)
 Veolia Water ($0.5M)
 HDL Trust ($0.4M)
 Highway Users Tax and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account ($0.4M)  SB813 Supplemental Secured Tax ($0.1M)
The following table shows a breakdown of cash and investment balance by fund type.

The deposit market value totals $161,371,485 including an unrealized gain of $472,647 reflecting treasury yields during the calendar year. All except for General Fund balance is restricted by either City Council or external parties for specific purposes. Unrestricted cash and investment balance under General Fund ($48,402,488) including the contingency reserve may be used at Council discretion.

Summary December 31, 2025
Average
Maturity
(YRS)
Average
Earnings
(QTR)
Deposit Value Market Value
Petty Cash n/a n/a $ 10,800 $ 10,800
Bank Checking n/a n/a $ 3,918,044 $ 3,918,044
Local Agency Investment Fund 0.67 4.09% $ 19,682,581 $ 19,725,518 San Mateo County Pool Investment 2.54 3.96% $ 35,193,303 $ 35,623,014 CA Asset Management Program 0.13 4.10% $ 102,094,110 $ 102,094,110 $ 160,898,838 $ 161,371,485
Deposit Value Market Value
General Fund (Inc. Petty cash of $10,800) $ 48,402,488 $ 48,402,488 General Sub-Funds (Commited/Restricted) $ 18,093,988 $ 18,093,988 City Funds Restricted and Committed $ 93,941,199 $ 93,941,199 Successor Agency Trust $ 461,163 $ 461,163
Unrealized Gain/(Loss) on Investment Pools $ - $ 472,647 $ 160,898,838 $ 161,371,485
Summary December 31, 2025
8 CONSENT ITEM 3.1
The table below reflects changes in rates since December 31, 2024, and compared to the previous month of November 2025, demonstrates a decrease in Long-term and Short-Term Treasury yields since December 31, 2025
1 :

The City’s portfolio is invested in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the San Mateo County Treasurer’s Pool, and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). LAIF is a highly liquid investment pool operated by the State Treasurer, and the City has same-day access to the funds. The County Treasurer’s Pool is less liquid, and the maturity and diversification of the underlying securities which in normally functioning markets is generally expected to result in higher yield. The CAMP Pool is a highly liquid investment pool directed by a Board of Trustees that provides same-day liquidity, competitive yields, and interest paid monthly. City staff does not control or direct the underlying investment of funds and each pool is managed by the respective agency’s investment staff and oversight committee or board. From October to December, LAIF yields decreased from 4.24% at quarter-end (QE) September 2025 to 4.09% at quarter-end (QE) December 2025 and San Mateo County Pool average gross pool earnings increased from 3.95% for QE September 2025 to 3.96% for QE December 2025. San Mateo County Pool earnings are quoted on gross earnings. LAIF fair value factor increased from

1.0019 in the previous quarter to 1.0022. The County Pool factor decreased from 1.0132 for QE September 2025 to 1.0122 for QE December 2025. As of December 2025, CAMP has an annualized yield of 3.95%, representing a decrease of 0.41% from the 4.36% yield reported in September 2025.

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

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact for this item. This report is informational.

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

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

1 Daily US Treasury Yield Curve. Treasury.gov
Dec-25 Nov-25 Dec-24
6-Month Treasury Bill 3.50 3.66 4.13
2-Year Treasury Note 3.47 3.47 4.25
5-Year Treasury Note 3.73 3.59 4.38
9 CONSENT ITEM 3.1
The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Treasury Report QE December 2025
10 Average
Interest
Earnings

DEPOSIT AND
BOOK VALUE % MARKET
VALUE
Days Years For QTR

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

2. On Demand Deposits (Wells Fargo checking) na na 0.000% 3,918,044 2.4% 3,918,044

3. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 244 0.67 4.090% 19,682,581 12.2% 19,725,518

4. San Mateo County Pool Investment 927 2.54 3.960% 35,193,303 22.1% 35,623,014

5. CA Asset Management Program 47 0.13 4.103% 102,094,110 63.3% 102,094,110

3.970% 160,898,838 100.0% 161,371,485
General Fund (including petty cash of $10,800) 47,473,332 47,473,332 General Sub - Funds (Committed/Reserved) 18,093,988 18,093,988 City Funds Restricted and Committed 93,941,199 93,941,199 Successor Agency Trust 461,163 461,163
Unrealized Gain/(Loss) on Investment Pools - 472,647
159,969,682 160,442,329
Checks Outstanding/Other AJE 929,156 929,156
929,156 929,156
160,898,838 161,371,485
CERTIFICATION:

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

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

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

CITY AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF EAST PALO ALTO

SUMMARY OF INVESTMENTS
For Quarter Ended December 31, 2025
Category
Average Maturity
Cash and Investments
Total Cash and Investments on Deposit
Total Book Balance
Bank to Book Adjustments
Total Book Adjustment
Docusign Envelope ID: 50086A0F-647E-45F0-9179-1B1FCB0C62F4 2/2/2026
13711
CONSENT ITEM 3.2

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 24, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Appointments to BAWSCA Board and Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority (RFA)
Recommendation
By motion, appoint Mayor Webster Lincoln as the City of East Palo Alto representative to the Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority (RFA) for a four-year term beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2029, remove Ruben Abrica as alternate as the enabling act does not authorize alternate members, and reflect that the terms for both the City’s BAWSCA Board and RFA positions expire June 30, 2029.

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

Priority: Ensure Our Financial and Organizational Health Background
The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) represents cities, water districts, and private utilities in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties that purchase wholesale water from the San Francisco regional water system (Hetch Hetchy system).

BAWSCA is governed by a 26-member Board of Directors and coordinates regional water conservation and supply programs, participates in San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) rate matters, finances regional system improvements, and may acquire water and construct facilities to carry out its purposes.

The Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority (RFA), created by the California Legislature in 2002, provides financing for improvements to the same regional water system. 12 CONSENT ITEM 3.2
The RFA is governed by a 26-member Board plus a San Francisco representative and is authorized to issue revenue bonds, provide financing proceeds to San Francisco under specified conditions, and obtain state and federal financial assistance.

State enabling legislation requires the City’s representatives to BAWSCA and the RFA to be appointed by action of the City Council at a public meeting. The appointee must be a resident and registered voter in East Palo Alto but is not required to be a member of the City Council.

The City may appoint the same individual to both boards to maintain continuity; however, the enabling legislation does not provide for alternate members.

Director Antonio Lopez resigned from his appointment in February 2025, and Mayor Webster Lincoln was appointed to complete the remainder of that term, which expired June 30, 2025.

Mayor Lincoln continued as the BAWSCA member; however, the City Council is now required to formally appoint a representative to the RFA for the full four-year term beginning July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2029. The City’s BAWSCA Board term runs concurrently and also expires June 30, 2029.

Analysis
The City Council previously identified Mayor Webster Lincoln as the City’s representative to the BAWSCA Board of Directors, recognizing the benefit of continuity in regional water policy and financing matters. Because the RFA oversees long-term capital financing and infrastructure obligations affecting East Palo Alto, appointing Mayor Webster Lincoln as the City’s RFA representative will provide consistent representation across these related agencies.

The current listing incorrectly identifies Ruben Abrica as an alternate; however, the enabling legislation does not authorize alternate members, and the designation must be removed.

Approval of this action will appoint Mayor Webster Lincoln as the City’s RFA representative for the statutory four-year term expiring June 30, 2029, align the City’s records with state enabling law, ensure proper representation in regional water financing governance, maintain continuity following completion of the prior partial term, and clarify that both the BAWSCA Board and RFA terms run concurrently through June 30, 2029.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact for this item.

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

Environmental
The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it 13 CONSENT ITEM 3.2
is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.
14 CONSENT ITEM 3.3

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 23, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: James Colin, City Clerk
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommendation
Adopt February 3, 2026, minutes.

Attachments

1. February 3, 2026, Minutes
15 EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
Tuesday, February 3, 2026, 6:00 PM
EPA Government Center
2415 University Avenue, First Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Lincoln at 6:01 PM.

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

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Romero moved to approve the agenda with the modification to continue Item 11.1 (Residential Parking Permit Program Ordinance First Reading) to the next meeting due to Councilmember Barragan’s absence.

The motion was seconded by Councilmember Dinan and passed unanimously.

3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Romero requested to pull Items 3.2 and 3.5 from the Consent Calendar.

A motion to approve the consent calendar was made by Councilmember Romero, seconded by Vice Mayor Abrica, and passed unanimously.

3.1 Cummings Loft Project (FA-15) Construction Contract Award `

3.2 Citywide Lighting Project Assessment (ST-04 A/B) Contract Award Staff Presentation: Senior Engineer Batool Zaro
The project will conduct a six-month citywide lighting assessment including photometric analysis of existing conditions and creation of a GIS inventory of lighting assets. The findings will identify deficiencies and provide recommendations for improvements before the Council considers a construction phase. Council discussion included questions about the approximately $700,000 contract cost and the single bid received, compared with the engineer’s estimate of just over $500,000.

Councilmember Dinan expressed support for improving safety through better lighting, while Vice Mayor Abrica clarified the history and transparency of the lighting district 16 funds. The City Manager confirmed the funds are documented in the City budget and audits.

Motion: Councilmember Romero
Second: Councilmember Dinan
Passed unanimously

3.3 Minor Home Repairs Memorandum of Understanding with County of San Mateo

3.4 CalPERS Pension Prefunding
Staff Presentation: Finance Director Tomo Oku and Actuary Drew Ballard Staff reported the City’s unfunded pension liability is approximately $17 million, with annual payments of about $1.8 million. The proposal recommended an additional $3 million payment to reduce long-term interest costs, as CalPERS charges 6.8% interest on the liability. Council discussed whether to include approximately $575,000 in accrued interest earned on the reserved funds and agreed to revisit that amount during the FY 26-27 budget process.

Motion: Councilmember Romero
Second: Vice Mayor Abrica
Passed unanimously

3.5 EPACENTER FY26 TOT Program Update
Staff Presentation: Maurice Baker
Applicant: Nadine Rambeau, EPACENTER
EPACENTER proposed consolidating programming into four larger festival-style events combining film, visual arts, and music while maintaining twelve adult-focused events.

The organization also reported contributing approximately $200,000 in additional funding toward staffing, operations, marketing, and legal costs. Council discussed the shift from the originally envisioned regular adult programming but acknowledged the grant was a pilot program and supported allowing adjustments based on early implementation experience.

Motion: Councilmember Romero
Second: (Unspecified Councilmember)
Passed unanimously

4. CLOSED SESSION

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Speakers:
• Bernice Turner
• Maria Oseguera
• Michael Francois
• Gail Dixon
• Leland Francois 17
• Mario
• Fili
• Luis Rosas

6. ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO THE EAST PALO

ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
Mayor Lincoln adjourned the City Council meeting and convened the Sanitary District Board meeting.

7. APPROVAL OF EPASD CONSENT CALENDAR
Public Comment:
• Gail Dixon
A motion to approve the consent calendar was made by Vice President Lincoln, seconded by Board member Dinan, and passed unanimously.

7.1 Cash Disbursement Report for November 2025

7.2 Cash Disbursement Report for December 2025

8. ADJOURN EAST PALO ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD MEETING

AND RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGUALR MEETING
Board President Abrica adjourned the EPASD meeting and Mayor Lincoln reconvened the City Council meeting.

9. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

10. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

11.1 Residential Permit Parking Program Ordinance (RPP) First Reading This item was continued.

12. POLICY AND ACTION

12.1 Mid-year Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2025-26
The midyear budget amendments included adjustments based on Council actions, carryforward appropriations, and updated economic conditions. The General Fund deficit increased to $5.7 million, sales tax revenue increased by approximately $400,000, and the City ended FY 24-25 with a $6.3 million surplus largely from one-time factors. Restricted funds shifted to a $4 million deficit at midyear, enterprise funds 18 decreased by $13.2 million primarily due to SB 937 timing changes, and CIP funds showed a projected $2.2 million increase in fund balance.

Motion: Councilmember Romero
Second: Vice Mayor Abrica
Passed unanimously

12.2 2026 Summer Park Activation Recommendations
Staff Presentation: Maurice Baker and Vincent Amelio
The Summer Park Activation Program has grown from $65,000 serving 382 residents in 2019 to $178,000 serving 1,714 residents in 2025. The 2026 proposal recommends funding twelve organizations totaling $192,015 and includes improved data collection and gender inclusion assessments. Council requested expanded programming in Westside neighborhoods and recommended adding an anonymous feedback mechanism for participants and providers.

Motion: Councilmember Romero
Second: Vice Mayor Abrica
Passed unanimously

13. COUNCIL REPORTS

13.1 Letter from Mayor Lincoln Regarding Woodland

13.2 Letter from Ruben Abrica Regarding Commentary on Elimination of Parking Spaces
Additional reports:

Councilmember Romero requested reconsideration of the Flock camera contract due to regional concerns about data access. The City Manager noted the agreement had not yet been executed and could be revisited. Mayor Lincoln indicated the agenda setting committee would consider the request.

14. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned by Mayor Lincoln at 8:38 PM.
19 Successor Agency Item 2.1

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 24, 2026
TO: Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of East Palo Alto VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Tomohito Oku, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Defeasance of Series 2015A Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds and Authorization to Implement Actions Necessary for Dissolution of the Successor Agency Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

4. Finding that the proposed action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is related to government fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
20 Successor Agency Item 2.1
Executive Summary
The proposed early retirement of the Successor Agency’s remaining enforceable obligation — the Series 2015A Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds — is projected to generate approximately $1.24 million in net savings to taxing entities collectively and an estimated $7.6 million net fiscal benefit to the City of East Palo Alto through FY 2032-33. These savings reflect redevelopment property tax revenues that would otherwise be used to pay future bond interest, administrative costs, and trustee expenses.

The Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency currently has one remaining enforceable obligation: the Series 2015A Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, scheduled to mature in 2032. At the direction of the Oversight Board, staff evaluated whether early defeasance of the bonds would be financially prudent and feasible in order to accelerate dissolution of the Successor Agency and restore redevelopment property tax revenues to the general property tax system.

Staff has determined that the bonds can be fully retired by January 2027 using available residual Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues applied across two distribution cycles. Early retirement would eliminate future bond debt service, administrative costs, and trustee expenses currently funded from redevelopment property tax revenues.

Early defeasance would:
 Allow dissolution of the Successor Agency as early as mid-2027;  Increase long-term property tax revenues available to taxing entities collectively;  Generate approximately $1.24 million in net savings to taxing entities collectively by avoiding future bond interest and related payments; and  Generate an estimated $7.6 million in net fiscal benefit to the City of East Palo Alto through FY 2032-33.

To accomplish the defeasance, the Successor Agency would apply approximately $8.5 million of residual RPTTF revenues over two phases. These amounts represent the total successor agency–wide impact, shared proportionally among all taxing entities. The City’s General Fund impact reflects only the City’s pro rata share, estimated at $1.7 million in FY 2025-26 and $1.3 million in FY 2026-27.

Background
The City of East Palo Alto Successor Agency is evaluating options for early termination of its remaining enforceable obligation to expedite dissolution and maximize long-term property tax revenues returned to taxing entities. This evaluation was undertaken at the direction of the Oversight Board, consistent with Health and Safety Code section 34181.

In carrying out this evaluation, staff is serving in two distinct but related roles. First, staff acts on behalf of the Successor Agency in administering enforceable obligations and implementing 21 Successor Agency Item 2.1
Oversight Board direction. Second, staff serves as the City’s executive management, responsible for evaluating and transparently disclosing fiscal impacts to the City’s General Fund. The City is one of the taxing entities affected and therefore has a direct financial stake in the outcome.

Following the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Chula Vista v. Sandoval, county auditor-controllers were required to revise how RPTTF residuals are calculated. In San Mateo County, this revised methodology was applied retrospectively beginning with the January 2022 residual RPTTF distributions, reducing residual revenues available to certain taxing entities, including the City of East Palo Alto.

Under the revised methodology affirmed by the court, required passthrough payments to certain taxing entities must be made in full before any residual RPTTF is calculated and distributed. In practical terms, this reduces the pool of funds available for residual distribution to cities and other taxing entities without favorable passthrough arrangements. For the City of East Palo Alto, this change resulted in lower residual RPTTF revenues beginning with the January 2022 adjustments, reducing the City’s long-term share of redevelopment property tax revenues unless remaining obligations are retired early.

The Successor Agency currently administers one enforceable obligation: the Series 2015A Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, originally issued for $16.95 million, with approximately $9.65 million outstanding as of January 15, 2026. The bonds are callable beginning October 1, 2025, allowing the principal to be retired without establishing an escrow.

Analysis
Authority and Policy Direction
Health and Safety Code section 34181 authorizes successor agencies, with Oversight Board approval, to amend or terminate enforceable obligations when doing so reduces liabilities and increases net revenues to taxing entities. The Oversight Board directed staff to evaluate whether early cash defeasance of the Series 2015A Bonds would be feasible and beneficial.

Availability and Application of Residual RPTTF
Residual RPTTF balances for FY 2026-27 are projected to be sufficient to fund defeasance over two ROPS cycles. The following table shows the timing of and RPTTF amount applied for the cash defeasance.

Phase Timing RPTTF Applied Bonds Retired
Phase 1 June 2026 $4,893,679 residual RPTTF
(ROPS 26-27A) Partial defeasance
Phase 2 January 2027 $3,608,494 residual RPTTF
(ROPS 26-27B) Complete defeasance
22 Successor Agency Item 2.1
Clarifying Note:

The amounts above represent the total successor agency–wide RPTTF applied to defease the bonds. These costs are borne collectively by all taxing entities. The City’s fiscal impact reflects only its pro rata share of these amounts.

Based on current projections through the ROPS process, the Successor Agency expects to receive the following residual Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues:
 ROPS 26-27A (June 2026 distribution):

Projected residual RPTTF available after required passthrough and administrative payments is approximately $5.4 million. Of this amount, approximately $4.9 million is proposed to be applied toward Phase 1 of the defeasance, with the remaining balance distributed to taxing entities in the normal course.
 ROPS 26-27B (January 2027 distribution):

Projected residual RPTTF available is approximately $7.3 million. Of this amount, approximately $3.6 million would be applied to complete the defeasance, with the remaining residual distributed to taxing entities.

This structure demonstrates that the proposed defeasance does not require the use of all projected residual revenues in either ROPS period. Instead, it applies to a portion of available residual RPTTF sufficient to retire the bonds while allowing remaining residual revenues to continue flowing to taxing entities. It’s also important to note that the amounts above represent the total successor agency–wide RPTTF applied to defease the bonds. These costs are borne collectively by all taxing entities. The City’s fiscal impact reflects only its pro rata share of these amounts.

Countywide (All Taxing Entities) RPTTF savings
The table below is organized in two parts.

The first part of the table shows the future debt service payments and related costs that would otherwise be paid from Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues through the bonds’ final maturity. These amounts include scheduled principal and interest payments on the Series 2015A Bonds, as well as ongoing trustee and administrative costs. If the bonds are defeased early, these future payments would be eliminated.

The second part of the table shows the amount of RPTTF funding required to retire the bonds now through a cash defeasance in two phases. Because the bonds are callable, the Successor Agency can pay off the outstanding principal and accrued interest without establishing a longterm escrow. As a result, the total cash required for defeasance is less than the total future scheduled payments shown in the first part of the table.

The difference between the totals in the first part and the second part of the table represents the estimated net savings to taxing entities, approximately $1.24 million. In practical terms, applying approximately $8.5 million of residual RPTTF now eliminates approximately $9.75 million of future RPTTF obligations. This amount reflects future interest and related bond costs that would otherwise be paid to bondholders from redevelopment property tax revenues. The estimated net 23 Successor Agency Item 2.1
savings of approximately $1.24 million represents a benefit to taxing entities collectively and a preservation of property tax dollars paid by residents and property owners that would otherwise have been committed to future bond interest and related debt service payments. By retiring the bonds early, those tax dollars are no longer needed for debt service and instead remain within the property tax allocation system for the benefit of taxing entities collectively and, ultimately, for the benefit of the taxpayers who fund those revenues.

RPTTF Summary Table June 5, 2026 January 8, 2026
Defeasance 1 Defeasance 2 Total
Remaining RPTTF Obligations Per ROPS
Series 2015A Tax Allocation Bonds
Debt Service $ 5,717,515 $ 3,760,453 $ 9,477,968
Less: Applied Debt Service Reserves
- - -
Net Series 2015A Tax Allocation Bonds Debt
Service $ 5,717,515 $ 3,760,453 $ 9,477,968
Bond Trustee Services and Arbitrage Reports 16,500 16,500 33,000 Administrative RPTTF 120,000 120,000 240,000
Total Remaining RPTTF Obligation $ 5,854,015 $ 3,896,953 $ 9,750,968 Funding Required Cash Defeasance
Total Funds Required for Cash Defeasance $ 4,855,591 $ 3,600,710 $ 8,456,301 Cost of Bond Defeasance
40,000 10,000 50,000
Cash on hand with Successor Agency
- - -
Net Required RPTTF needed for Defeasance $ 4,895,591 $ 3,610,710 $ 8,506,301 Calculated RPTTF Net Savings $ 958,424 $ 286,243 $ 1,244,667 Note: This calculation excludes 10/1/2026 debt service payment City of East Palo Alto Fiscal Impact
Residual Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) distributions received by the City are recognized as General Fund revenues. As a result, the proposed defeasance strategy will have a short-term General Fund revenue impact in FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 because a portion of residual RPTTF that would otherwise be distributed to the City (and recorded in the General Fund) will instead be applied to retire the Series 2015A Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds.

Based on current projections, the amount of residual RPTTF expected to be applied to defeasance totals approximately $3.0 million across the two phases of the defeasance ($1.7 million for June 2026 and $1.3 million for January 2027). This represents the estimated opportunity cost to the City’s General Fund during the defeasance period.

The proposed action is projected to provide a net long-term General Fund benefit by accelerating dissolution of the Successor Agency and eliminating future RPTTF deductions associated with the Series 2015A bonds (including debt service, administrative RPTTF, and trustee/arbitrage costs) through final maturity. Following dissolution, redevelopment property tax revenues that 24 Successor Agency Item 2.1
would otherwise be deposited into the RPTTF to fund successor agency obligations are expected to flow through the normal property tax allocation process, increasing property tax revenues available to the City.

Using the assumptions presented in this report (including approximately 3.5% annual growth and the City’s estimated 33.74% share), the City is projected to receive approximately $10.6 million in additional revenues through FY 2032-33 following dissolution as described in the table below. After accounting for the approximately $3.0 million applied to defeasance in FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27, the City’s net projected fiscal benefit is approximately $7.6 million.

Period
Projected Total Receipts
Estimated After
Dissolution Total Gain/(Loss) (Pass-Through + Residual) 2027-28A $ 1,963,109 $ 2,993,302 $ 1,030,193
2027-28B
2,631,911 3,348,853 716,941
2028-29A
2,031,818 3,098,068 1,066,249
2028-29B
2,724,028 3,466,063 742,034
2029-30A
2,102,932 3,206,500 1,103,568
2029-30B
2,819,369 3,587,375 768,005
2030-31A
2,176,534 3,318,728 1,142,193
2030-31B
2,918,047 3,712,933 794,886
2031-32A
2,252,713 3,434,883 1,182,170
2031-32B
3,020,179 3,842,886 822,707
2032-33A
2,331,558 3,555,104 1,223,546
Total Gain $ 10,592,492
Less: revenue reduction $2,996,911
Net Cash Flow Benefit $7,595,581
Next Steps
The following timeline outlines the key procedural steps required to implement the defeasance and, if completed successfully, proceed toward dissolution of the Successor Agency. Key dates include:
 March 2026 — Oversight Board approval
 April 2026 — DOF approval
 May 2026 — RPTTF distribution (ROPS A)
 June 2026 — Phase 1 defeasance
25 Successor Agency Item 2.1
 Winter 2027 — RPTTF distribution (ROPS B)
 January 2027 — Phase 2 defeasance
 Feb/March 2027 — Oversight Board approval of dissolution request  June 2027 — First property tax only distribution (no RPTTF) Fiscal Impact
Residual RPTTF distributions are recorded as General Fund revenues by the City. Accordingly, the defeasance results in a temporary General Fund revenue reduction, not increased expenditures.

The City’s estimated impact is $1.7 million in FY 2025-26 and $1.3 million in FY 2026-27, representing the City’s pro rata share of successor agency–wide defeasance costs. The longterm fiscal benefit significantly outweighs this temporary impact. The City will generate net fiscal benefits in the general fund for approximately $7.6 million through FY2032-33.

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

Environmental
The proposed action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is related to government fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachment:

1. Resolution
26 DRAFT
Resolution No. XX-2026 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
APPROVING THE CASH DEFEASANCE OF THE SERIES 2015A TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS

AND AUTHORIZING ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE DEFEASANCE AND PURSUE

DISSOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 34173, the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto elected that the City of East Palo Alto would serve as the successor agency (the “Successor Agency”) to the dissolved Redevelopment Agency of the City of East Palo Alto, effective February 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1X 26 (AB 1X 26) and related legislation codified in Health and Safety Code Sections 34170 et seq., the Redevelopment Agency of the City of East Palo Alto was dissolved, and the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of East Palo Alto (“Successor Agency”) was designated to wind down the affairs of the former redevelopment agency; and
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency is responsible for administering enforceable obligations and making payments from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (“RPTTF”) in accordance with approved Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules (“ROPS”); and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency currently has one remaining enforceable obligation consisting of the Series 2015A Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (“Series 2015A Bonds”), originally issued in the principal amount of $16,950,000, with approximately $9,650,000 outstanding as of January 15, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Series 2015A Bonds are callable beginning October 1, 2025, allowing the outstanding principal to be retired without the establishment of a long-term escrow; and WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 34181 authorizes successor agencies, with Oversight Board approval, to amend or terminate enforceable obligations when doing so reduces liabilities and increases net revenues to taxing entities collectively; and WHEREAS, at the direction of the Oversight Board, staff evaluated whether early cash defeasance of the Series 2015A Bonds would be financially feasible and beneficial to the taxing entities; and
WHEREAS, staff has determined that sufficient residual RPTTF revenues are projected to be available during ROPS 26-27A and ROPS 26-27B to fund the early retirement of the Series 2015A Bonds in two phases, as follows:
 Phase 1 – June 2026: Application of approximately $4,893,679 of residual RPTTF (ROPS 26- 27A) toward partial defeasance; and
 Phase 2 – January 2027: Application of approximately $3,608,494 of residual RPTTF (ROPS 26-27B) toward complete defeasance; and
27 DRAFT
Resolution No. XX-2026 2 of 3
WHEREAS, early defeasance of the Series 2015A Bonds is projected to eliminate approximately $9.75 million in future RPTTF obligations at a cash cost of approximately $8.51 million, resulting in estimated net savings of approximately $1.24 million to taxing entities collectively; and WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto, as one of the taxing entities receiving residual RPTTF distributions, will experience a temporary reduction in General Fund revenues estimated at approximately $1.7 million in FY 2025-26 and $1.3 million in FY 2026-27 as a result of its proportionate share of residual RPTTF applied to defease the bonds; and WHEREAS, upon full retirement of the Series 2015A Bonds and satisfaction of all enforceable obligations, the Successor Agency may pursue dissolution pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34187; and
WHEREAS, the Board of the Successor Agency finds that early defeasance of the Series 2015A Bonds is in the best interests of the taxing entities and consistent with successor agency law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO hereby:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference into this action;

2. Approve the early cash defeasance of the Series 2015A Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds in two phases, anticipated to occur in June 2026 and January 2027, using available residual Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues;

3. Acknowledge and approve a temporary reduction in General Fund revenues in FY 2025-26, estimated at approximately $1.7 million, representing the City’s pro rata share of residual RPTTF revenues applied to Phase 1 of the defeasance, with an additional estimated reduction of approximately $1.3 million in FY 2026-27 for Phase 2; and

4. Authorize the City Manager, Finance Director, and/or their designees to:
 Prepare and submit amended Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules (ROPS);  Execute agreements and notices necessary to implement the defeasance;  Coordinate with the Oversight Board, the California Department of Finance, the County Auditor-Controller, bond trustee, and other necessary parties; and  Take any and all actions necessary or convenient to carry out the defeasance and pursue dissolution of the Successor Agency consistent with Health and Safety Code Section 34187.

5. Finds that the proposed action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is related to government fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED 24th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:
28 DRAFT
Resolution No. XX-2026 3 of 3
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Webster Lincoln, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
29 STAFF INFORMATIONAL REPORT 9.1
1 EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 24, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: John D. Lê, City Attorney
BY: James C. Harrison, Outside Counsel
SUBJECT: Discuss Ordering the Submission of a Measure on Term Limits for a Future Municipal Election
Recommendation
Receive an informational report from staff updating the Council regarding term limits and the submission of a potential ballot measure for a future municipal election, and provide direction concerning the same.

Executive Summary
Councilmembers have recently inquired about imposing term limits on members of the City Council, including legal requirements relating to term limits and the mechanism for proposing a term limits measure to the voters. This staff report summarizes the law governing term limits and provides a list of key decision points for the City Council and a timeline for action, should the Council decide to consider submitting a term limits measure to the voters at a future municipal election.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
Priority: Governance, Organizational Strength, and Fiscal Sustainability Background
Mayor Lincoln asked staff to present a summary regarding a potential measure to impose term limits on members of the City Council, noting that term limits could increase citizen participation and inject new ideas and fresh perspectives into city governance. Many cities and counties throughout the state have adopted term limits for members of their governing bodies. The State of California also imposes lifetime term limits on statewide elected officials and members of the 30 STAFF INFORMATIONAL REPORT 9.1
2 Legislature.

Analysis
As a general law city, the City of East Palo Alto is subject to general state law, including Government Code Section 36502, which authorizes the city council of a general law city to propose, or the voters to propose by initiative, a measure to impose term limits on members of the city council to be submitted to the voters at a regularly scheduled election. Section 36502 provides that local term limit laws shall apply prospectively only and shall be subject to approval by a majority of voters voting on the measure. Therefore, prior service on the City Council does not qualify as a “term” for purposes of a term limits measure.

In 2024, the City of Brisbane conducted a survey of term limits ordinances in cities and towns in San Mateo County. Only six cities in the County have term limits, as shown in Table 1.

Supervisors of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors are also ineligible to serve more than three consecutive terms in office.

Table 1: Cities with Term Limits (in order of lowest number of terms to highest number of terms) City/Town Term Limits (from the City’s Municipal Code/Charter)

1. Pacifica
2 consecutive
terms
No person who has served two terms of office as a Pacifica City Councilmember shall be eligible to run for election as a Pacifica City Councilmember. If for any reason a person serves a partial term as [a] Pacifica City Councilmember in excess of two years, that partial term shall be considered a full term for purposes of this term limit provision.

2. Foster City
2 consecutive
terms
No person may hold the office of councilmember for more than two terms in succession. This provision does not prohibit holding the office for more than two terms.

3. Millbrae
3 consecutive
terms
No person shall be eligible to serve as a member of the city council for more than three successive four-year terms. Any person appointed or elected to the city council to fill an unexpired term shall be eligible to serve two successive fouryear terms upon the expiration of the unexpired term for which that person was appointed or elected.

4. San Mateo Councilmembers shall not be eligible for election to nor serve more than three consecutive terms in office provided that no partial term of office shall be counted as any portion of the 31 STAFF INFORMATIONAL REPORT 9.1
3 3 consecutive
terms
consecutive terms.

5. San Bruno
3 consecutive
terms
No person may hold the office of mayor for more than six terms in succession or the office of councilmember for more than three terms in succession. This provision does not prohibit holding office for more than twelve years, provided that terms of office are not consecutive.

6. Redwood
City
4 consecutive
terms
Each person who has been elected to the City Council either at large or in any district shall be eligible to hold office as a Councilmember for no more than four consecutive terms of office. A partial term to which a person is appointed or elected to fill a vacancy in the Council shall not be included in computing consecutive terms.

The above cities require Councilmembers who have reached their term limit to sit out at least one election cycle before they can run for office again. Other cities have a lifetime limit. For example, the City of Santa Clara prohibits members of the Council from serving more than two full terms, with terms prior to adoption not disqualifying a person from further service, and a partial term in excess of two years being considered a full term.

Table 2: Key Decision Points for any Future Measure regarding Term Limits Decision Explanation

1. Retroactivity
of the
Measure
A local term limit may not apply retroactively. Government Code Section 36502. Instead, the potential measure may only apply to terms that begin after the effective date of the term limits ordinance.

2. Duration The Council may limit terms by any amount. A one-term ban in San Bernadino County has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeals. Other cities in San Mateo County have a limitation on terms between two and four terms.

3. Consecutive
Terms or
Total
Number
Limitation
The Council must decide whether to limit the number of terms a person may serve consecutively or to prohibit holding the office for more than the limited number of terms. All cities in San Mateo County with term limits only limit consecutive terms.

Santa Clara and the State limit the total number of terms an individual may hold office.
32 STAFF INFORMATIONAL REPORT 9.1
4 4. Partial
Terms
The council must decide whether a partial term of office counts as a term. For example, is a partial term greater than two years considered a full term, or is it not counted against the official for the purposes of the limit?
Staff is seeking direction from the Council on several areas, including whether the Council desires a term limit ordinance. If the Council is so inclined, then staff requests direction on the key decision areas outlined in Table 2.

Another critical decision providing direction on which election the Council aims to present the measure to the voters. Staff have prepared timelines for the Council regarding when a measure must be submitted to the voters, including four options (June 2026 primary election, November 2026 general election, in addition to election dates in 2027 (Attachments 1). There is very limited time remaining for the Council to act if it desires to place a measure on the June ballot. Additionally, as the City is considering a November 2026 election for a general obligation bond measure, this election date is similarly not recommended. However, if the Council seeks to set an election date in 2027, a separate ordinance is required under the Elections Code to provide for off-cycle elections (i.e., odd number years). See Government Code section 36502 (requiring that a term limits measure be presented at a regular city election). If the Council adopts an off-cycle elections ordinance, it can be repealed at later date.

Next Steps
After taking Council direction, including if and when the Council would like to consider term limits, staff will return with certain deliverables consistent with the timeline, including a proposed ordinance for consideration and discussion and a resolution ordering submission on a timeline decided by the Council.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact for this item.

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

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

Government Code § 84308
33 STAFF INFORMATIONAL REPORT 9.1
5 Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Election Timelines
34 EAST PALO ALTO INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR

INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR
June 2, 2026, Statewide Primary Election

DATE STEPS DESCRIPTION
February 24, 2026*i Adopt Resolution Ordering
the Submission of a
Measure at the June 2, 2026
Municipal Election
The City may submit to the voters, via ordinance or resolution calling for a special election or proposition, a proposition for the enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular city election, and if the submitted proposition receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be enacted accordingly.

The election shall be held not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.

Elec. Code § 9222; Gov. Code § 36502
March 3, 2026ii Last Day to Submit or
Amend Measure at Regular
City Council Meeting
Last regular City Council meeting to submit or amend the ordinance to the voters before the 88-day deadline.

Elec. Code § 9222
March 17, 2026* Submission of Opening
Arguments
(If Election is Not
Consolidated)
Elections Code § 9286(a) specifies that the date for submitting opening arguments must be fixed 14 days from the date of the order of election.

However, this provision does not apply if the election is consolidated with the statewide general election pursuant to Election Code § 10403, in which case Council either fixes the dates for submission of arguments or directs the Clerk to do so. (Because the City is likely to consolidate the June municipal election with the statewide election, the City Council will have discretion regarding the date for submission of arguments, so this date is included for illustrative purposes only.) Elec. Code §§ 9282, 9286
March 6 – 27, 2026*iii Submission of Impartial
Analysis
The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the city. The analysis shall be 35 EAST PALO ALTO INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR

INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR
June 2, 2026, Statewide Primary Election
i Dates marked with an asterisk (*) are approximate. This calendar is provided as a guideline; there are contingencies and unanticipated events that could alter the timeline.
ii This date assumes that the City Council will hold a meeting on this day. iii The submission is fixed by resolution, typically either 10 days from the order of election or the day that opening arguments are due to be submitted, but because the statute does not specify a deadline, the date could be fixed as late as the last day to submit rebuttal printed preceding the arguments for and against the measure. The analysis shall not exceed 500 words in length.

Elec. Code § 9281
March 6, 2026 Last Day for the Measure to
be placed on the June 2026
Election
Last day for the City Council to place the measure on the ballot for the June 2, 2026, election (88 days before Election Day).

Last day for the City Council to adopt a resolution requesting consolidation of election with statewide election (88 days before Election Day).

Elec. Code §§ 9222, 10403
March 27, 2026* Submission of Rebuttal
Arguments
Last day for supporters and opponents to submit rebuttal arguments (10 days from submission of opening argument).

Elec. Code § 9285
March 28 – April 6,
2026*iv
Public Inspection Period Public inspection period during which petition for writ of mandate can be filed to challenge ballot materials. This 10-calendar day period runs immediately following the deadline for submission of ballot materials, the last day of which is the submission of rebuttal arguments.

Elec. Code § 9295
June 2, 2026 Election Day Election Day
July __, 2026* Effective Date (if passed) Measure goes into effect 10 days after the City Council certifies the vote.

Elec. Code § 9217
36 EAST PALO ALTO INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR

INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR
June 2, 2026, Statewide Primary Election
arguments.
iv It is important for the Clerk to coordinate with the County Registrar of Voters to ensure that the public inspection period is consistent with the Registrar’s printing deadlines.
37 EAST PALO ALTO INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR
NOVEMBER 5, 2026, ELECTION

DATE STEPS DESCRIPTION
July 7,
2026*1
Adopt Resolution
Ordering the
Submission of a
Measure at the
November 3,
2026, General
Municipal
Election
The City may submit to the voters, via ordinance or resolution, a proposition for the enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular city election, and if the submitted proposition receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be enacted accordingly.

The election shall be held not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.

Elec. Code § 9222; Gov. Code § 36502
July 28,
20262
Last Day to
Submit or Amend
Measure at
Regular City
Council Meeting
Last regular City Council meeting to submit or amend the ordinance to the voters before the 88-day deadline.

Elec. Code § 9222
August 11,
2026*
Submission of
Opening
Arguments
(If Election is Not
Consolidated)
Elections Code § 9286(a) specifies that the date for submitting opening arguments must be fixed 14 days from the date of the order of election.

However, this provision does not apply if the election is consolidated with the statewide general election pursuant to Election Code § 10403, in which case Council either fixes the dates for submission of arguments or directs the Clerk to do so. (Because the City is likely to consolidate the November municipal election with the statewide election, the City Council will have discretion regarding the date for submission of arguments, so this date is included for illustrative purposes only.) Elec. Code §§ 9282, 9286
August 7 –
21, 2026*3
Submission of
Impartial
Analysis
The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the city. The analysis shall be printed preceding the arguments for and against the measure. The analysis shall not exceed 500 words in length.

Elec. Code § 9281
August 7,
2026
Last Day for the
Measure to be
placed on the
Last day for the City Council to place the measure on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 election (88 days before Election Day). 38 EAST PALO ALTO INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR
NOVEMBER 5, 2026, ELECTION
November 2026
Election
Last day for the City Council to adopt a resolution requesting consolidation of election with statewide election (88 days before Election Day).

Elec. Code §§ 9222, 10403
August 21,
2026*
Submission of
Rebuttal
Arguments
Last day for supporters and opponents to submit rebuttal arguments (10 days from submission of opening argument).

Elec. Code § 9285
August 22
– August
31, 2026*4
Public Inspection
Period
Public inspection period during which petition for writ of mandate can be filed to challenge ballot materials. This 10- calendar day period runs immediately following the deadline for submission of ballot materials, the last day of which is the submission of rebuttal arguments.

Elec. Code § 9295
November
3, 2026
Election Day Election Day
December
__, 2026*
Effective Date (if
passed)
Measure goes into effect 10 days after
the City Council certifies the vote.

Elec. Code § 9217
1 Dates marked with an asterisk (*) are approximate. This calendar is provided as a guideline; there are contingencies and unanticipated events that could alter the timeline. 2 This date assumes that the City Council will hold a meeting on this day. 3 The submission is fixed by resolution, typically either 10 days from the order of election or the day that opening arguments are due to be submitted, but because the statute does not specify a deadline, the date could be fixed as late as the last day to submit rebuttal arguments. 4 It is important for the Clerk to coordinate with the County Registrar of Voters to ensure that the public inspection period is consistent with the Registrar’s printing deadlines. 39 EAST PALO ALTO INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR

INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR
March 2, 2027, Statewide Primary Election

DATE STEPS DESCRIPTION
November 17, 2026*i Adopt Resolution Ordering
the Submission of a
Measure at the March 2,
2027, Municipal Electionii
The City may submit to the voters, via ordinance or resolution calling for a special election or proposition, a proposition for the enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular city election, and if the submitted proposition receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be enacted accordingly.

The election shall be held not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.

Elec. Code § 9222; Gov. Code § 36502
December 1, 2026iii Last Day to Submit or
Amend Measure at Regular
City Council Meeting
Last regular City Council meeting to submit or amend the ordinance to the voters before the 88-day deadline.

Elec. Code § 9222
December 15, 2026* Submission of Opening
Arguments
(If Election is Not
Consolidated)
Elections Code § 9286(a) specifies that the date for submitting opening arguments must be fixed 14 days from the date of the order of election.

However, this provision does not apply if the election is consolidated with the statewide general election pursuant to Election Code § 10403, in which case Council either fixes the dates for submission of arguments or directs the Clerk to do so. (Because the City is likely to consolidate the March municipal election with the statewide election, the City Council will have discretion regarding the date for submission of arguments, so this date is included for illustrative purposes only.) Elec. Code §§ 9282, 9286
December 1 – 28,
2026*iv
Submission of Impartial
Analysis
The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the city. The analysis shall be 40 EAST PALO ALTO INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR

INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR
March 2, 2027, Statewide Primary Election
i Dates marked with an asterisk (*) are approximate. This calendar is provided as a guideline; there are contingencies and unanticipated events that could alter the timeline.
ii Pursuant to the Government Code, local ballot measures related to municipal term limits must be voted on at a regular election. We understand that the City of East Palo Alto typically holds its regular elections during even years. Accordingly, the only way the City may bring a regular election in 2027 is if the Council passes an ordinance pursuant to Elections Code Section 1301(b) providing that printed preceding the arguments for and against the measure. The analysis shall not exceed 500 words in length.

Elec. Code § 9281
December 4, 2026 Last Day for the Measure to
be placed on the March
2027 Election
Last day for the City Council to place the measure on the ballot for the March 2, 2027, election (88 days before Election Day).

Last day for the City Council to adopt a resolution requesting consolidation of election with statewide election (88 days before Election Day).

Elec. Code §§ 9222, 10403
December 28, 2026* Submission of Rebuttal
Arguments
Last day for supporters and opponents to submit rebuttal arguments (10 days from submission of opening argument).

Elec. Code § 9285
December 29, 2026 –
January 7, 2027*v
Public Inspection Period Public inspection period during which petition for writ of mandate can be filed to challenge ballot materials. This 10-calendar day period runs immediately following the deadline for submission of ballot materials, the last day of which is the submission of rebuttal arguments.

Elec. Code § 9295
March 2, 2027 Election Day Election Day
April __, 2027* Effective Date (if passed) Measure goes into effect 10 days after the City Council certifies the vote.

Elec. Code § 9217
41 EAST PALO ALTO INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR

INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR
March 2, 2027, Statewide Primary Election
the City’s general municipal election will be held on “the first Tuesday after the first Monday of March in each odd-numbered year.” iii This date assumes that the City Council will hold a meeting on this day. iv The submission is fixed by resolution, typically either 10 days from the order of election or the day that opening arguments are due to be submitted, but because the statute does not specify a deadline, the date could be fixed as late as the last day to submit rebuttal arguments.
v It is important for the Clerk to coordinate with the County Registrar of Voters to ensure that the public inspection period is consistent with the Registrar’s printing deadlines.
42 EAST PALO ALTO INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR
NOVEMBER 2, 2027, ELECTION

DATE STEPS DESCRIPTION
July 6,
2027*1
Adopt Resolution
Ordering the
Submission of a
Measure at the
November 2,
2027, General
Municipal
Election2
The City may submit to the voters, via ordinance or resolution, a proposition for the enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular city election, and if the submitted proposition receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be enacted accordingly.

The election shall be held not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.

Elec. Code § 9222; Gov. Code § 36502
July 27,
20273
Last Day to
Submit or Amend
Measure at
Regular City
Council Meeting
Last regular City Council meeting to submit or amend the ordinance to the voters before the 88-day deadline.

Elec. Code § 9222
August 10,
2027*
Submission of
Opening
Arguments
(If Election is Not
Consolidated)
Elections Code § 9286(a) specifies that the date for submitting opening arguments must be fixed 14 days from the date of the order of election.

However, this provision does not apply if the election is consolidated with the statewide general election pursuant to Election Code § 10403, in which case Council either fixes the dates for submission of arguments or directs the Clerk to do so. (Because the City is likely to consolidate the November municipal election with the statewide election, the City Council will have discretion regarding the date for submission of arguments, so this date is included for illustrative purposes only.) Elec. Code §§ 9282, 9286
August 6 –
20, 2027*4
Submission of
Impartial
Analysis
The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the city. The analysis shall be printed preceding the arguments for and against the measure. The analysis shall not exceed 500 words in length.

Elec. Code § 9281
August 6,
2027
Last Day for the
Measure to be
placed on the
Last day for the City Council to place the measure on the ballot for the November 2, 2027, election (88 days before Election Day).
43 EAST PALO ALTO INITIATIVE QUALIFICATION CALENDAR
NOVEMBER 2, 2027, ELECTION
November 2027
Election Last day for the City Council to adopt a resolution requesting consolidation of election with statewide election (88 days before Election Day).

Elec. Code §§ 9222, 10403
August 20,
2027*
Submission of
Rebuttal
Arguments
Last day for supporters and opponents to submit rebuttal arguments (10 days from submission of opening argument).

Elec. Code § 9285
August 21
– August
30, 2027*5
Public Inspection
Period
Public inspection period during which petition for writ of mandate can be filed to challenge ballot materials. This 10- calendar day period runs immediately following the deadline for submission of ballot materials, the last day of which is the submission of rebuttal arguments.

Elec. Code § 9295
November
2, 2027
Election Day Election Day
December
__, 2027*
Effective Date (if
passed)
Measure goes into effect 10 days after
the City Council certifies the vote.

Elec. Code § 9217
1 Dates marked with an asterisk (*) are approximate. This calendar is provided as a guideline; there are contingencies and unanticipated events that could alter the timeline. 2 Pursuant to the Government Code, local ballot measures related to municipal term limits must be voted on at a regular election. We understand that the City of East Palo Alto typically holds its regular elections during even years. Accordingly, the only way the City may bring a regular election in 2027 is if the Council passes an ordinance pursuant to Elections Code Section 1301(b) providing that the City’s general municipal election will be held on “the day of school district elections as set forth in Section 1302” [the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each odd-numbered year].
3 This date assumes that the City Council will hold a meeting on this day. 4 The submission is fixed by resolution, typically either 10 days from the order of election or the day that opening arguments are due to be submitted, but because the statute does not specify a deadline, the date could be fixed as late as the last day to submit rebuttal arguments. 5 It is important for the Clerk to coordinate with the County Registrar of Voters to ensure that the public inspection period is consistent with the Registrar’s printing deadlines. 44 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 11.1

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 24, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Batool Zaro, Senior Engineer
Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Residential Permit Parking Program Ordinance (RPP) First Reading Recommendation
By motion, the City Council should:

1. Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance adding a new Chapter 10.40 (Residential Permit Parking Program) to the East Palo Alto Municipal Code (or any other substantive amendments proposed by staff or the Council to the original ordinance);

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
 Public Health, Safety, and Quality of Life
Executive Summary
The City of East Palo Alto has been working on a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Ordinance since December 2023, with multiple drafts presented to the Public Works and Transportation 45 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 11.1
Commission (PWTC) and City Council. The ordinance aims to address parking issues in residential areas by allowing the creation of Residential Permit Parking Areas. The originally proposed ordinance included one free parking permit per residence, with additional permits available for purchase, and criteria for establishing Residential Permit Parking Areas (RPPAs) based on neighborhood petitions or City Council action.

Staff introduced the ordinance in a first reading at the March 18, 2025, city council meeting.

The City Council made various changes to the proposed ordinance at the March meeting, including updating program eligibility based on vehicle type, registration and unsettled parking citations, removing the petition requirement for establishing an RPPA, and introducing automatic implementation for areas with 75% parking occupancy.

This modified ordinance was considered for adoption in second reading on July 8, 2025.

Following community input and council deliberation, the ordinance was not adopted. Feedback from the community highlighted concerns about costs of permits, the impact those costs would have on low-income community members, and lack of community input on the modified ordinance.

The City Council directed staff to further revise the ordinance and return for reintroduction at a later date. The City Council revisions included reintroducing neighborhood-led petitions and reevaluating the automatic implementation provision. The city council also directed staff to make revisions based on the community's feedback and directed staff to increase enforcement of existing parking codes.

This report outlines the proposed RPP ordinance. Staff is recommending that the city council waive the first reading of the ordinance and direct staff to conduct studies to determine maximum numbers of permits available per neighborhood/potential RPPA’s, and permit costs.

A citywide parking study will be conducted to define potential RPPAs, assess parking occupancy, and recommend enforcement hours. Once the details are finalized, staff will present the full program details to the city council for approval and implementation. RPPA’s will not be established without a neighborhood survey and City Council approval as detailed in section 10.40.050 of the ordinance.

Background
City staff presented a draft residential permit parking ordinance to the Public Works and Transportation Commission (PWTC) on December 20, 2023. The City’s transportation consultant, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., presented a revised draft at the PWTC meeting on April 17, 2024, responding to questions and comments. Staff and Hexagon presented a further refined draft to the PWTC on May 15, 2024.

On June 18, 2024, staff presented the updated draft ordinance to the City Council. City Council instructed staff to delay the first reading and further investigate additional concerns. A study session was conducted on November 12, 2024, for staff to provide updates on the items further investigated and to receive feedback and comments on the draft ordinance.

Additionally, at the November meeting, staff provided information on the outreach efforts taken place - including a citywide mailer, social media posts, and a survey - and presented the 46 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 11.1
survey results. The feedback from the City Council and public was used to draft the proposed ordinance introduced March 18, 2025.

Staff’s Proposed Ordinance (March 18, 2025)
At the March 18, 2025, city council meeting, staff introduced an ordinance for the first reading, highlighting these key provisions:
 Allows the City to create Residential Permit Parking Areas (RPPAs).  Grants one free parking permit per residence, with a second permit available for purchase (subject to availability).
 Clarifies that permits do not guarantee parking spaces.  Excludes commercial and oversized vehicles
 Requires all four of the following:
o Initiation by a 67% neighborhood petition or initiation by City Council; o 75% on-street occupancy during proposed enforcement hours; o Approval of the establishment of RPPA if survey results showed 67% of residents in the designated area ; and
o Establishment of the RPPAs by City Council action (retained by Council as the sole option for establishment of the RPPA).

The City Council’s Modifications and Ordinance Introduced at First Reading (March 18, 2025)
The City Council waived the first reading and introduced the ordinance with the following changes:
 Updated Definitions (Section 10.40.020):
o Added a definition of a Commercial Vehicle matching the State law definition: i.e.,- motor vehicle used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. Passenger vehicles and house cars are excluded from this definition, unless used for transportation for hire, in which case they could constitute commercial vehicles. Any vanpool vehicle—which is a vehicle designed for carrying 11 to 15 persons, maintained and used primarily for nonprofit workrelated adults ridesharing—is also not a commercial vehicle. o Revised the definition of Resident
 Vehicle Eligibility (Section 10.40.120): A new section titled Vehicle Eligibility was included in the ordinance restricting eligibility to vehicles without delinquent parking citations, without an expired registration, and vehicles not registered as commercial vehicles. Additionally, recreational vehicles (RVs), boats, trailers, or oversized vehicles exceeding 22 feet in length or 7 feet in height would also be ineligible.  Removed Petition Language (Sections 10.40.040 and 10.40.050): The City Council removed all language related to petition requirements. This meant RPPAs could only be created by City Council action. Council further removed the subsection regarding 47 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 11.1
community outreach; this language required a survey of resident support within the RPPA and encouraged additional outreach, such as neighborhood meetings. The Council also removed the subsection requiring Public Works and Transportation Commission review.  Added Automatic Implementation (Section 10.40.040B): A new section labeled “Automatic Implementation” was added. Subsection A stated that the City Council may, by motion, initiate consideration of a RPP area by directing staff to undertake a data collection and outreach process. New subsection B clarified that the Council option in Subsection A did not preclude the Council from adopting a resolution establishing automatic implementation of the parking permit program in RPP areas where parking was 75% occupied. Such a resolution would specify standards for the automatic establishment of permit parking requirements, including establishing RPP areas to which the occupancy threshold would apply, the means of measuring whether the threshold is met (e.g., based on an occupancy study conducted or some other threshold or metric), timeframe or scope of the parking occupancy study, the applicable fees and penalties, and other standards or considerations.
 Permit Issuance Requirements (Section 10.40.070): The permit issuance requirements section was modified to explicitly state that permits require proof of residence at an address within the permit area.
 All permits shall require payment of a fee as established by City Council resolution:

Language regarding providing the first permit at no cost was removed.

After making the foregoing amendments, the Council introduced the attached ordinance with the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Barragan, Vice Mayor Dinan, and Councilmember Lincoln.

NOES: NONE.

ABSTAIN: NONE.

ABSENT: Councilmember Romero and Councilmember Abrica.

Deferred Adoption and Council Direction at Second Reading (July 8, 2025) At the July 8, 2025, city council meeting, the ordinance was scheduled for a second reading.

However, the City Council voted to defer action and instead directed staff to modify the ordinance and return for a future first reading. The city council provided the following ordinance modifications to staff:

Ordinance Modifications:
 Petition Language (Sections 10.40.040 and 10.40.050): Reinstate the communityinitiated (resident-led) establishment process, consistent with the March version of the ordinance, while retaining all subsequent changes except the voter registration requirement.
 Automatic Implementation (Section 10.40.040B): Remove the automatic implementation language.
 Updated Definitions (Section 10.40.020): Remove all references to voter registration. 48 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 11.1
 Permit Issuance Requirements (Section 10.40.070): Allow for one to two free permits, with the final number to be determined by the City Council at the first reading.

Additional Direction:
 Increase enforcement of existing parking regulations.  Incorporate public input into the revised ordinance to be brought back for a first reading.

Staff summarized several of the public suggestions raised during the meeting in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Community Feedback
No. Comment/ Ordinance
Modification
Impact of the
Modification
Ordinance
Modification
Language Modification
1 Free permits:

Allow 1 free permits due to the
financial burden of an additional
cost on residents.

Once a permit area is
established, the
available street parking
will be determined and
that would determine if
there is availability for
additional permits to be
issued at a cost. The
cost will depend on the
level of cost recovery
that the City Council
intends. Low income
subsidy options can
potentially be made
available to help reduce
the burden.

The Ordinance,
attached as
attachment 1,
incorporates
allowing one free
permit to each
residence, with
additional being
available at a cost.

No additional language
modification would be
necessary as this change is
incorporated in Attachment 1.
2 Free permits:

Allow two (2) or more free
permits due to the financial
burden of an additional cost on
residents.

If the City Council
intends to fully cover the
costs associated with
permit parking to reduce
the burden on residents
Section “10.40.070
Issuance of
permits.” would be
modified.

If the City Council would like
to allow 2 or more permits the
section would be modified as
followed:
“each residence within an
RPP area may receive, upon
application, one parking
permit at no cost to the
applicant, subject to
conditions established by the
Director to effectuate the
purposes of this Chapter.

Additional parking Permits
may be given at no cost or
purchased by applicants, upon
application, subject to the
availability, as determined by
the Director.”
3 Lack of community input:

Several community members
requested additional community
input
At the July 8th meeting,
City Council directed
staff to include language
pertaining to
The Ordinance,
attached as
attachment 1,
incorporates
allowing residents
No additional language
modification would be
necessary as this change is
incorporated in Attachment 1.
49 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 11.1
neighborhood led
petition efforts.
to initiate the
establishment/
removal of a permit
parking area.
4 Several community members
requested that additional survey
efforts take place to gauge
public receptivity to a permit
parking ordinance.

The City Council may
direct staff to perform
additional community
survey efforts.

This would not
result in a
modification to the
ordinance.

No language modification
would be associated with this
item.

After making the foregoing amendments, the Council made the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember Abrica, Councilmember Romero, and Mayor Barragan NOES: Vice Mayor Dinan, and Councilmember Lincoln
ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Analysis
The modified ordinance reflecting the changes described above is attached as Attachment 1, the revised guidelines are attached as Attachment 2, and draft RPPP FAQ’s attached as Attachment 3. A redlined version of the ordinance is provided as Attachment 4 and a redlined version of the guidelines is provided as Attachment 5.

Overall, the modified ordinance reinstates petition language allowing for community initiated (resident-led) establishment of permit parking areas, removes the automatic implementation provision, revises the definition of “Resident,” and modifies permit issuance requirements to allow one free permit.

Adoption of the ordinance establishes a programmatic framework, with many implementation details to be developed at a later date. These details will require additional staff analysis and recommendations for the City Council review, potential modification, and eventual adoption through resolutions. In other words, adoption of the ordinance represents only an initial step toward establishing a residential permit parking program; additional actions, described below, are required before the program can be implemented.

Public input to date indicates that most community members do not oppose the concept of a residential permit parking ordinance, particularly if the program areas are initiated by residents.

Rather, concerns have focused on specific program details that have not yet been defined.

These include potential permit costs, impacts on low-income households, limits on the number of permits per household, and the management of visitor passes. While these concerns are important, they are premature, as the ordinance does not yet establish these parameters, although they will be established in the future (program details and resolutions).

Next Steps
50 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 11.1
Following adoption of the Ordinance, staff will proceed to the next phase of program development, which will focus on defining the details of the RPP program. This work will include recommendations on permit costs and citation fees, enforcement phases, maximum permits per household, and recommended Residential Permit Parking Areas (RPPAs). Robust community engagement will be a central component of this process.

Significant preparatory work will be required prior to establishing any RPPAs. Staff would conduct a citywide parking study to define proposed RPPAs and, for each area, analyze occupancy rates and recommend enforcement hours. These conditions would need to be reassessed periodically to ensure that occupancy patterns and enforcement hours remain appropriate over time. Because staff does not currently conduct ongoing, citywide parking occupancy analysis and lacks capacity to do so, this effort would require an amendment to the City’s existing contract with Hexagon to perform occupancy studies.

Further, staff would issue one or more requests for proposals (RFPs) for permit management platforms, enforcement options, and consultant services to support program implementation, including analysis of costs and fee structure options.

Finally, staff would return to the City Council with proposed RPPAs as well as providing the full program details listed above. This would include recommendations for third-party enforcement services, staffing recommendations or vendor support for program administration (such as permit issuance, program updates, and fee collection), and the allocation of resources for longterm parking occupancy monitoring.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact for this item.

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

Environmental
The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines: 1) Section 15301, which applies to minor alterations of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use, in that adopting an ordinance regulating existing off-street parking would not constitute any significant expansion of use; and 2) Section 15061(b)(3) in that adoption of the ordinance can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

Government Code § 84308
51 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 11.1
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not entail an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 – RPPP Ordinance

2. Attachment 2– RPPP Guidelines

3. Attachment 3 – Draft RPPP FAQ’s

4. Attachment 4 – RPPP Ordinance Redline

5. Attachment 5– RPPP Guidelines Redline
52 Chapter 10.40 - RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT (RPP) PROGRAM Sections:

10.40.010 Purpose.

10.40.020 Definitions.

10.40.030 Findings.

10.40.040 Designation of residential parking permit areas.

10.40.050 Procedure for establishment of residential parking permit areas.

10.40.060 Authority of Director.

10.40.070 Issuance of permits.

10.40.080 Guest parking permits.

10.40.090 Display of permits.

10.40.100 Enforcement.

10.40.110 Exempt vehicles.

10.40.120 Vehicle Eligibility

10.40.130 Removal of residential parking permit area.

10.40.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to regulate and manage residential curb parking at locations at which a high demand for parking on residential streets has been determined by the City Council to be adverse to the health, safety, welfare, and interest of the public, including residential property owners, businesses, pedestrians, and other users of the City's streets, roads, and infrastructure in a manner that provides for the health, safety, welfare and interests of the public, including ensuring productive use of off-street parking for those who need it. The procedures and standards in this chapter are intended to provide flexibility so that the City Council may adopt, after consultation with various stakeholders, including residents, businesses and institutions, parking programs that appropriately protect each neighborhood's unique characteristics.

10.40.020 Definitions.
“Commercial vehicle(s)” mean(s) as commercial vehicle as that term is defined in the California Vehicle Code Section 260.
"Director" means the Director of the Department of Public Works. "Residential parking permit area" or “RPP area” means a geographical area set by City Council resolution establishing a preferential parking permit system, including the parking restrictions applicable thereto, pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22507. "Residence” or “dwelling unit” means each legal dwelling unit located immediately adjacent to a street, or portion of street, within a RPP area and with an assigned postal address. The term includes singlefamily dwellings, apartments, condominiums, and other distinct residential units including accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.
“Resident” means an adult person who lives in a RPP area as his/her permanent place of residence, either as a tenant, occupant, or owner, as evidenced by Department of Motor Vehicle records. "Residential parking permit program guidelines" or "guidelines" shall mean the City of East Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Guidelines, as promulgated by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
53 10.40.30 Findings.

Each RPP area may be designated by the City Council only upon findings that such RPP area is required to enhance or protect the quality of life in the proposed RPP area and that such designation is necessary to provide reasonably available and convenient parking for the benefit of the residents in the RPP area. Such findings shall be based upon the following criteria established to the satisfaction of the City Council:

A. Vehicles parked in the RPP area create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption that disrupts neighborhood life; or a shortage of reasonably available and convenient off street parking spaces exist in the proposed RPP area;
B. The establishment of the proposed RPP area would benefit a majority of the residents in the proposed RPP area and balance the impacts to adjoining areas outside of the proposed RPP area, and the proposed RPP program would be feasible in terms of cost, administrability, and enforcement; and
C. No alternative solution is feasible or practical.

10.40.040 Designation of residential parking permit areas.

Through this ordinance a residential parking permit program is established. RRP areas may be designated, expanded, or amended by resolution of the City Council. The City Council shall consider designation of those areas satisfying the criteria set forth in this chapter. If the City Council determines that the criteria have been met, it may adopt a resolution designating a residential parking permit area.

The designation or expansion of an RPP area may be initiated by utilizing either of the following methods:

A. Initiation by City Council. The City Council may, by motion, initiate consideration of a RPP area by directing staff to undertake the data collection and outreach process set forth in Section

10.40.050B and C.

B. Initiation by neighborhood petition. Residents may request the formation of an RPP area in their neighborhood or the expansion of an existing RPP area. The request and process shall be made, and considered, in accordance with the forms and procedures set forth in the guidelines.

The petition must be signed by residents representing at least sixty seven percent (67%) of the residences on each block upon which permit parking is proposed. Only one signature is needed per residence. The residence owner, renter, or occupant is eligible to sign the petition.

10.40.050 Procedure for establishment of residential parking permit areas.

The establishment or expansion of a residential parking permit areas shall be made, and considered, in the following manner, except as otherwise provided for in this Chapter:

A. Staff Review of Neighborhood Application/Petition. The Director shall review applications to establish or expand RPP areas initiated by neighborhood residents. The applications are to be made on a form approved by the Director. Failure to provide information requested by the 54 Director that is reasonably necessary to implement this Chapter will be grounds for denial.

Through discussions with the applicant, the Public Works Director will identify the draft program parameters, as set forth in the Guidelines, which may be amended from time to time, including, days and time limits when permit parking will be enforced and the geographic area of enforcement. The applicant will coordinate collection of signatures on a petition. The City Clerk shall review the signed neighborhood petition and verify that it meets the signature requirements set forth in this chapter and the guidelines. If the RPP area request does not meet the signature requirements set forth in section 10.40.040.A., the Director shall send a letter to the petitioners denying their request.

B. Staff Review of Council Requests. The Director shall review requests to establish or expand RPP areas. The Public Works Director will identify the draft program parameters, as set forth in the Guidelines, which may be amended from time to time, including, days and time limits when permit parking will be enforced and the geographic area of enforcement.

C. Data Collection. For applications initiated by neighborhood petition and applications initiated by City Council City staff shall promptly complete parking occupancy studies to analyze and quantify, to the extent possible, the nature of the problem. For eligibility to establish or expand an RPP area, parking surveys must meet a minimum threshold of seventy-five percent (75%) occupancy of all the on-street parking spaces within the proposed RPP area during the proposed permit hours, unless otherwise provided for in this Chapter. The Director shall determine whether the minimum threshold is met and thus whether a permit parking restriction will be implemented. If the RPP area does not meet the minimum parking occupancy requirement, the Director may send a letter to the petitioners denying their request D. Community Outreach. Upon completion of data collection, City staff shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of enforcement. Staff shall undertake an online survey of resident support within the RPP area. The recommended threshold for the creation or expansion of an RPP area is a vote of 67% of the returned surveys in favor of the program; however, the City Council may approve an RPP area with a simple majority (50% + 1) of the returned surveys in favor of the program. Staff shall mail notices to all residences within the proposed RPP area including the following information:

1. basic parameters of the proposed RPP program (proposed RPP area, hours/days of enforcement and parking prohibitions for non-permit holders, maximum number of permits per residence, and fees),

2. a link to the City’s website with the full text of the draft resolution,

3. a link to an online survey where residents within the proposed RPP area can indicate their support or opposition to the designation of an RPP area in their neighborhood,

4. contact information for a City staff who can answer questions and assist residents without internet access with completing the survey, and

5. dates of upcoming public meetings (Public Works and Transportation Commission and City Council).

The applicant is encouraged to conduct additional outreach including holding neighborhood meeting(s) and going door to door to distribute a second copy of the notice mailed by the City to urge residents to complete the survey and attend the Public Works and Transportation Commission and City Council meetings. The results of this survey shall be reported to the Public Works and Transportation Commission and the City Council.

E. Public Works and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendation. Staff shall provide the Public Works and Transportation Commission an opportunity to consider the proposed RPP area at a noticed public hearing. The Commission shall review the draft resolution and make a 55 recommendation to the City Council regarding the RPP area. This recommendation may include proposed modifications of the boundaries, hours of enforcement, or other matters as the Commission may deem necessary and desirable.

F. Adoption of Resolution Establishing or Expanding an RPP Area. Following the completion of the above procedures, and if in compliance with this Chapter, staff shall bring a resolution designating the proposed RPP area for Council consideration. At a minimum, the resolution shall specify:

1. The findings that the criteria set forth in this Chapter have been met;

2. The boundaries and the name of the RPP area;

3. Hours and days of enforcement of parking time restrictions and parking prohibitions that shall be in effect for non-permit holders; and

4. The procedure for obtaining parking permits, including the fee therefor.

The City Council shall hold a public hearing on a proposed resolution to establish the Residential Parking Permit area. The Council may adopt, modify, or reject the proposed resolution.

G. Resident Notice of Newly Adopted RPP Area. Upon designation or expansion of an RPP area, the City shall provide notice informing residents about implementation of the RPP area and its details.

10.40.060 Authority of Director.

The Director is authorized to establish the Guidelines, and rules and procedures to effectuate or implement the purposes and provisions of this Chapter, as limited herein, and to produce signs, forms, and other materials necessary, or appropriate, to effectuate or implement the provisions of this Chapter.

10.40.070 Issuance of permits.

Applications to authorize parking within a residential parking permit area may be made by any resident of a residence or dwelling unit within the residential parking permit area. Such application shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant, and shall be filed with the Director, or his or her designated representative. Applications for a resident parking permit must include all the following documentation:

1. A current DMV driver's license for each resident requesting a permit showing an address within the permit area; and

2. A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle showing an address within the permit area,

3. A current vehicle insurance policy showing the vehicle insured at the same address within the permit area; and

4. The Director is authorized to require any other information the Director requires by rules and procedures; and

5. Any information reasonably necessary for implementation of this Chapter, as determined by the Director.

Unless otherwise prescribed by the resolution establishing the residential parking permit area, each residence within an RPP area may receive, upon application, one parking permit at no cost to the 56 applicant, subject to conditions established by the Director to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter.

Additional parking Permits may be given at no cost or purchased by applicants, upon application, subject to the availability, as determined by the Director. Permits issued to residents pursuant to this section shall require annual renewal. The City Council may, by resolution, establish fees for the issuance of permits or the transfer of a permit to a different vehicle or different address.

10.40.080 Guest parking permits.

Unless otherwise prescribed in the resolution establishing a residential parking permit area, each residence within an RPP area may receive twenty (20) one-day guest parking permits per year upon application, the form and conditions of which are approved by the Director to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter. Upon application, applicants may receive additional guest permits for one-day special events as approved by the Director.

10.40.090 Display of permits.

A. Parking permits shall be displayed in a manner determined by the Director.

B. The Director shall notify each permittee in writing of the proper manner in which to display a parking permit.

C. The proper display on a vehicle of a valid parking permit issued pursuant to this chapter grants only the privilege of parking the vehicle in the RPP area for which the permit was issued.

D. A valid parking permit issued under this chapter shall not guarantee or reserve to the holder an on-street parking space on any street or portion of street within the RPP area for which the permit was issued.

10.40.100 Enforcement.

A. The Director shall cause appropriate signs to be erected at the entrance of a residential parking permit area and at intermediate locations as deemed necessary by the Director.

B. The signs that the Director causes to be erected pursuant to this section shall provide clear notice of the days and times of the parking prohibition applicable to the street upon which the sign is erected.

C. No person shall park a vehicle in an RPP area in violation of any posted or noticed time restriction or parking prohibition unless the person has a valid and current parking permit for that vehicle or is otherwise exempt. Violations of this subsection shall constitute an infraction offense.

D. Any willful misuse of the parking permits, selling permits to others, altering permits, forging permits, copying permits, providing false or failing to provide reasonably necessary information to obtain permits, or any other basis for revocation, as determined by the Director that would effectuate the purposes of this Chapter, are not permitted and shall constitute an infraction. Such misuse shall also result in revocation of the parking permits for a period of one (1) year. A revocation of a parking permit may be appealed to the Director by filing a request for an appeal, on a form approved by the Director, within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the revocation. The appeal must state why the permit should not be revoked. Failure 57 to state this basis shall be grounds for revocation without an appeal. The Director shall respond within twenty-one (21) calendar days and the Director's decision shall be final.

E. Parking permit holders are not exempt from state and local traffic and parking rules.

F. Parking permits are only valid in the RPP area for which the permit is issued.

10.40.110 Exempt vehicles.

The following vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions applicable to any RPP area: (1) vehicles owned or operated by any government agency, or contractor of a government agency, being used in the course of business; (2) refuse collection, utility, or other public agency service vehicles being used in the course of business; (3) commercial vehicles actively providing or performing services or making a pickup or delivery if parked in a manner consistent with applicable law, including the East Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.04.080; (4) any authorized emergency vehicle as defined in the California Vehicle Code when such vehicle is responding to an emergency, (5) vehicles displaying a valid disabled placard or license plate.

10.40.120 Vehicle Eligibility.

No residential parking permits will be issued to:

1. Vehicles with delinquent parking citations; or

2. Vehicles with expired registration; or

3. Vehicles registered under the California Vehicle Code as commercial vehicles; or

4. Recreational vehicles (RVs), boats, trailers, or oversized vehicles exceeding 22 feet in length or 7 feet in height.

10.40.130 Removal of residential parking permit area.

The City Council may, by resolution, terminate and dissolve any previously established RPP area or portion thereof. Such termination may be considered following receipt of a petition signed by residents representing at least 67 percent (67%) of the residences within the RPP area proposed for dissolution.

Only one signature is needed per residence. The Director shall remove permit parking signs in accordance with any such resolution.
58 City of East Palo Alto
Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Guidelines

PURPOSE
The goal of the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program is to regulate and manage onstreet parking in residential neighborhoods. This document clarifies the procedures used by the City to implement the program.

BACKGROUND
On [DATE], the City Council adopted a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Ordinance where neighborhood parking is regulated for non‐permit holders. The Ordinance sets forth mechanisms to enact permit parking restrictions within a RPP area based upon findings of a parking occupancy survey conducted under the direction of City staff, as initiated by neighborhood petition, or as otherwise initiated by City Council. Three documents govern the creation of an RPP area in the City of East Palo Alto:

1. Chapter 10.40 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code, which outlines the criteria that must be met and the process that must be taken for the designation, expansion, or dissolution of an RPP area.

2. A RPP area‐specific resolution, which must be adopted by the City Council and outlines the specific characteristics of the individual RPP area.

3. The document within, “Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Guidelines”, which provides additional detail on RPP Program implementation. The Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Guidelines (Guidelines) may be modified by the Public Works Director and provide detail on policies and procedures related to RPP areas.

All three documents work in concert to govern the development and operation of the City’s RPP areas.

POLICIES
The Guidelines establish the framework for initiating, operating, and removing residential parking permit areas. The RPP program is intended to regulate on-street parking in parking permit areas within the City in order to enhance or protect the quality of life in the proposed RPP area according to these policies:

The RPP program is intended for use in single family and multi-family residential areas, not in mixed-use areas where residents and businesses are expected to share parking.

Implementation of an RPP area does not guarantee the availability of parking spaces on a public street, or within a specific neighborhood, because more parking permits may be issued than there are available on-street parking spaces.

The hours and days of enforcement of parking time restrictions and parking prohibitions in effect for non-permit holders will be set forth in the RPP areaspecific resolution.

Blocks within each parking permit area will be determined based on the potential of parked cars to overflow and impact adjacent streets, via a collaborative process between residents and Public Works Department staff. The final limits of the residential parking permit program area will be determined by the Public Works Director and subject to approval by the City Council via resolution.

Parking permits will be issued only for passenger vehicles registered to residents of a property with at least one frontage within an RPP area. Commercial trucks, boat 59 trailers, RV’s (camping trailers, motor homes, etc.), trailers and work-type commercial vehicles, including taxis and limousines, or any oversized vehicles are not eligible for resident parking permits. Other exclusions are contained within Chapter

10.40. The maximum number of resident parking permits that may be issued per residence will be determined by the Public Works Director based on the characteristics of each neighborhood, but only one permit is issued per vehicle.

Up to twenty (20) one-day guest permits may be issued per residence each calendar year.

Permits may be transferred when the permit holder moves or the vehicle for which a permit has been issued is sold.

Signs will be posted in each RPP area indicating the time limitation and days during which parking is restricted.

Parking permits are not intended for use at parking meters, parking lots, or parking garages.

RPP parking permits are only valid for the RPP area for which they are issued.

Vehicles displaying parking permits are subject to all other parking restrictions, including loading zones, red zones, and accessible parking spaces.

Displaying a residential parking permit does not exempt the vehicle from the City’s ordinance requiring a car to be moved every 72 hours.

By resolution of the City Council, a fee may be set for the permits.

Exceptions
RPP parking restrictions do not apply to vehicles owned or operated by any government agency, or contractor of a government agency, being used in the course of business.

Any refuse collection, utility, or other public agency service vehicles actively working for a property within the limits of an RPP area may park on-street in front of the property on which they are working without a permit.

Commercial vehicles actively providing or performing services or making a pickup or delivery are not required to have a parking permit when parked within an RPP area in a manner consistent with applicable law, including the East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.04.080.

Any authorized emergency vehicle as defined in the California Vehicle Code when such vehicle is responding to an emergency is exempt from parking restrictions applicable to any RPP area.

Any vehicles legally displaying a valid disabled placard or license plate.

PROCEDURES
The procedures below provide for consistent parking permit area development from one neighborhood to the next. The Public Works Director has the flexibility to modify the following procedures when appropriate.

Area Creation or Expansion
60 Initiating a new residential parking permit area or expanding an existing RPP area requires completion of the following steps:

1. Resident completes a Residential Parking Permit Program application form and submits it to the Public Works Director.

2. Through discussions with the applicant, the Public Works Director will identify the draft program parameters including days and time limits when permit parking will be enforced and the geographic area.

3. Applicant will coordinate collection of signatures on a petition. The petition will clearly identify the proposed streets to be included in the RPP area, the time limits, and general rules associated with the RPP program. At least 67% of the residences on each block must be reflected in the petition. Only one signature is needed per residence. The residence owner, renter, or occupant is eligible to sign the petition. Each house, apartment, condominium, accessory dwelling unit or junior dwelling unit will be considered a residence. City Council initiated requests may skip this step.

4. The City Clerk shall review applications to establish or expand RPP areas initiated by neighborhood petition to verify that it meets the signature requirements set forth in the RPP Program Ordinance and these guidelines. If the RPP area request does not meet the signature requirements, the Director shall send a letter to the petitioners denying their request.

5. Optional:
a. The applicant may request a neighborhood meeting to present the components of the RPP to the area.
b. The applicant may demonstrate the support of their homeowners’/ neighborhood association (if one exists) through the submittal of a letter of endorsement from that group. Any letters of support will be considered by the Public Works and Transportation Commission and the City Council.

6. Public Works staff will collect occupancy data on key street segments within the proposed RPP area. Only areas with an average occupancy rate of 75% or more during the proposed permit hours will continue in this process. If the RPP area does not meet the minimum parking occupancy requirement, the Director may send a letter to the petitioners denying the request.

7. After completion of the parking occupancy survey, City staff shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of enforcement. Staff shall undertake a survey of resident support within the RPP area. The applicant is encouraged to notify residents around the RPP area. The results of this survey shall be included in and reported to the Public Works and Transportation Commission and the City Council. The recommended threshold for the creation or expansion of an RPP area is a vote of 67% of the returned surveys in favor of the program, however the City Council may approve an RPP area with a simple majority (50% + 1) of the returned surveys in favor of the program.

8. Staff shall bring the proposed RPP area to the Public Works and Transportation Commission at a noticed public hearing. The Commission shall review the draft resolution and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the RPP area. This recommendation may include proposed modifications of the boundaries, hours of enforcement, or other matters as the Commission may deem necessary and desirable.

9. Following the completion of the above procedures, staff shall bring a resolution designating the proposed RPP area for Council consideration. At a minimum, the resolution shall specify:
a. The findings that the criteria set forth in this chapter have been met; b. The boundaries and the name of the RPP area;
61 c. Hours and days of enforcement of parking time restrictions and parking prohibitions that shall be in effect for non-permit holders; d. The procedure for obtaining parking permits, including the fee therefor.

The City Council shall hold a public hearing on a proposed resolution to establish the Residential Parking Permit area. The Council may adopt, modify, or reject the proposed resolution.

10. Upon designation or expansion of an RPP area, the City shall provide notice informing residents about implementation of the RPP area and its details.

11. The Director shall cause appropriate signs to be erected at the entrance of a residential parking permit area and at intermediate locations as deemed necessary by the Director. The signs shall provide clear notice of the days and times of the parking prohibition.

12. If the request for permit parking is denied or terminated, a second study of the same or similar RPP area will not be conducted for a minimum of 24 months unless there is a significant, identifiable change in parking characteristics as determined by the Director of Public Works.

OBTAINING A PARKING PERMIT
The City of East Palo Alto uses a virtual system to issue and manage parking permits. Under this system, parking permit software is used to link the vehicle license plate number to an electronic permit. The virtual permit system eliminates the need for hang tags or stickers and allows residents to obtain RPP area parking permits online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at [LINK]. Residents who do not have access to the internet or need assistance with the online permitting process may apply for RPP permits by calling (XXX) XXX-XXX or visiting the City Permit Center at 1960 Tate Street. Assistance is available Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Interpretation services are available in Spanish and XXXX at this number.

Two types of permits are available: annual resident parking permits and one-day guest parking permits. Annual resident parking permits are intended for use by residents of a specific property within the RPP Area. One-day guest parking permits may be obtained by residents in RPP areas for use by their occasional guests.

Resident Parking Permits
To obtain a resident parking permit, a resident of an RPP area must include all the following documentation :

1. A completed application form (online) in the residents’ name and address; and

2. A current DMV driver’s license for each resident requesting a permit showing an address within the permit area; and

3. A current DMV motor vehicle registration for each vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a resident parking permit, showing an address within the permit area; and

4. A current vehicle insurance policy showing the vehicle insured at the same address within the permit area; and

5. The Director is authorized to require other readily verifiable forms of proof of residency, which may include any other information the Director requires by rules and procedures; and

6. Any information reasonably necessary for implementation of this Chapter, as determined by the Director.

Parking Permit Fees
The City Council may, by resolution, establish a fee for the issuance of permits or the transfer of a permit to a different vehicle or different address.

ENFORCEMENT
No person shall park a vehicle in an RPP area in violation of any posted or noticed time restriction or parking prohibition unless the person has a valid and current parking permit for that vehicle or is otherwise exempt.

The parking permit software tracks electronic permits linked to the registered vehicle’s license plate number. When license plates are scanned by the enforcement staff, registered license plate information is automatically referenced against the parking permit database. If the license plate is not connected to a valid virtual permit, the vehicle will be subject to a parking citation. Though not required, individuals who want to place a physical permit on their dashboard may print one with the link provided by [VENDOR] after payment has been made.

Any willful misuse of the parking permits, selling permits to others, altering permits, forging permits, copying permits, and providing false information to obtain permits or any other basis for revocation, as determined by the Director that would effectuate the purposes of this Chapter, are not permitted. Such misuse shall result in revocation of the parking permits for a period of one (1) year. A revocation of a parking permit may be appealed to the Director of Public Works by filing a request for an appeal within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the revocation. The appeal must state why the permit should not be revoked. Failure to state this basis shall be grounds for revocation without an appeal. The Director shall respond within twenty-one (21) calendar days and the Director's decision shall be final.

Violations of Chapter 10.40 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code shall constitute an infraction offense subject to fine or penalty as set forth in the East Palo Alto Municipal Code. 63 Frequently Asked Questions

1. Which streets are eligible for residential parking permit areas? Streets that are in a residential (single or multi-family) neighborhood Streets where on-street parking meets minimum occupancy threshold (75% or as otherwise established by City Council) during the peak period

2. What are the time restrictions?
Time restrictions are set when the RPP area is created based on the characteristics of that neighborhood. Suggested options for parking permit enforcement include:
 Nighttime – permit required to park 8 PM - 8 AM 7 days/week  Business hours – permit required to park > 3 hours M-F 8 AM – 6 PM  All day – permit required to park any time of the day 7 days/week  Overnight – Midnight - 5am

3. What do permits cost?
The City Council will impose fees for the issuance of the first and any additional permits or the transfer of a permit to recover all or a portion of the costs of administering the program.

4. How will the program be enforced?
Residents will provide their vehicle license plate information when obtaining their permit(s) online. The parking permit software will generate an electronic permit linked to the registered vehicle’s license plate number. When license plates are scanned by East Palo Alto Community Service Officers, your registered license plate information is automatically referenced against the parking permit database. If the license plate is not connected to a valid virtual permit, the vehicle will be subject to a parking citation.

5. Do you require proof of residency to request a permit? Yes, individuals must prove residency with a current DMV driver’s license, current DMV vehicle registration, and current vehicle insurance policy all showing the same address within the permit area in order to be issued a parking permit.

6. Are vehicle registration, vehicle license plate number, proof of insurance, and a driver’s license required to get a permit?
Applicants need to show a current driver’s license for each resident requesting a permit, the current vehicle registration, and current vehicle insurance policy for the permitted vehicle and provide the license plate number for enforcement purposes..

7. Are permits neighborhood specific?
Yes, each parking permit is issued for a specific RPP area. With a valid parking permit, you may park within the boundaries of that specific RPP area only.

8. Are permits transferable?
Yes, the virtual parking permits are transferable. Individuals can add or remove vehicles on their RPP account at any time. This includes temporarily assigning loaner vehicles or rental cars. This also allows residents with multiple vehicles to change which of their vehicles is associated with a resident parking permit as needed.

9.How long will the permit be valid?
Residential parking permits are valid for one year. Renewal dates are set when each RPP area is created.

10.How do I get a new permit or renew my permit? 64
Residents may obtain RPP area parking permits online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at [LINK]. Residents who do not have access to the internet or need assistance with the online permitting process may apply for RPP permits by calling (XXX) XXX-XXX or visiting the City Permit Center at 1960 Tate Street. Assistance is available Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Interpretation services are available in Spanish and XXXX at this number.

The process for renewing a permit is the same as getting a new permit.

11.What if I have guests coming?
Each residence is eligible to obtain up to 20 guest parking permits per year. Residents may apply for additional guest permits for one-day special events at the discretion of the Director of Public Works.

12.How will people know that permits are required for street parking? Parking signs will be posted on at the entrance to residential parking permit area and at intermediate locations with the neighborhood that list the time limit (if applicable), hours and days of enforcement, and the exception for people with parking permits. When a new area is established, a letter will be sent to residents notifying them of the change.

13. Will service providers (PG&E, Plumber, Cable/Internet, FedEx/UPS/USPS, etc.) be able to park in a RPP area without a guest permit in order to service my home? Yes, public utility and commercial vehicles actively providing or performing services or making a pickup or delivery (i.e. plumber, cable/internet, FedEx/UPS/USPS, etc.) are not required to have a parking permit when parked within an RPP area. In addition, any emergency vehicle (police, fire, ambulance), or E-plated vehicles engaged in work or providing services are able to temporarily park without a permit in an RPP area.

14. Do I need a permit for my scooter or motorcycle to park in an area subject to permit parking restrictions?
Yes, scooters and motorcycles are considered a vehicle. 65 Chapter 10.40 - RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT (RPP) PROGRAM Sections:

10.40.010 Purpose.

10.40.020 Definitions.

10.40.030 Findings.

10.40.040 Designation of residential parking permit areas.

10.40.050 Procedure for establishment of residential parking permit areas.

10.40.060 Authority of Director.

10.40.070 Issuance of permits.

10.40.080 Guest parking permits.

10.40.090 Display of permits.

10.40.100 Enforcement.

10.40.110 Exempt vehicles.

10.40.120 Vehicle Eligibility

10.40.130 Removal of residential parking permit area.

10.40.010 Purpose.

10.40.020 Definitions.
“Commercial vehicle(s)” mean(s) as commercial vehicle as that term is defined in the California Vehicle Code Section 260.
"Director" means the Director of the Department of Public Works. "Residential parking permit area" or “RPP area” means a geographical area set by City Council resolution establishing a preferential parking permit system, including the parking restrictions applicable thereto, pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22507. "Residence” or “dwelling unit” means each legal dwelling unit located immediately adjacent to a street, or portion of street, within a RPP area and with an assigned postal address. The term includes singlefamily dwellings, apartments, condominiums, and other distinct residential units including accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.
“Resident” means an adult person who lives in a RPP area as his/her permanent place of residence, either as a tenant, occupant, or owner, as evidenced by voter registration or Department of Motor Vehicle records.
66 "Residential parking permit program guidelines" or "guidelines" shall mean the City of East Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Guidelines, as promulgated by the Director of the Department of Public Works.

10.40.30 Findings.

10.40.040 Designation of residential parking permit areas.

The designation or expansion of an RPP area may be initiated by utilizing either of the following methods:

A. Initiation by City Council. The City Council may, by motion, initiate consideration of a RPP area by directing staff to undertake the data collection and outreach process set forth in Section

10.40.050B and C.

C. Automatic Implementation. This Section does not preclude the City Council from adopting a resolution establishing areas based on a 75% occupancy threshold that would cause such requirements to spring into place, supported by an occupancy study, or some other threshold set by the Council, and providing for the automatic implementation of a parking permit program.

The resolution would specify standards for the automatic establishment of permit parking requirements, including establishing RPP areas to which the occupancy threshold would apply, the means of measuring whether the threshold is met (e.g., based on an occupancy study 67 conducted consistent with Section 10.40.050.B., or some other threshold or metric), timeframe or scope of the parking occupancy study, the applicable fees and penalties, and other standards or considerations, without satisfying other procedural requirements set forth in Section

10.40.050.

10.40.050 Procedure for establishment of residential parking permit areas.

The establishment or expansion of a residential parking permit areas shall be made, and considered, in the following manner, except as otherwise provided for in this Chapter:

A. Staff Review of Neighborhood Application/Petition. The Director shall review applications to establish or expand RPP areas initiated by neighborhood residents. The applications are to be made on a form approved by the Director. Failure to provide information requested by the Director that is reasonably necessary to implement this Chapter will be grounds for denial.

A.B. Staff Review of Council Requests. The Director shall review requests to establish or expand RPP areas. The Public Works Director will identify the draft program parameters, as set forth in the Guidelines, which may be amended from time to time, including, days and time limits when permit parking will be enforced and the geographic area of enforcement. The Council may appoint an ad hoc committee to provide guidance to the Public Works Director on various different issues, including the formulation of program parameters, which would return to the Council for consideration by the entire Council.

C. Data Collection. For applications initiated by neighborhood petition and applications initiated by City Council City staff shall promptly complete parking occupancy studies to analyze and quantify, to the extent possible, the nature of the problem, or to determine whether a threshold is met for the automatic establishment of a parking permit program for an RPP area or set of RPP areas, as set forth in Section 10.40.040. For eligibility to establish or expand an RPP area, parking surveys must meet a minimum threshold of seventy-five percent (75%) occupancy of all the on-street parking spaces within the proposed RPP area during the proposed permit hours, unless otherwise provided for in this Chapter. The Director shall determine whether the minimum threshold is met and thus whether a permit parking restriction will be implemented. If the RPP area does not meet the minimum parking occupancy requirement, the Director may send a letter to the petitioners denying their request
D. Community Outreach. Upon completion of data collection, City staff shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of enforcement. Staff shall undertake an online survey of resident support within the RPP area. The recommended threshold for the creation or expansion of an RPP area is a vote of 67% of the returned surveys in favor of the program; however, the City Council may approve an RPP area with a simple majority (50% + 1) of the returned surveys in favor of the program. Staff shall mail notices to all residences within the proposed RPP area including the following information:
68 1. basic parameters of the proposed RPP program (proposed RPP area, hours/days of enforcement and parking prohibitions for non-permit holders, maximum number of permits per residence, and fees),

2. a link to the City’s website with the full text of the draft resolution,

3. a link to an online survey where residents within the proposed RPP area can indicate their support or opposition to the designation of an RPP area in their neighborhood,

4. contact information for a City staff who can answer questions and assist residents without internet access with completing the survey, and

5. dates of upcoming public meetings (Public Works and Transportation Commission and City Council).

B.E. Public Works and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendation. Staff shall provide the Public Works and Transportation Commission an opportunity to consider the proposed RPP area at a noticed public hearing. The Commission shall review the draft resolution and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the RPP area. This recommendation may include proposed modifications of the boundaries, hours of enforcement, or other matters as the Commission may deem necessary and desirable.

C.F. Adoption of Resolution Establishing or Expanding an RPP Area. Following the completion of the above procedures, and if in compliance with this Chapter, staff shall bring a resolution designating the proposed RPP area for Council consideration. At a minimum, the resolution shall specify:

1. The findings that the criteria set forth in this Chapter have been met;

2. The boundaries and the name of the RPP area;

3. Hours and days of enforcement of parking time restrictions and parking prohibitions that shall be in effect for non-permit holders; and

4. The procedure for obtaining parking permits, including the fee therefor.

The City Council shall hold a public hearing on a proposed resolution to establish the Residential Parking Permit area. The Council may adopt, modify, or reject the proposed resolution.

D.G. Resident Notice of Newly Adopted RPP Area. Upon designation or expansion of an RPP area, the City shall provide notice informing residents about implementation of the RPP area and its details.

10.40.060 Authority of Director.

1. A current DMV driver's license for each resident requesting a permit showing an address within the permit area; and

2. A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle showing an address within the permit area,

3. A current vehicle insurance policy showing the vehicle insured at the same address within the permit area; and

4. The Director is authorized to require voter registration records or any other information the Director requires by rules and procedures; and

5. Any information reasonably necessary for implementation of this Chapter, as determined by the Director.

Unless otherwise prescribed by the resolution establishing the residential parking permit area, each residence within an RPP area may receive, upon application, one parking permit at no cost to the applicant, subject to conditions established by the Director to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter.

10.40.080 Guest parking permits.

10.40.090 Display of permits.

A. Parking permits shall be displayed in a manner determined by the Director.

B. The Director shall notify each permittee in writing of the proper manner in which to display a parking permit.

C. The proper display on a vehicle of a valid parking permit issued pursuant to this chapter grants only the privilege of parking the vehicle in the RPP area for which the permit was issued.

10.40.100 Enforcement.

A. The Director shall cause appropriate signs to be erected at the entrance of a residential parking permit area and at intermediate locations as deemed necessary by the Director. 70 B. The signs that the Director causes to be erected pursuant to this section shall provide clear notice of the days and times of the parking prohibition applicable to the street upon which the sign is erected.

D. Any willful misuse of the parking permits, selling permits to others, altering permits, forging permits, copying permits, providing false or failing to provide reasonably necessary information to obtain permits, or any other basis for revocation, as determined by the Director that would effectuate the purposes of this Chapter, are not permitted and shall constitute an infraction. Such misuse shall also result in revocation of the parking permits for a period of one (1) year. A revocation of a parking permit may be appealed to the Director by filing a request for an appeal, on a form approved by the Director, within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the revocation. The appeal must state why the permit should not be revoked. Failure to state this basis shall be grounds for revocation without an appeal. The Director shall respond within twenty-one (21) calendar days and the Director's decision shall be final.

E. Parking permit holders are not exempt from state and local traffic and parking rules.

F. Parking permits are only valid in the RPP area for which the permit is issued.

10.40.110 Exempt vehicles.

10.40.120 Vehicle Eligibility.

No residential parking permits will be issued to:

1. Vehicles with delinquent parking citations; or

2. Vehicles with expired registration; or

3. Vehicles registered under the California Vehicle Code as commercial vehicles; or

4. Recreational vehicles (RVs), boats, trailers, or oversized vehicles exceeding 22 feet in length or 7 feet in height.

10.40.130 Removal of residential parking permit area.
71 The City Council may, by resolution, terminate and dissolve any previously established RPP area or portion thereof. Such termination may be considered following receipt of a petition signed by residents representing at least 67 percent (67%) of the residences within the RPP area proposed for dissolution.

Only one signature is needed per residence. The Director shall remove permit parking signs in accordance with any such resolution.
72 City of East Palo Alto
Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Guidelines

BACKGROUND
On [DATE], the City Council adopted a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Ordinance where neighborhood parking is regulated for non‐permit holders. The Ordinance sets forth mechanisms to automatically enact permit parking restrictions within a RPP area based upon findings of a parking occupancy survey conducted under the direction of City staff, as initiated by neighborhood petition, or as otherwise initiated by City Council. Three documents govern the creation of an RPP area in the City of East Palo Alto:

1. Chapter 10.40 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code, which outlines the criteria that must be met and the process that must be taken for the designation, expansion, or dissolution of an RPP area.

2. A RPP area‐specific resolution, which must be adopted by the City Council and outlines the specific characteristics of the individual RPP area.

All three documents work in concert to govern the development and operation of the City’s RPP areas.

The RPP program is intended for use in single family and multi-family residential areas, not in mixed-use areas where residents and businesses are expected to share parking.

The hours and days of enforcement of parking time restrictions and parking prohibitions in effect for non-permit holders will be set forth in the RPP areaspecific resolution.

Blocks within each parking permit area will be determined based on the potential of parked cars to overflow and impact adjacent streets, via a collaborative process between residents and Public Works Department staff.. The final limits of the residential parking permit program area will be determined by the Public Works Director and subject to approval set by the City Council via resolution.

Parking permits will be issued only for passenger vehicles registered to residents of a property with at least one frontage within an RPP area. Commercial trucks, boat 73 trailers, RV’s (camping trailers, motor homes, etc.), trailers and work-type commercial vehicles, including taxis and limousines, or any oversized vehicles are not eligible for resident parking permits. Other exclusions are contained within Chapter