HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190506plCC 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 05/06/2019
Document dates: 04/17/2019 – 04/24/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Tiffany Griego <tgriego@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, April 22, 2019 1:46 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Jean McCown; Lucy W. Wicks; Shweta Bhatnagar; Jean G. Snider; Jones, Julie (Perkins
Coie); Lait, Jonathan; Lesley Lowe
Subject:Stanford Research Park Comments to Agenda Item #12 (TIF Ordinance)
Attachments:2019-04-22__Stanford Research Park Comment Letter - TIF Fees.pdf
Dear Mayor Eric Filseth and Members of the City Council,
Enclosed are Stanford’s comments in relation to proposed amendments to the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee
Ordinance. We request these revisions so that the ordinance will not create a disincentive to replacement or renovation
of existing gross floor area in Stanford Research Park. It has been the City’s and Stanford’s long‐standing goal to ensure a
thriving, modern Stanford Research Park, and as currently drafted, we are concerned this ordinance is at cross‐purposes
with this shared goal. We have two specific requests to the Ordinance as drafted:
1. Section 16.59.020(e): Please do not add “and in use (within the two years prior to the time the amount of the
fee is calculated).”
2. Section 16.59.020(h): Please delete “or other planning approval” from the additions to this subsection, as a
change in use of an existing building should not trigger a TIF simply because of an architectural review or sign permit
otherwise prompted by the change.
These revisions are necessary so that the ordinance will be consistent with the methodology used in the Nexus Study to
identify needed transportation improvements, the contribution of new development to those needs, and the calculation
of the proposed fee.
Thank you,
Tiffany Griego
Managing Director, Stanford Research Park
Stanford Real Estate
Direct: (650) 724‐4787
tgriego@stanford.edu
www.StanfordResearchPark.com
Take advantage of our transportation programs:
www.SRPgo.com, a service of Stanford Research Park
Stanford Research Park · 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 · Palo Alto, CA 94304
April 22, 2019
Mayor Eric Filseth and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Comments on the Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (4/22/2019 Agenda Item #12)
Dear Mayor Eric Filseth and Members of the City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide Stanford University’s comments in relation to proposed amendments to the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance that the City Council will consider on April 22, 2019. We
request these revisions so that the ordinance will not create a disincentive to replacement or renovation of existing
gross floor area in the Stanford Research Park. It has been the City’s and Stanford’s long-standing goal to ensure a thriving, modern Stanford Research Park, and as currently drafted, we are concerned this ordinance is at cross-
purposes with this shared goal. We have reviewed the proposed amendments and request the following changes to the ordinance:
1. Section 16.59.020(e): Do not add “and in use (within the two years prior to the time the amount of the fee is calculated).”
2. Section 16.59.020(h): Delete “or other planning approval” from the additions to this subsection. A change
in use of an existing building should not trigger a TIF simply because architectural review or a sign permit might be prompted by the change.
These revisions are necessary so that the ordinance will be consistent with the methodology used in the Nexus
Study to identify needed transportation improvements, the contribution of new development to those needs, and the calculation of the proposed fee.
Analysis
Like the existing Citywide TIF, the proposed ordinance would charge a TIF based on the difference between
projected PM peak hour vehicle trips associated with “new development” on a parcel and PM peak hour trips
generated by “existing development” on the same parcel (see Existing and Proposed § 16.59.060(b)). In a major change from the existing Citywide TIF ordinance, however, the proposed TIF ordinance would define existing
development as “structures present (at the time the amount of the fee is calculated) and in use (within the two years
April 22, 2019 Page 2
prior to the time the amount of the fee is calculated) on parcels upon which new development is planned to occur.”
(See Existing and Proposed § 16.59.020(e) (new text in italics).1)
For nonresidential buildings, proposed section 16.59.020(h) would also change the current ordinance’s definition
of “new development,” adding a new category of a “change in use that requires a use permit or other planning approval.” Because virtually any change in use could result in the need for a planning approval (e.g., architectural review or signage approval), this new category appears to be quite broad.
The number of net new PM peak hour vehicle trips projected to be generated by a new development shall be calculated by subtracting the projected PM peak hour
vehicle trips generated by existing development on the parcel(s) to contain the
new development from the projected PM peak hour vehicle trips generated by the new development (including any existing structures to remain on the parcel after
the construction of the new development). In no event shall a new development
be projected to generate less than zero new PM peak hour vehicle trips as a result of this calculation. (Emphasis added.)
Although section 16.59.060(b) itself does not materially change, the new two-year “in use” requirement for
“existing development” could significantly change the TIF calculation for renovation and replacement projects in the Stanford Research Park. Hundreds of thousands of square feet of existing gross floor area could become
vulnerable to a new TIF -- often for space that already paid TIFs under the 1987 Stanford Research Park / El
Camino Real CS Zone TIF and/or the 2007 Citywide TIF. A building in the Stanford Research Park can become vacant for two years for any number of reasons, including fluctuations in employment, intent to sublease, or
planned renovations or replacement. This can occur with buildings that will not undergo a redevelopment and buildings that do. To charge a fee for a building being redeveloped (versus maintained in its current obsolete state where a re-occupancy would not trigger a TIF) seems counter to the City’s and Stanford’s shared goals
to sustaining a vital and modern Stanford Research Park.
In addition, this approach is not supported by the Nexus Study. The Nexus Study’s fee calculations are based on
the projected increase in PM peak-hour vehicle trips in 2030 resulting from new housing units and jobs under the
Comprehensive Plan, as modified by the halving of the City’s cumulative office/R&D development cap. The Nexus Study does not calculate any increase in PM peak hour vehicle trips based on projections of existing
nonresidential space that becomes vacant and is then replaced or reoccupied. Similarly, the Nexus Study’s
identifications of transportation improvements, estimates of the costs of those improvements, and calculation of the fee amount (cost divided by increase in PM peak hour vehicle trips) do not take into account any potential
vacancies in existing built space.
Nothing about an existing building’s occupancy status in the two years preceding a new building permit would increase the number of Citywide Transportation Fee Improvements identified in the Nexus Study, the cost of those
improvements, or “new development’s” share of PM peak hour trips. Thus any TIF collected because an existing building was not “in use” within the two years prior to issuance of a building permit would simply be a windfall for which no nexus has been established.
The Nexus Study asserts that it is reasonable to treat replacement or renovation of an existing building that has been vacant for two years as “new development” triggering the new TIF, stating: “The rationale for two years as
1 Section 16.59.060(b) governs calculation of the TIF. The proposed amendments would add only the word “net” at the
beginning of this section: The term “in use” is not defined in the proposed ordinance but appears, based on the Nexus Study, to mean “not vacant.”
April 22, 2019 Page 3
the minimum period of vacancy is that it is consistent with VTA’s TIA Guidelines requiring traffic studies to use
traffic counts that are no more than two years old.” (Nexus Study, p. 25.) This assertion mixes apples and oranges; it does not match the logic or approach of the Nexus Study, described above. The proposed TIF is, properly, based
on current estimates of new development’s future PM peak hour vehicle trip generation: a 2,185-trip increase after TDM. Calculation of the TIF is not based on potential future traffic counts; it is based on trip generation formulas. Thus the Nexus Study does not support the proposed ordinance’s change in the definition of “existing
development.”
In summary, we request that Section 16.59.020(e) not include new language “and in use (within the two years
prior to the time the amount of the fee is calculated).” We further request Section 16.59.020(h) delete “or other
planning approval” from the additions to this subsection. A change in use of an existing building should not trigger a TIF simply because architectural review or a sign permit might be prompted by the change.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any
questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany Griego
Managing Director
Stanford Research Park Stanford Real Estate
cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager, City of Palo Alto Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto
Jean McCown, Stanford University Julie Jones, Perkins Coie
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:tom@tomvlasic.com
Sent:Wednesday, April 17, 2019 3:18 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Rachel; Home; McFall, Jim
Subject:Monday Meeting re: Rail Crossing options to study
Good Afternoon,
This email is relative to the rail crossing item on Monday's agenda and specifically the following staff
recommendation:
Add consideration of a viaduct at Churchill Avenue. At the March 27 community meeting, several
community members
suggested that a viaduct at Churchill be considered. In reviewing the initial list of 34 ideas, staff confirmed
that a viaduct specifically at Churchill was not explicitly considered, only a citywide viaduct and the
Meadow–Charleston viaduct. Given the community interest in seeking an alternative to a closure at
Churchill Avenue, staff recommends that study of a viaduct at Churchill Avenue be included in the scope of
work ahead.
My wife and I have lived in the Southgate neighborhood for over 40 years and watched and participated in
several matters and studies relative to City consideration of high speed rail and other plans for the rail
corridor. We have seen time and again, our public agencies wasting time and resources considering
options, not only for the corridor but other planning matters too, that have no practical basis for study or
implementation. This is clearly the case relative to the option of a viaduct for Churchill and we oppose
any time or money being spent for this option for the following reasons:
Cost. This option would be expensive and there is already no good funding source for the grade
separations the City must consider. If money is to be spent for new grade separations, and necessary
studues, it should be for the South end of town, not the North end where we already have two.
A viaduct at Churchill would physically and aesthetically divide the City much more so than
closing Churchill to car/truck traffic. Any such viaduct would visually and physically divide the City
and be a much worse facility aesthetically and physically than the Oregon Expressway at Alma
underpass/interchange mess. The viaduct would make a true mess out of the Churchill crossing and
destroy the safe use and enjoyment of properties, not to mention values, along the corridor in Southgate
as well as on the north side of Alma. In effect, you would be taking these properties and have to stand
the cost for the takings. The city would be facing legal challanges for a good time to come. And there is
no good reason to bring this burden on the City or potentially impacted property owners. This is not an
option that makes any practical sense.
Engineering and Safety issues. Elevating trains for this viaduct will pose engineering issues including
getting the trains up and down in a safe manner. And, if there was an accident, the consequences would
be severe and would fall on the City in any case if the City pushes for this option. Again, these burdens
are not needed.
It is time for the Council to stop raising false hopes with the study of options that have no
practical possibility of being implemented. We need to stop wasting time and resources and now make
the hard choices as to options that do have some practical possibility of being implemented. High speed
rail and it's original board make-up is the best example of wasted resources and ego being in the way of
public service. Palo Alto must not follow that example.
We can't attend Monday's meeting but thank you for considering our concerns and comments.
2
Best regards,
Tom Vlasic
Mariposa Avenue
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:John Monroe <monroe.jw@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:49 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Tom And Linda Vlasic; McFall, Jim
Subject:Rail Grade Separation Needs: Staff Report ID #10268
Good Afternoon,
This email regards the rail crossing item on Monday's agenda and specifically the staff recommendation regarding
consideration of a viaduct at Churchill Avenue. I have read and agree with the email sent to you by Mr. and Mrs. Tom
Vlasic yesterday, April 17.
I have lived in the Southgate neighborhood for more than 45 years. I strongly support Mr. and Mrs. Vlasic’s request that
the City stop wasting time and resources and now make the hard choices regarding options that do have some practical
possibility of being implemented. A viaduct is too expensive and too risky, with insufficient funding to bring it to reality
in any imaginable scenario. Let’s not waste taxpayer money (and city staff time) on studying an impractical option.
Instead let’s focus resources on designing and implementing a Churchill closure that is safe for bicyclists, beautiful for
the high school and the neighbors around the Churchill‐Alma intersection, and capable of being built with a minimum of
delay.
I can't attend Monday's meeting but thank you for considering my concerns and comments.
Sincerely,
John Monroe
Madrono Avenue
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 8:27 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal
Cc:David Shen
Subject:Regarding the Brown Act and the new Community Working Group
Distinguished Councilmembers and City staff,
I am a member of the Community Advisory Panel (CAP), which is now changing to the Community Working Group
(CWG). I wanted to comment on the possible institution of Brown Act rules on its membership.
Some of the positives I've experienced as a CAP member stem directly from the fact that we could interact and
collaborate outside of CAP meetings. We could leverage our respective expertise to talk through issues and create
solutions to problems. This not only generated creative solutions, it also sped up the process because we could talk
freely amongst ourselves between meetings which were spaced approximately 4 weeks apart.
Imposing Brown Act rules will take that advantage away.
We could not discuss anything in between meetings at all. If no discussion could be had, then how would we hold
creative design sessions? We'd have to call special meetings just to have some members come together to sketch and
draw on Google maps printouts?
In order to retain our speed advantage, we'd have to be willing to meet much more frequently to be able to discuss
ideas and then get them approved through parliamentary procedure. Otherwise, there would be a real danger that a
looser meeting schedule would never be able to get all the decisions made in a timely manner to meet our proposed
new October deadline.
I do not want to see the CWG become the bottleneck in this process. As you all know, I've been an advocate for
speeding up as much as possible since Caltrain keeps marching on in their schedule, while we are delayed. I see
imposing Brown Act rules on the CWG as substantially increasing the risk of slowing down, while decreasing
communication and creativity along the way.
Thank you for your kind consideration,
David Shen
CAP
NOPA
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 7:13 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal; City Attorney; Stump, Molly
Cc:David Shen; Mandar Borkar; Nadia Naik; Jason Matlof; Parag Patkar; Carrasco, Tony
Subject:Regarding Conflict of Interest Rules for Community Working Group
Attachments:14054.pdf; 01124.doc; 15182.pdf; 16206.pdf
Distinguished Councilmembers and City Staff,
With the advent of the proposal to form the new Community Working Group from the previous Community Advisory
Panel, we saw that there was the potential for conflict of interest rules to be applied to membership, even as the
original CAP members were all invited to join the CWG.
On the subject of conflict of interest, I wanted to make you all aware of some advice letters from the FPPC we have
uncovered. Please see the attached.
These advice letters indicate similar situations where there was a short project (lasting not years) and that we will be
making one recommendation and not many different recommendations over a long period of time, that we do not need
to follow conflict of interest rules.
For an example, see document 15182.pdf, page 4:
David E. Kendig ‐ A‐15‐182 ‐ City of Costa Mesa ‐ October 16, 2015
We have previously “advised new advisory bodies that they are in fact solely advisory until a history of recommendations
has been established.” (Connors Advice Letter, No. I-14-054; Simon Advice Letter, No. I-04-014, citing
the Traverso Advice Letter, No. I-01-124 and Ball Advice Letter, No. I-89-671.) We have also advised that a single
instance in which an advisory body’s recommendation was accepted does not establish a record of regularly approved
recommendations. (Connors Advice Letter, supra.) Your facts indicate that the membership of the Committee has yet to
be determined, and that the Committee has not yet made any recommendations to the City Council. Lacking a history of
substantive recommendations being approved without amendment or modification by the City Council, the Committee is
solely an advisory committee without decisionmaking authority at this time.
Right now, CAP members are the most experienced and educated on the rail grade separation project that you
will find in the community. It has taken us months to get to our level of understanding on the many complex
issues. Part of this expertise also comes from the fact that some of us live near the affected intersections. We
also are the ones who are the leaders in our neighborhoods and people look to us for information and
communication. In essence, you want us to be on the CWG and not be conflicted out.
Therefore, looking at these advice letters from the FPPC, would you agree that we do not need to apply conflict
of interest rules for the CWG?
Thanks for your kind consideration,
David Shen
CAP
NOPA
PS. Many thanks to Nadia Naik for her work in uncovering this FPPC information.
April 15, 2014
William B. Connors
Office of the City Attorney
91 Ashfield Road
Atherton, CA 94027
Re: Your Request for Informal Assistance
Our File No. I-14-054
Dear Mr. Connors:
This letter responds to your request for advice regarding the conflict-of-interest
provisions of the Political Reform Act (the “Act”).1 Because you seek general information and
have not provided information regarding any specific governmental decision, we are providing
informal assistance.2 Nothing in this letter should be construed to evaluate any conduct that has
already taken place. In addition, this letter is based on the facts presented; the Fair Political
Practices Commission (the "Commission") does not act as the finder of fact. (In re Oglesby
(1975) 1 FPPC Ops. 71.)
QUESTION
Are members of Atherton‟s Civic Center Advisory Committee subject to the Act‟s
conflict-of-interest provisions?
CONCLUSION
The Civic Center Advisory Committee does not currently have decisionmaking authority.
Therefore, the Act‟s conflict-of-interests provisions do not apply to its members. However, we
caution that members of the committee will be subject to the conflict-of-interest provisions if the
committee gains decisionmaking authority as analyzed below.
1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory
references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices
Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All
regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.
2 Informal assistance does not provide the requestor with the immunity provided by an opinion or formal
written advice. (Section 83114; Regulation 18329(c)(3).)
File No. I-14-054
Page No. 2
FACTS
The Town of Atherton has established a committee to act in an advisory capacity to the
Atherton City Council (the “City Council”) regarding the creation of a new civic center to
include administrative offices, police department offices, public works and planning department
offices, community meeting rooms, replacement for an existing library, and resulting parking in
the general area where these uses currently exist. The committee is titled the Civic Center
Advisory Committee (the “CCAC”) and includes two non-voting council members and seven
citizens to act as voting members.
The CCAC does not take final action on matters before them, but it does make
recommendations to the City Council. The CCAC is a Brown Act compliant entity, and it is not
disputed that the actions of the committee constitute government decisions. However, you are
unsure whether or not members are “public officials” for purposes of the Act and the Act‟s
conflict-of-interest provisions. The CCAC is charged with acting in an advisory capacity to:
“a. Assist staff in the development of a master planning process to
determine the key issues that need to be addressed by the community as well as a
process for keeping the community at large informed and involved.
“b. Work with staff to solicit feedback through tools such as surveys,
community gatherings, and workshops to disseminate information regarding the
key issues and questions involved in the development of a Master Plan for the
proposed new Civic Center.
“c. Engage in public outreach to solicit substantive feedback and opinions
on the Master Plan and the Civic Center project and provide Council with a
summary of findings for consideration. Support staff with updates for the Town
website and periodic updates for residents.
“d. The CCAC may form Ad Hoc Subcommittees and/or host community
workshops to involve a broader base of residents for the purposes of information
gathering on specific issues, thus creating more community involvement and
more in-depth visioning.
“e. Once the Council adopts a Master Plan, the CCAC will continue to
work with staff to coordinate public outreach and collect resident input during the
design phase of the Community Center project.
“f. Assist in discussion about the short-term improvements needed for the
Library and Town Center facilities.”
The City Council has solicited membership from the community to fill the public
member spots on the CCAC and has intentionally attempted to include representation from
File No. I-14-054
Page No. 3
diverse locations in the community. The City Council has specifically attempted to include a
member from the neighborhood close to the project as there will be a greater impact from the
new civic center development. However, the potential member who has been identified resides
approximately 475 feet from the project area. Accordingly, there is a concern that the potential
member will be automatically disqualified from taking part in recommendations by the CCAC
under the Act‟s 500 foot rule for interest in real property.
For purposes of determining whether or not the CCAC is an advisory body, you note that
the CCAC was created by action of the City Council on February 12, 2013, and has met almost
every month since inception. In this time, the CCAC has made only one recommendation to the
City Council regarding the selection of a consultant to create the Master Plan. The City
Council ultimately agreed with the suggestion and retained the consultant.
ANALYSIS
The Act‟s conflict-of-interest provisions ensure that public officials will “perform their
duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the
financial interests of persons who have supported them.” (Section 81001(b).) Section 87100
prohibits any public official from making, participating in making, or otherwise using his or her
official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official has a financial
interest. A conflict of interest exists whenever a public official makes, participates in or uses his
or her official position to influence a governmental decision that has a reasonably foreseeable
material financial effect on one or more of his or her interests as specified by Section 87103.
The threshold question in determining if the members of the CCAC are subject to the
Act‟s conflict-of-interest provisions is whether the members are “public officials.” For purposes
of the Act, Section 82048 defines “public official” as every member, officer, employee or
consultant of a state or local government agency. The term is further defined by Regulation
18701(a)(1), which states:
“(a) For purposes of Government Code section 82048, which defines
„public official,‟ and Government Code section 82019, which defines „designated
employee,‟ the following definitions apply:
“(1) „Member‟ shall include, but not be limited to, salaried or unsalaried
members of committees, boards or commissions with decisionmaking authority.
“(A) A committee, board or commission possesses decisionmaking
authority whenever:
“(i) It may make a final governmental decision;
File No. I-14-054
Page No. 4
“(ii) It may compel a governmental decision; or it may prevent a
governmental decision either by reason of an exclusive power to initiate the
decision or by reason of a veto that may not be overridden; or
“(iii) It makes substantive recommendations that are, and over an extended
period of time have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or
modification by another public official or governmental agency.
“(B) A committee, board, or commission does not possess decisionmaking
authority under subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) of this regulation if it is formed for the
sole purpose of researching a topic and preparing a report or recommendation for
submission to another governmental body that has final decisionmaking
authority.”
Thus, a committee, board or commission is deemed to have decisionmaking authority if it
(1) makes a final decision, (2) can compel or prevent a decision, or (3) makes substantive
recommendations that are regularly approved without significant amendment or modification. If
the CCAC has decisonmaking authority under any of these tests, its members would be
considered public officials and are subject to the Act‟s conflict-of-interest provisions.
Alternatively, if the CCAC does not have decisionmaking authority, its members are not
considered public officials under the Act and are not subject to the Act‟s conflict-of-interest
provisions solely by virtue of their membership on the CCAC.
Based upon the facts provided, the CCAC was established to help identify key issues
during the planning and design of Atherton‟s new civic center and to bolster public participation
in the process. Most significantly, you have stated that the CCAC does not take final action on
matters before them, but merely makes recommendations to the City Council for the council‟s
consideration. Moreover, there is no indication that the CCAC can compel or prevent any
governmental decision. The only pertinent question is whether the CCAC has or will make
substantive recommendations regularly approved by the City Council without significant
amendment or modification.
You have stated that the CCAC has made just one recommendation to the City Council
since its inception. While this recommendation was accepted, a single instance does not
establish a record of regularly approved recommendations. Previously, we have “advised new
advisory bodies that they are in fact solely advisory until a history of recommendations has been
established.” (Simon Advice Letter, No. I-04-014, citing Traverso Advice Letter, No. I-01-124
and Ball Advice Letter, No. I-89-671.) Without a history of recommendations being accepted by
the City Council, the CCAC is solely an advisory committee with no decisionmaking authority
and, at this time, its members are not public officials subject to the Act.
Nonetheless, we must caution that members of the CCAC may become public officials at
a later date. If the CCAC‟s recommendations begin being regularly approved by the City
File No. I-14-054
Page No. 5
Council, you will ultimately need to revisit the issue of whether the CCAC may have
decisionmaking authority.
If you have other questions on this matter, please contact me at (916) 322-5660.
Sincerely,
Zackery P. Morazzini
General Counsel
By: Brian G. Lau
Counsel, Legal Division
BGL:jgl
June 19, 2001
Robert Traverso
Interim Executive Director
California Gambling Control Commission
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
P. O. Box 526013
Sacramento, California 95852-6013
Re: Your Request for Informal Assistance
Our File No. I-01-124
Dear Mr. Traverso:
This letter is in response to your request for advice regarding the conflict of interest code provisions of
the Political Reform Act (the “Act”).1 Because we would require additional information in order to
issue formal advice, we are treating your request as one for informal assistance (Regulation
18329(b)(8)).2
QUESTIONS
1. Will members of the Gaming Policy Advisory Committee be required to file statements of
economic interests?
2. Will applicants for membership on the Gaming Policy Advisory Committee be required to file
statements of economic interests?
3. What is the reporting period for disclosing economic interests on an initial statement of economic
interests?
4. What general guidelines exist regarding the scope of conflict of interest disclosure?
5. What general guidelines exist regarding conflict of interest issues?
CONCLUSION
1. Members of the Gaming Policy Advisory Committee will be required to file statements of
economic interests if they are not merely advisory as defined by the Act, but, instead, are involved
in making or participating in making governmental decisions.
1 Government Code sections 81000-91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
indicated. Commission regulations appear at 2 California Code of Regulations, sections 18000-18995. All references to
regulations are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations.
2 Pursuant to Regulation 18329(c)(3), informal assistance does not confer immunity.
2. Even if members of the Gaming Policy Advisory Committee are deemed to be involved in making
or participating in making governmental decisions rather being than purely advisory, applicants for
membership on the committee will not be required to file statements of economic interests unless
actually appointed.
3. Generally, public officials newly designated in an agency’s conflict of interest code must file an
initial statement of economic interests within 30 days. The initial statement of economic interests
requires disclosure of any reportable investments, interests in real property and business positions
held on the effective date of a newly adopted or amended conflict of interest code and income
received during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the new conflict of interest code.
4. and 5. See the discussion below for general guidelines regarding the scope of conflict of interest
disclosure and general issues regarding conflict of interest.
FACTS
The California Gambling Control Commission (the “commission”), a new state agency, is in
the process of having its conflict of interest code approved. Gambling Control Commissioners were
appointed by the Governor in September 2000 and, although subject to Senate confirmation, have not
yet been confirmed. At this point, the commission has not appointed the regular Executive Secretary
nor has it appointed any other regular staff subject to reporting requirements proposed in the code
submitted by the commission.
One of the tasks assigned to the commission is to appoint a 10-member Gaming Policy
Advisory Committee (the “committee”) composed, in equal numbers, of representatives from the
controlled gambling licensee sector of the public as well as members of the general public. The
committee’s sole function will be to discuss and advise the commission on controlled gambling
regulatory policy and any other relevant gambling-related issues. The recommendations of the
committee are advisory to the commission.
ANALYSIS General Rule
The Act prohibits public officials from making, participating in making or in any way attempting to
influence a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest. (Section 87100.) To
further this goal, the Act requires every public official to disclose all his or her economic interests that
could foreseeably be affected by the exercise of the official’s duties. (Section 81002(c) and sections
87200-87313.)
Public officials, such as employees of governmental agencies, members of boards or commissions, or
consultants of a state or local government agency, disclose their financial interests in accordance with
the conflict of interest code developed by their respective agency. (See sections 87300 - 87313.) A
conflict of interest code is a rule or regulation adopted by a government agency which enumerates the
positions within the agency that make or participate in making decisions that may have a foreseeable
and material effect on any financial interest. (Section 87302.) The conflict of interest code requires a
person in a designated position to disclose investments, interests in real property, sources of income
and business positions that may be materially affected by his or her decision-making on behalf of the
agency. (Section 87302.)
Regulation 18730, promulgated by the FPPC to interpret and implement the conflict of interest
provisions of the Act, provides guidance as to those positions in the agency that must be included in a
conflict of interest code. Subdivision (b)(2) of this regulation provides that persons to be designated in
an agency’s conflict of interest code include persons who make or participate in making governmental
decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on financial interests for purposes of section
87100: “No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making
or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he
knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.” Persons so designated in the conflict of
interest code are “designated employees,” a term that includes any “officer, employee, member or
consultant” of an agency whose position involves making or participating in making decisions that
may have a foreseeable and material effect on any financial interest. (Section 82019(c).) The term
“designated employee” does not include an unsalaried member of any board or commission that serves
a solely advisory function. (Section 82019.)
Regulation 18701(a) provides that the term “public official,” as used in section 87100 means “a
member, officer, employee, or consultant of a state or local government agency.” Subdivision (a)(1) of
this regulation defines a member as follows:
“‘Member’ shall include, but not be limited to, salaried or unsalaried members of boards or
commissions with decisionmaking authority. A board or commission possesses
decisionmaking authority whenever:
(A) It may make a final governmental decision;
(B) It may compel a governmental decision; or it may prevent a governmental decision either
by reason of an exclusive power to initiate the decision or by reason of a veto which may not be
overridden; or
(C) It makes substantive recommendations which are, and over an extended period of time
have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification by another
public official or governmental agency.”
Advisory Bodies
In our telephone conversations you have stated that the committee has no function other than to be
advisory. Because the committee has no power to make, compel, or prevent governmental decisions,
subsections (A) and (B) of Regulation 18701(a)(1) will not be applicable. The language of
18701(a)(1)(C) requires that we assess the impact of an advisory body’s recommendations by
analyzing the extent to which its recommendations have been followed in the past. If the
recommendations of a body have a significant impact upon the ultimate outcome of a decision, the
body is considered to have decisionmaking authority and is therefore not solely advisory. (In re
Rotman (1987) 10 FPPC Ops. 1.) The FPPC staff has advised on several occasions that if there is a
history or track record of “rubber stamping” an advisory body’s recommendations, the advisory body
will be considered to have decisionmaking authority. (See, e.g., Baird Advice Letter, No. A-94-299; Czach Advice Letter, No. A-91-503; Woodbury Advice Letter, A-90-665; Paley Advice Letter, A-90-
583; Korade Advice Letter, A-89-715; Ball Advice Letter, I-89-671.)
We have in the past advised new advisory bodies that they are in fact solely advisory until a history of
recommendations has been established (Ball, supra.). Once there is a history of a particular advisory
body’s recommendations being routinely accepted without amendment or modification, the body
converts from a solely advisory function to one of making or participating in the making of a
governmental decision and must be incorporated into a conflict of interest code. With regard to your
question, since we have no information concerning the committee, we are not able to determine if
including its members in the commission’s conflict of interest code is or is not appropriate. Even if, at
this time, you conclude that the committee functions as “advisory” as opposed to making, or
participating in making, governmental decisions, we suggest that you monitor the committee’s
recommendations and the commission’s actions with regard to these recommendations over the next
several months and amend the commission’s conflict of interest code as required.
Applicants to the Committee
You have asked whether or not applicants to positions on the committee must file statements of
economic interest upon applying for the position. Section 87201 requires that a “candidate” for an
office specified in section 87200, such as board of supervisor or city council member, must file, no
later than the final filing date of a declaration of candidacy, a statement disclosing his or her financial
interests. In previous advice, the FPPC has interpreted this specific provision for candidate disclosure
in section 87201 as affirming an agency’s ability to add a requirement to its conflict of interest code
requiring candidates for offices not specified in section 87200 to file candidate statements.
(McNamara Advice Letter, No. I-93-487; Powell Advice Letter, No. A-92-649.) However, this
decision to allow agencies to require financial disclosure from persons prior to their actually taking a
position with the agency has been limited to candidates for elective office consistent with section
87201 and has not been extended to applicants for a board or committee. Section 81013 does not
permit, and more particularly section 87309(c) prohibits, a code reviewing body from going beyond the
requirements of section 87302 and approving a conflict of interest code which designates positions that
do not entail the “making or participation in the making of governmental decisions.” (Alperin Opinion
(1976) 3 FPPC Ops. 77.)
A government agency, however, is not prohibited from adopting requirements which go beyond those
contained in the Act, so long as it does so under its own authority and so long as those requirements do
not prevent a person from complying with the Act. (Section 81013; Alperin Opinion, supra.) Thus,
the Act does not prevent the commission from adopting its own rules regarding applicants for
membership on the committee if the commission does not base those requirements on the Act or any
conflict of interest code adopted pursuant to the Act.
Statements of Economic Interests
Because your agency is in the process of having a newly adopted conflict of interest code approved,
you have asked general questions about the reporting period for public officials newly designated in
the code. Section 87302(b) provides in part that an initial statement of economic interests shall be
filed by each designated employee within 30 days after the effective date of the
conflict of interest code. (Regulation 18730(b)(5)(A).)3 On the initial statement, the filer must
disclose any reportable investments, interests in real property and business positions held on the
effective date of the code and income received during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the
code. (Regulation 18730(b)(6)(A).) Subsequently, designated employees will file statements of
economic interests on an annual basis4 disclosing any reportable investments, interests in real property,
income and business positions held or received during the previous calendar year provided, however,
that the period covered by an employee’s first annual statement begins on the effective date of the code
or the date of assuming office, whichever is later. (Regulation 18730(b)(6)(C).) When a designated
employee leaves his or her position, the employee must file a leaving office statement within 30 days
of leaving disclosing reportable investments, interests in real property, income and business positions
held or received during the period between the closing date of the last statement filed and the date of
leaving office. (Regulation18730(b)(6)(D).)
Conflicts of Interest
3 If the conflict of interest code has been in effect for more than 30 days, persons assuming office must file within 30 days of
assuming their position. (Regulation 18730(b)(5)(B).)
4 For agencies which have adopted the standard conflict of interest code (Regulation 18730), annual statements are due by
April 1st each year. (Regulation 18730(b)(5)(C).)
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, April 22, 2019 1:51 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; City Mgr
Subject:Community Working Group Recommendation - Grade Separation Project
Dear Honorable Palo Alto City Council Members and City Manager, Ed Shikada:
I am a long time Palo Alto homeowner in the 1100 block of Emerson Street. I am writing regarding the City Manager's
proposed Structure and Membership of an Expanded Community Working Group (CWG), related to the Connecting Palo
Alto Grade Separation Project. His staff recommendation is to be considered by Council at its 4/22/19 meeting. I am
deeply concerned about the current membership of the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) and the recommendation that
the CWG include all of the current CAP members. As is commonly known, an alliance between Old Palo Alto and
Southgate neighborhood residents was formed to influence the city's decision on the railroad reconfiguration at Churchill
Avenue and Alma Street. This neighborhood group is called North Old Palo Alto (NOPA).
I have attended a majority of the CAP meetings. In the first CAP meeting, held on August 15, 2018, the 12 CAP
members, selected from a pool of 44 applicants, were introduced. The following became apparent during the
introductions. There is an excessive representation by NOPA residents on the current CAP given the limited size of the
roster (i.e., at least 3 people out of the 12, 25% of the group)! At the meeting, I expressed my dismay that the CAP is
heavily represented by one neighborhood and not at all by other significant stakeholders. Rob de Geus, then Deputy City
Manager, was asked to explain the criteria for CAP member selection. He said, "there are 36 neighborhoods in Palo Alto,
so not all could be included". I reiterated, given the number of neighborhoods, it was incomprehensible that one
neighborhood was awarded multiple representation, while the majority of others, none. Rob de Geus stated that the CAP
members were "ultimately Jim Keene's decision".
I am glad to see that the appointment of the expanded CWG will remain with the Palo Alto City Council rather than a
single city staff person. It is incumbent upon Council, at this juncture, to rebalance the neighborhood representation of
the CAP. Therefore, I recommend you amend the Proposed Membership of the Community Working Group to
rebalance the current 12 CAP members, such that those neighborhoods, most closely situated to the rail and
most heavily impacted, have equal representation on the CWG.
Bottom line, you need to ensure that there is fair and balanced representation. This must be a legitimate group. I will
persist in seeking equitable treatment and fair representation across our Palo Alto neighborhoods.
Best Regards,
Barbara Hazlett
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Virginia Smedberg <virgviolin@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 17, 2019 6:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:An idea for Palo Alto to consider! about helping drug offenders
Dear City Council:
This link describes two city‐based programs that work to divert drug offenders from prison to treatment
programs. This makes very good sense to me. Please consider either acting on this as a city (our city), or
inviting the county to consider it if that's more appropriate. I don't know the organizational setup of trials/jails
etc, so I'm hoping you will see the sense in this and direct it to the correct area! Our city can become a local
leader in appropriate treatment of addicts and potential addicts.
Sincerely,
Virginia Smedberg
441 Washington Ave, 94301
https://www.narcononarrowhead.org/blog/tulsa‐ok‐directs‐addicts‐to‐treatment‐not‐
jail.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=News&utm_content=NNArrowheadB
logTulsaOkDirectsAddictsToTreatmentNotJail
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Tulsa, Oklahoma Sets the Stage for
Directing Addicts to Treatment, Not Jail
- narcononarrowhead.org
Good news out of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The city
implemented a “sobering center” about six months ago.
A facility where individuals detained for public
intoxication can go instead of jail. Sobering centers are
good alternatives to jail time, as such centers specialize in
referring addicts to addiction treatment and recovery
instead of just putting them through time served.
www.narcononarrowhead.org
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:mahir <mahir@duracity.ps>
Sent:Saturday, April 20, 2019 3:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Dura Municipality PALESTINE
Dear Excellency,
Dura is located 8 km southwest of Hebron / West Bank and is the center of more than 43 villages and rural communities
and it is considered to be the second largest area in the west bank area is 145000 dunums.
Is characterized by the role of many organizations, institutions and associations that provide services to the population
and aims to improve their social, economic and environmental status ... etc. Dura municipality is one of those
organizations that seek to help citizens in their lives.
The population of the city of Dura and its villages is about 105 thousand people in the total gatherings and about 41
thousand for the city of Dura (center) according to the Palestinian census 2017.
Dura Municipality was established in 1967 and has continuous ambitions to serve all members of society (children,
women, the elderly, youth and handicaps) ,for example, it provides water, electricity, paved roads, garden, playground
... etc. He also does not rule out people with special needs from his program. He established the first center in the West
Bank for these marginalized groups to serve and integrate them into society.
The municipality seeks to exchange experiences with similar municipalities in serving the population in this context, we
hope to be in touch with a number of friendly municipalities in which we can share experiences in the field of joint work
or partner institutions.
Dura municipality is a member of EUROMED and UCLG,
We would be happy if you agreed to build a relationship or partnership with our city Or participate in supporting our
projects and all the hope of waiting for your response with all happiness
Sincerely Yours,
AHMED A.H. SWAITTI
Mayor, Dura Municipality
Mahir.M.Gazazz
Public Relations Manager ,Dura City Municipality.
Dura ‐ Hebron; Palestine
+ (972) 562000413 (WhatsApp)
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Cissy Cheong <ccheong888@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 21, 2019 6:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Enforcement of Dogs on Leash Code
Dear City Council,
It is extremely frustrating to me that the Dogs on Leash in Parks code is NEVER enforced. I am a home owner here in
Palo Alto and a taxpayer. However, everyday here in the parks, I have to deal with dog owners letting their dogs run
leash-free.
I have a serious dog phobia, due to a dog attack when I was a child which landed me in the hospital. It was an attack from
a neighbor's dog which had seen me for years. As such, when dog owners claim that their dogs are "friendly" and
"wouldn't bite", I can't believe it at all.
Every morning, I go for a run and there are a bunch of dogs running free in Greer Park at around 6:45am-7am. Every
evening, my child would beg to go to Ramos Park for a play session before dinner and I have to refuse because that's
when the park turns into a full-blown dog park ! Why do I (as a human) have to give up going to the parks, that are not
designated as dog parks because the parks are full of leash-free dogs ???
I have tried contacting Animal Services multiple times, but the only response that I received is that they will "try" to patrol
whenever they have the resources to do so. I have NEVER seen Animal Services trying to at least show up at Greer Park
when I have provided specific times and locations of when/where the dogs take over the park.
I have tried talking to the dog owners --who told me that if I don't like it, "then just go somewhere else". They are the ones
violating the code -- why am I the one to leave ?
Please do something about this ! Please enforce the Dogs On Leash code.
Please make the parks a safe place for me and my family !
Thanks,
Cissy
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net
Sent:Monday, April 22, 2019 4:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Foothills Park
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Today April 22 on CBS radio news ran a most alarming story suggesting that perhaps
Palo Alto should consider opening its non‐public park, Foothills Park, to the public.
NONSENSE.
Palo Alto had the foresight in the 60’s to buy the land for that park, when
no other nearby city would participate.
We city taxpayers have funded the park.
Most importantly, the park is a precious jewel of nature, wildlife, and scenic
amenities that would be destroyed by opening the park up to the public. It is
already crowded enough in summer with Palo Alto residents. It is a small park.
Please never even consider the question of opening up this precious park
to public use, with the consequential degradation implied by this ill‐conceived idea.
Thank you,
Kim Atkinson
1753 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FYI: Ridership Jumped 400% When Seattle Protected a Bike Lane – Streetsblog USA
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/04/18/ridership‐jumped‐400‐when‐seattle‐built‐a‐protected‐bike‐lane/
Best, John
(Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)
Healthy Cities Program, 2019 Dashboard
Silicon Valley City, CA
Active & Safe
Communities
Total Strategies Achieved
5 of 9
Promote Healthy
Recreation & Transportation
Vision Zero Action Plan
Complete Streets
NACTO Street Design
Guidelines
Bicycle Master Plan
Pedestrian Master Plan
Parks, Trails, and Recreation
Areas Master Plan
Achieve Bike and/or Walk
Friendly Designation
Safe Routes to School
Resolution and Coordination
Transportation Demand
Management Policies
Healthy Food &
Beverage Environments
Total Strategies Achieved
1 of 9
Increase Healthy Food &
Water Access
Procurement Standards for
City-Sponsored Meetings
and Celebrations
Procurement Standards for
City-Sponsored Events
Procurement Standards for
Vending on City Properties
Procurement Standards for
City-Sponsored
Programming
Procurement Standards for
City-Run Food
Establishments
Drinking Water Access
Policy
Community Gardens on City
Property/Parks
Reduce Exposure to
Sugary Drinks
Require Warning Labels on
Sugary Drink
Advertisements
Resolution to Decline
Funding from the Beverage
Industry
Tobacco-Free
Communities
Total Strategies Achieved
3 of 12
Reduce Exposure to
Secondhand Smoke
Smoke-Free Multi-Unit
Housing
Smoke-Free Parks, Trails,
and Recreation Areas
Smoke-Free Outdoor Dining
Smoke-Free Entryways
Smoke-Free Service Areas
Smoke-Free Public Events
Reduce Youth Access to
Tobacco
Adopt and Implement a
Tobacco Retail License
Reduce Density of Tobacco
Outlets
Flavored Tobacco
Restrictions (Including
Menthol Cigarettes)
Price-Discounting
Restrictions
Limit Tobacco Sales to Adult
Tobacco Stores Only
Conduct Enforcement to
Verify Retailers Are Not
Selling Tobacco to Minors
Cross-Cutting
Strategies
Total Strategies Achieved
1 of 4
Increase Access to Healthy
& Safe Environments
Health Language in General
Plan
Climate Action Plan
Workplace Wellness Policies
Age-Friendly Community
City Spotlight
This is where we will request cities
provide a summary of other
activities that they have been
involved in over the previous year.
Summaries should focus on
activities that support the chronic
disease and injury prevention, and
may include progress toward
achieving strategies on the
dashboard.
Legend
A model level policy or strategy
is possible but jurisdiction has
not met criteria to earn a star
Jurisdiction has met criteria to
earn a check and achieved this
policy or strategy
Jurisdiction has met criteria to
earn a star and achieved a model
level policy or strategy
Promoting policies and environments that support racial health equity
Healthy Cities Program – 2019 Policy and Practice Strategies Criteria
p.1 Updated April 22, 2019
This document is updated annually and was created to accompany the Healthy Cities Dashboard. The information within this
document has been compiled to help cities achieve policies and practices that support public health and to earn “checks” or
“stars” on their Dashboard.
ACTIVE & SAFE COMMUNITIES
Policies and strategies that promote active and safe communities focus on getting our residents and visitors out of their cars and
engaged in physical activity and active transportation (e.g. walking, biking, or using public transportation). For more information
on any of the Active & Safe Communities strategies, please contact Alice Kawaguchi at Alice.Kawaguchi@phd.sccgov.org.
Promote Healthy Recreation & Transportation
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Vision Zero Action Plan To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a Vision Zero Action Plan at a minimum:
Sets a clear goal of eliminating traffic‐related fatalities and severe injuries;
Has the public endorsement and commitment of the Mayor/elected official(s);
Establishes a clear implementation plan with specific timelines for achieving key objectives; and
Engages key city departments (e.g. Police Department, Department of Transportation, and Public
Health).
Complete Streets To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a Complete Streets Resolution or Complete Streets policy
language in its General Plan or Circulation Element to encourage the safety and convenience of all
users on public streets. A jurisdiction may earn a star if it adopts a Complete Streets plan detailing
how, where, and under what circumstances, the jurisdiction will implement Complete Streets
Infrastructure on public streets.
NACTO Street Design
Guidelines
To earn a check a jurisdiction must either endorse the National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO) street design guidelines, or use (and acknowledge) the NACTO design guidelines
when planning infrastructure improvements to support traffic calming measures and promote
walking, bicycling, and use of public transit.
Bicycle Master Plan To earn a check a jurisdiction must have adopted or substantially updated a bicycle master plan or
transportation plan within the last 15 years (2005 or later) that, upon implementation, will make
biking safe, comfortable, convenient, and/or enjoyable for all community members.
Pedestrian Master Plan To earn a check a jurisdiction must have adopted or substantially updated a pedestrian master plan
or transportation plan within the last 15 years (2005 or later) that, upon implementation, will make
walking more safe, comfortable, convenient, and/or enjoyable for all community members.
Parks, Trails and
Recreation Areas Master
Plan
To earn a check a jurisdiction must have adopted or substantially updated a parks, trails and/or
recreation master plan within the last 15 years (2005 or later) that guides maintenance and
environmental, recreational, and programming work in parks and trails, and that establishes
priorities for future park renovations and facility improvements.
Achieve Bike and/or
Walk Friendly
Designation
To earn a check a jurisdiction must have received a minimum of a Bronze‐level Bicycle Friendly
Community designation (from the League of American Bicyclists) in the previous four years OR a
minimum of a Bronze‐level Walk Friendly Community designation (from the University of North
Carolina Highway Safety Research Center). A jurisdiction may earn a star if it has earned and
maintains BOTH a Bike‐Friendly and Walk‐Friendly designation.
Healthy Cities Program – 2019 Policy and Practice Strategies Criteria
p.2 Updated April 22, 2019
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Safe Routes to School
Resolution and
Coordination
To earn a check in the Safe Routes to School strategy, a jurisdiction must accomplish at least TWO of
the three following items:
Adopt a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Resolution that addresses the acceptance of federal or
state SRTS funding.
Representatives from the city engineering and law enforcement department must participate in
regular multi‐disciplinary SRTS Collaborative meetings which include school and
community/parent partners. The SRTS Collaborative must convene at least two times during the
year and address education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, evaluation.
Must have a SRTS Coordinator and/or Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, available through
temporary or short‐term grant, who coordinates SRTS education, encouragement and evaluation
strategies with the city traffic engineer/infrastructure, and law enforcement.
A jurisdiction may earn a star if it accomplishes ALL of the following items:
It adopts a SRTS Resolution that addresses the acceptance of federal or state SRTS funding AND
commits to a comprehensive Safe Routes to School Program (as described and developed by the
National Center for Safe Routes to School and Santa Clara County); and
City staff OR an independent SRTS non‐profit (i.e. NOT the County Public Health Department)
lead and provide administrative support for regular SRTS Collaborative meetings. The SRTS
Collaborative must convene at least two times during the year and address education,
encouragement, enforcement, engineering, evaluation.; and
Jurisdiction must have a SRTS Coordinator and/or Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator that is city‐
funded or funded through long‐term source (such as 2016 Measure B), or an independent SRTS
non‐profit must coordinate the SRTS infrastructure and non‐infrastructure programming on a
city‐wide scale.
Transportation Demand
Management Policies
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt and implement at least THREE of the Transportation
Demand Management policies below to discourage employees and residents from driving and
encourage use of alternate and active forms of transportation.
Provide secure weather resistant bike parking and/or storage at no charge to employees
Provide employee shower and changing facilities
Provide employees with flexible scheduling options to reduce trips to and from work (e.g.
telecommuting, compressed workweeks, and/or 9/80s)
Provide vanpools, shuttles, and car‐sharing for employees so they do not require a private vehicle
to work
Provide preferred parking for employees that carpool
A jurisdiction may earn a star if it offers FOUR of the above mentioned/bulleted amenities/benefits
AND adopts or accomplishes at least TWO of the following:
Provide Employee Commuter Benefits that support walking, bicycling, and/or public transit such
as Pre‐Tax benefits or subsidies (e.g. free Clipper Cards and use of VTA buses and light rail)
Charge employees for parking or pay employees who do not utilize parking space
Provide employees a Guaranteed Emergency Ride Home up to 5 times per year to employees
who walk, bike, or take transit to work and need an immediate ride home due to an employee
illness or the illness of a family member, severe inclement weather, or when unscheduled
overtime is required
Provide employees who walk, bike, or take public transit to work access to an automobile for
work‐related meetings and appointments.
Healthy Cities Program – 2019 Policy and Practice Strategies Criteria
p.3 Updated April 22, 2019
Healthy Food & Beverage Environments
Policies and strategies that promote healthy food and beverage environments focus on reducing access and consumption of
unhealthy food and beverage and increasing access to healthy food and beverages. For more information on any of the Healthy
Food & Beverage Environments strategies, please contact Teddy Daligga at Edward.Daligga@phd.sccgov.org.
Increase Healthy Food & Water Access
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Procurement Standards
for City‐Sponsored
Meetings and
Celebrations
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt standards that address require at least some of the food
and beverages served at meetings and celebrations to be healthy and meet specific nutritional
criteria. A jurisdiction may earn a star if they adopt standards that require all (100%) of the
beverages served and sold at meetings and celebrations to be healthy and meet specific nutritional
criteria and that no less than half (50%) of the food served and sold at meetings and celebrations to
be healthy and meet specific nutritional criteria (details on what food and beverages are “healthy”
are available upon request).
Procurement Standards
for City‐Sponsored
Events
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt standards that require at least some food and beverages
served at city‐sponsored events to be healthy and meet specific nutritional criteria. A jurisdiction
may earn a star if they adopt standards that require all (100%) of the beverages served and sold at
city‐sponsored events to be healthy and meet specific nutritional criteria and no less than half (50%)
of the food served and sold at city‐sponsored events to be healthy and meet specific nutritional
criteria (details on what food and beverages are “healthy” are available upon request).
Procurement Standards
for Vending on City
Properties
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt standards that require at least some food and beverages
sold in vending machines to be healthy and meet specific nutritional criteria. A jurisdiction may
earn a star if they adopt standards that require all (100%) of the food and beverages sold in vending
machines on city properties to be healthy and meet specific nutritional criteria (details on what food
and beverages are “healthy” are available upon request).
Procurement Standards
for City‐Sponsored
Programming
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt standards that require at least some of the food and
beverages served during City‐run adult and youth‐based programming to be healthy and meet
specific nutritional criteria. A jurisdiction may earn a star if the adopted standards require all
(100%) of the beverages for City‐Run Adult‐ and Youth‐Based Programming to be healthy and meet
specific nutritional criteria and at least half (50%) of the food for City‐Run Adult‐ and Youth‐Based
Programming to be healthy and meet specific nutritional criteria (details on what food and
beverages are “healthy” are available upon request).
Procurement Standards
for City‐Run Food
Establishments
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt standards that require food and beverages sold in City‐run
cafes, cafeterias, snack shacks, and kiosks, to be healthy and meet specific nutritional criteria. A
jurisdiction may earn a star if the adopted standards require at least half (50%) of the beverages
and food sold in cafeterias, snack bars, and other purchase points to be healthy and meet specific
nutritional criteria (details on what food and beverages are “healthy” are available upon request).
Drinking Water Access To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a policy mandating the installation of water bottle filling
stations in publicly accessible areas whenever significant improvements are made to city‐owned
properties, or install bottle filling stations in publicly accessible city‐owned or maintained areas. A
jurisdiction may earn a star if it both adopts a drinking water access policy and can demonstrate it
has installed water bottle filling stations at publicly accessible city properties (e,g, City Hall,
Libraries, Community Centers, Parks and Playgrounds, etc.).
Healthy Cities Program – 2019 Policy and Practice Strategies Criteria
p.4 Updated April 22, 2019
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Community Gardens on
City Property/Parks
To earn a check a jurisdiction must maintain or support community gardens on city properties. A
jurisdiction may earn a star if it (1) offers financial assistance and/or fee waivers to residents who
qualify for nutrition assistance programs, such as CalFresh or WIC, to make the costs of a garden
plot more affordable, or (2) if it sets aside a percentage of low‐ or no‐cost garden plots for low‐
income families and residents.
Reduce Exposure to Sugary Drinks
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Require Warning Labels
on Sugary Drink
Advertisements
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance requiring a health warning appear on all
advertisements that promote sugary drinks within its city/town limits (including, for example,
billboards and any signage larger than a certain size). The warning should state the following:
“WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) may contribute to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and
tooth decay.”
Resolution to Decline
Fund from the Beverage
Industry
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a resolution to not request or accept any funds, gifts, or
donations from the beverage industry, beverage companies, and/or their affiliates.
Healthy Cities Program – 2019 Policy and Practice Strategies Criteria
p.5 Updated April 22, 2019
Tobacco‐Free Communities
Policies and strategies that promote Tobacco‐Free Communities focus on protecting our residents and visitors by reducing
exposure to secondhand smoke and preventing youth access to tobacco products. For more information on any of the Tobacco‐
Free Communities strategies, please contact Joyce Villalobos at Joyce.Villalobos@phd.sccgov.org.
Reduce Exposure to Secondhand Smoke
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Smoke‐Free Multi‐Unit
Housing
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance that restricts smoking in multi‐unit housing
complexes (ex. apartments, townhomes, condos), including individual units. A jurisdiction may earn
a star if the multi‐unit smoke‐free housing ordinance:
Includes 100% of units; and
Includes private balconies and patios; and
Includes all indoor and outdoor common areas; and
Applies to all complexes with 2 or more units (any shared/attached walls/ceilings, etc.) at
apartments, condominiums, and townhomes; and
Includes e‐cigarettes (in all areas where smoking is restricted).
Smoke‐Free Parks, Trails,
and Recreation Areas
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a written policy or ordinance that restrictions smoking
and/or tobacco use in all areas of parks (not just designated areas of parks), trails, and/or
recreational areas (sports fields, skate parks, etc.).
Smoke‐Free Outdoor
Dining Areas
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance that prohibits smoking in all areas of
outdoor dining areas at bars and restaurants.
Smoke‐Free Entryways To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance that restricts smoking in places within a
certain distance of doors, windows, and other openings into all enclosed areas where smoking is
prohibited. Example: Smoking prohibited within 30 feet of entryways.
Smoke‐Free Service Lines
and Areas
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance that prohibits smoking at all service areas
(including but not limited to ticket lines, ATM lines, etc.).
Smoke‐Free Public
Events
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a written policy or ordinance that requires that all public
events are 100% smoke‐free.
Healthy Cities Program – 2019 Policy and Practice Strategies Criteria
p.6 Updated April 22, 2019
Reduce Youth Access to Tobacco
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Adopt and Implement a
Tobacco Retail License
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance that requires tobacco retailers to obtain a
local license or permit to sell tobacco products. A jurisdiction may earn a star if the adopted
tobacco retail license or permit includes all of the following:
Applies to any retailer engaged in the sale of tobacco products, including electronic smoking
devices (components, parts, e‐juices, etc.) to obtain a local license to sell tobacco products and
renew annually; and
Includes a license fee requirement that is set high enough to sufficiently fund an effective
program (administration of program and enforcement); and
Includes an enforcement plan with a requirement that retailers be inspected annually for sales to
minors (either written into ordinance or an Administrative policy/protocol has been developed);
and
Includes a provision that states any violation of any local, state, or federal tobacco regulation
violates the license; and
Includes financial fines and penalties for violators including suspension and revocation of the
license that is outlined in the ordinance.
Reduce Density of
Tobacco Outlets
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a written policy or ordinance (or provision within a local
tobacco retail permit ordinance) that places restrictions on where tobacco retailers may be located.
The policy or ordinance must achieve at least one of the three options listed below. A jurisdiction
may earn a star if it adopts a policy (or policies) or ordinance that achieves at ALL three options
below:
Places a limit to the number of total tobacco retailers in cities (e.g. require new tobacco retailers
to be a certain distance from existing tobacco retailers; limit the total allowable number of
retailers based on population or caps by district);
Retailers selling tobacco must be located at least 1,000 feet from schools or other youth
populated areas;
Prohibits the sale of tobacco products in all pharmacies
Flavored Tobacco
Restrictions (Including
Menthol Cigarettes)
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance (or provision within a local tobacco retail
permit ordinance) that places restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco products, including
menthol cigarettes (ex. menthol cigarettes, cigars, little cigars, pipe tobacco, smokeless, and
electronic smoking devices). A jurisdiction may earn a star if their ordinance includes all of the
following:
The ordinance prohibits the sale of flavored tobacco products; and
Its flavored tobacco restrictions include restrictions on the sale of products with a characterizing
flavor, other than tobacco, including menthol, mint, wintergreen, cherry, chocolate, etc.; and
Its flavored tobacco restrictions apply to the following products: menthol cigarettes, non‐
cigarette flavored tobacco products (chewing tobacco, hookah, little cigars, cigarillos, snus, etc.),
and electronic smoking devices and e‐liquids regardless of whether the product contains
nicotine.
Healthy Cities Program – 2019 Policy and Practice Strategies Criteria
p.7 Updated April 22, 2019
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Price‐Discounting
Restrictions
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance (or provision within a local tobacco retail
permit ordinance) that places restrictions on tobacco price discounting practices. Example policies
that fall under this strategy include:
Prohibiting the redemption of tobacco discounts and coupons at store;
Establishing a minimum package size for little cigars or cigarillos;
Establishing a minimum price for tobacco products.
Limit Tobacco Sales to
Adult Tobacco Stores
Only
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance that restricts the sale of tobacco products so
they can only be sold at adult‐only tobacco shops.
Conduct Enforcement to
Verify Retailers Are Not
Selling Tobacco to
Minors
In order for a jurisdiction to earn a check, a law enforcement agency must conduct enforcement
operations (undercover decoy operations/stings) of tobacco sales to minors laws during the 2019
calendar year, including enforcement of any of the following laws that prohibit sales to minors: PC
308, STAKE Act, or local tobacco retail licensing ordinance. The law enforcement agency will need to
perform a minimum number of checks determined by the number of tobacco retailers located
within a given jurisdiction. In order for a jurisdiction to earn a check, law enforcement in a city or
town with
59 or fewer tobacco retailers must conduct enforcement at 50% of stores*
60 to 119 tobacco retailers must conduct enforcement at 40% of stores*
120 or more tobacco retailers must conduct enforcement at no fewer than 15% stores*
*We recommend that stores caught selling tobacco products to minors be checked again, however,
duplicative (or follow‐up) checks should not be counted toward the total number of annual checks
performed by a law enforcement agency in a given jurisdiction
Healthy Cities Program – 2019 Policy and Practice Strategies Criteria
p.8 Updated April 22, 2019
Cross‐Cutting Strategies
Policies and strategies that broadly support health equity, healthy environments, and chronic disease and injury prevention
across many populations and communities—and that do not fit neatly into any of the above categories—fall into the Cross‐
Cutting Strategies category. For more information on any of the strategies below, please contact Teddy Daligga at
Edward.Daligga@phd.sccgov.org.
Increase Access to Healthy & Safe Environments
Strategy Criteria to Earn a Check or Star
Health Language in
General Plan
To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a Health Element or weave health language into its
general plan and/or other required planning elements. A jurisdiction may earn a star if language in
its general plan or accompanying elements addresses health equity and all of the following:
neighborhood design that encourages physical activity and social connectedness;
affordable housing;
mode shift and reductions on automobile dependence, and reductions in distances to
access jobs, goods, and services;
access to full‐service grocery stores and healthy food; and
reductions in access and exposure to tobacco products.
Climate Action Plan To earn a check a jurisdiction must adopt a Climate Action Plan that provides detail on how it will
improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce reliance upon fossil fuels.
Workplace Wellness
Policies
To earn a check a jurisdiction must establish a wellness program or wellness committee for its
employees. A jurisdiction may earn a star if it achieves at least 5 of the 6 following strategies:
adopts all applicable Healthy Food and Beverage Standards in the “Increase Healthy Food
and Water Access” category; and
adopts at least 3 physical activity promotion strategies; and
adopts specific policy language that supports and accommodates breastfeeding; and
adopts specific language prohibiting use of tobacco products; and
offers tobacco cessation support and information; and
offers prediabetes screening and a diabetes prevention program.
For more information visit https://www.sccgov.org/sites/phd/hi/shc/hc/Pages/hwap.aspx.
Age‐Friendly Community To earn a check a jurisdiction must apply for and receive designation as an Age‐Friendly Community
from the World Health Organization or the other national affiliate, AARP. A jurisdiction may earn a
star if it establishes an action plan addressing all eight (8) domains of livability as developed by the
World Health Organization, and creates a taskforce to guide progress.
Note: Criteria may be updated on an annual basis to ensure the policy
strategies are in line with best practices.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Daligga, Edward (Teddy) <Edward.Daligga@PHD.SCCGOV.ORG>
Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2019 3:27 PM
Cc:Daligga, Edward (Teddy)
Subject:Healthy Cities Update - April 2019
Attachments:Healthy Cities Dashboard - 2019 Update.pdf; Healthy Cities Criteria - 2019 Update.pdf
Healthy Cities Update, April 2019
Healthy Cities Dashboard, 2019 Updates | Bike to Work Day 2019
2019 Healthy Cities Dashboard & Criteria Updates
The Santa Clara Department of Public Health has modified the Healthy Cities Dashboard for 2019.
Improvements to the Dashboard and accompanying Criteria document (please see attached) are based on
feedback from cities and towns late last year, and on evolving best practices and policies related to chronic
2
disease and injury prevention. Criteria for most Dashboard strategies have been updated just slightly, although
there are some more substantial changes to the Dashboard and Criteria. The most notable updates include:
UPDATED Strategies
Safe Routes to School (three strategies rolled into one)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans (one strategy separated into two)
Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plans
Transportation Demand Management (three strategies rolled into one)
Community Gardens on City Property/Parks
Adopt and Implement Tobacco Retail License
Reduce Density of Tobacco Retail Outlets (three strategies rolled into one)
Conduct Annual Enforcement of Tobacco Sales to Minors
Age-Friendly Community
REMOVED Strategies
Conduct Annual Assessment of Student Travel Mode
Some jurisdictions may lose a “check” or “star” on their dashboards (the County included), but a number of
cities and towns may also gain checks and stars this year. If your city would like technical assistance and/or
additional resources to adopt model policies and earn more checks and stars, we are here to help! Please
contact Teddy Daligga for more information at edward.daligga@phd.sccgov.org.
3
Bike to Work Day and Educational Rides Throughout SCC
Bicycle commuters from Santa Clara County and beyond will roll to work on May 9 as part of
the Bay Area’s 25th annual Bike to Work Day. Cities can play a role by coordinating rides for staff
and residents utilizing parks, trails, protected bike lanes, and other bicycle amenities. For more
information visit https://bikesiliconvalley.org/btwd/.
In addition to coordinating Bike to Work Day activities locally, the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition will be reaching out to
cities to host educational rides for policy makers and key stakeholders, to highlight quality bike infrastructure, and to show
where there are opportunities to increase ridership and safety. Rides will take place throughout the County over the
course of the next year. Stay tuned for more info!
About Healthy Cities
Healthy Cities is a program launched by the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department in 2016. Our primary objectives are to (1) recognize
cities for their efforts to reduce chronic disease and injury, and (2) support and partner with cities to promote policies that increase access to safe
opportunities for physical activity, increase access to healthy food and beverage environments, and increase access to tobacco-free communities. We
advance our objectives by offering cities and towns technical assistance and other resources. For more information, please visit
sccphd.org/healthycities.
4
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is
intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are
prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must
delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return
email.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Keith Wycoff <kwycoff@planetbiotechnology.com>
Sent:Monday, April 22, 2019 2:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing in Palo Alto for our children
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
My wife and I have been homeowners in Palo Alto since 1998 and love this community. We raised three boys here, who
attended public schools. However, all three boys are resigned to the thought that they will never be able to afford to
own a home, or even rent, in Palo Alto because of the high cost of housing. I was disappointed to read about the recent
decision by the council (4‐2) to oppose so‐called “one size fits all” housing proposals, such as SB 50. I am a NIMBY‐er and
am in full support of that bill. I think that so‐called “local control” in the area of housing has been a dismal failure.
Basically, every city seems to want to “preserve” the status quo, which means that as the available jobs increase, more
and more people are forced in to longer and longer commutes and Palo Alto real estate has become affordable only for
tech millionaires and wealthy asian immigrants. Building more market priced housing near public transportation just
makes sense, as it should reduce the use of cars and begin to put downward pressure on housing prices. It may not be
good for me personally, but I’d be happy if my house was worth just 4 times what I paid for it instead of 5 times.
Thank you,
Keith Wycoff
2399 Carmel Drive
(650) 269‐4160
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Phyllis Newhouse <phyllis4323@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Saturday, April 20, 2019 3:20 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing
Concerning the buildings at Hamilton and Webster: we need all the reasonable housing we have. I don’t want to see
downtown turning into office buildings.
Sincerely, Phyllis Newhouse
540 Ramona
Sent from my iPhone
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.329.2392
April 17, 2019
Honorable Jerry Hill
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 5035
Sacramento, CA 95814
Honorable Marc Berman
California State Assembly
State Capitol, Room 6011
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Input from the City of Palo Alto related to priority housing legislation, including an Oppose Unless
Amended position on SB 50 (Wiener)
Dear Senator Hill and Assembly Member Berman:
On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, we applaud the Legislature for crafting bills to address the housing
emergency in the San Francisco Bay Area and in California. There is a recognized need to address housing,
and we want to be part of the conversation and the solution.
To that end, I write today to:
(1) Update you on broad actions our City Council has taken to facilitate affordable housing; and
(2) Formally note our City's support of the Housing Position Paper adopted by the Cities Association of
Santa Clara County, and our enthusiasm for legislation consistent with its provisions; and
(3) Convey the City's input related to some of the 2019 priority liousing legislation, including an Oppose
Unless Amended position for SB 50 (Wiener)
PALO ALTO'S ACTIONS TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Ordinance changes
Our voters have clearly indicated they would like to see more housing, and particularly Affordable Housing,
within our city. In April 2018, our Council adopted an Affordable Housing Overlay (Affordable Housing
Combining District) Ordinance. This ordinance allows for the development of 100% affordable rental housing
in areas near transit not currently zoned for residential uses. It also allows for increased density and heights,
fewer parking spaces, and the possibility of streamlined administrative approval of modifications to some
requirements.1
1 Of this action, Silicon Valley at Home lauded the Palo Alto City Council for taking "bold action" to respond to
community needs, noting that the move "exemplifies the local leadership we need to address the housing crisis"
{April 13, 2018}. City of Palo Alto Approves Affordable Housing Overlay, retrieved from
https://siliconvalleyathome.org/city-of-palo-alto-approves-affordable-housing-overlay/.
Ci tyOf Pa I oA I to.o rg
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine
Senator Hill and Assembly Member Berman
April 17, 2019
Page 2
More recently, the City Council significantly amended ordinances related to residential and mixed-use
development standards and commercial zoning districts. These changes relate to density, unit size, floor
area ratio, parking, and more. A high-level summary2 of the changes include:
• Eliminating site and design review for housing projects containing nine or more units and not located
in certain environmentally or ecologically sensitive areas
• Allowing for increased unit density in multi-family residential zones and removing density limits
altogether in certain areas
• Creating a Housing Incentive Program that utilizes a discretionary review and waiver process to allow
housing projects to use commercial floor area in addition to increased housing floor area
• Exempting certain 100% affordable housing projects from retail preservation requirements
• Reducing parking requirements for multi-family units
Recently approved affordable housing developments
In January 2019, the City Council approved a 59-unit affordable housing development designated for
residents making no more than 60 percent of the area median income. In June 2018, the City approved a 57-
unit workforce complex, with a portion of the units reserved as affordable housing. This development was
possible due to the creation of a new district allowing workforce housing within a half mile of rail stations.
This new complex serves in part as a parking test case, as the district aims for one vehicle per household;
while tenants will pay for any parking space they utilize, they will be given Caltrain Go Passes and VTA
EcoPasses. Also per negotiation, the developer of this complex is also building a new bus shelter at a nearby
intersection.
Affordable housing programs
The above ordinance changes and newer development approvals are in addition to our Below Market Rate
program, which aims to create and retain a supply of affordable housing for people with low and moderate
income. The City has approximately 250 owner-occupied and 460 rental units in this housing program that
are sold or rented to qualifying households and managed by a local non-profit partner.
Palo Alto also maintains an Affordable Housing Fund to provide financial assistance for the development of
housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households that live or work in Palo Alto. Through
this fund, the City offers long-term loans with low interest rates and usually deferred payment; any cost
necessary to develop the housing can be funded by the City. Money in the fund comes from impact fees
2 Specific changes are described in a City staff report for the April l, 2019 Council meeting, available at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=52156.04&BloblD=69992
Senator Hill and Assembly Member Berman
April 17, 2019
Page 3
charged to new commercial development, and from market rate housing developers, when they provide an
"in lieu" fee rather than building affordable units as part of a condominium (for sale) housing development.
Over the last four years the City has appropriated roughly $28 million from this fund for below market rate
housing. We are actively seeking to grow this fund more quickly, and as we get money we will see it is spent.
Input on some of the priority housing legislation
The City is monitoring all the many housing related bills currently in the legislature. Overall, we support bills
offering new and unique funding streams. These bills include AB 816 (Quirk-Silva), which creates a housing
subsidy pool program whereby cities may apply for grants to fund affordable housing, and SB 5 (Beall and
McGuire), which creates a local-State partnership to provide up to $2 billion annually for approved affordable
housing, infrastructure, and economic development projects. In general we support bills consistent with the
Cities Association Housing Position Paper, and we hope that other bills will be amended to be consistent.
Regarding SB SO (Wiener), we have concerns with the bill unless amended and are in the process of
developing amendments for consideration. We support regional solutions that take a balanced approach and
holistically considers housing, transportation/transit, and jobs. We recognize that building housing without
adequate transportation infrastructure may exacerbate, not alleviate, the housing crisis. Regional transit
agencies and MTC must support improved transit services to existing and new neighborhoods and address
accompanying funding needs.
SB SO targets our state's housing affordability crisis by promoting inclusive growth while protecting ~xisting
affordability. We commend the author and appreciate the Senator's recent comments that the legislation is
still a work in progress, and that local jurisdictions would maintain their approval process including granting
CUPs, honoring the CEQA process, maintaining discretionary review, and other items. However, we are not in
a position to support this legislation in its current form.
The bill's current requirements to limit local governments statewide in regulating broad categories of
residential development proposals clearly applies a "one size fits all" approach to local land use
decisions. The proposal to render cities unable to regulate parking, density, and height, as examples, strikes
at the ability of local governments to not only define the nature of their communities, but also fails to
acknowledge individual situations where these regulations are necessary to avoid spillover impacts on
surrounding neighborhoods. Furthermore, we support maintaining local control of the entitlement process.
It seems clear that SB50 takes material control away from local jurisdictions in terms of entitling projects to
proceed; for example, a local rule that a project could not be entitled without one parking space per unit
would be overridden under SB50.
Senator Hill and Assembly Member Berman
April 17, 2019
Page 4
Other bills have worthwhile goals, but impose many restrictions on cities. These bills include SB 13
(Wieckowski), and SB 330 (Skinner). These bills delve far into historically local issue-areas, such as public
hearings, parking standards, housing incentives, an~ application review timeframes. They do not allow for
flexibility and impose standard requirements to cities with varying abilities to apply the requirements.
Support for the Cities Association's Housing Position Paper
On March 14, 2019, the Santa Clara County Cities Association adopted a policy paper related to the
affordable housing crises.3 On April 15, 2019, our City Council voted (Filseth, DuBois, Cormack, and Kou in
favor; Fine and Kniss opposed; Tanaka absent) to formally support the paper, which sets out the types of
housing legislation the region supports, opposes, and how our cities are addressing the housing need. When
generally considering affordable housing legislation, we support the notion of increasing financial support in
the form of revenue ballot measures and point-of-sale sales taxes, increased production incentives, and
mechanisms for our communities to grow to support new residents.
As our local and regional efforts demonstrate, local governments can and do take action to address
affordable housing needs. As local elected officials, we are able to apply the current housing crisis to the
needs of our residents and the nature of our cities, and respond by appropriately amending local rules.
However, localities can only control so much. For example, even after streamlining the development process,
offering incentives, increasing density and height limits, and relaxing standards, cities cannot control whether
developers ultimately build affordable housing. Therefore, we ask that the legislature "credit'' cities for doing
our part, and not penalize us for developers not actually building homes.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the Bay Area, and for your consideration of our work at the local and
reginal levels.
Sincerely,
~...;-7&d-
Eric Filseth
Mayor
cc:
Members, California State Bay Area Caucus
Members, Senate Governance and Finance Committee
Palo Alto City Council
Ed Shikada, Palo Alto City Manager
Santa Clara Cities Association
League of California Cities
Townsend Public Affairs
SV@Home
3 An association of 15 cities in Santa Clara County, working together to address shared regional issues. The paper is
available at https://citiesassociation.org/documents/position-paper-on-housing-adopted-march-14-2019/
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Rice, Danille
Sent:Wednesday, April 17, 2019 4:44 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Dauler, Heather; Minor, Beth; Stump, Molly
Subject:Letter regarding input related to priority housing legislation
Attachments:Delegation on Housing Related Legislation 04_17_19.pdf
Hello Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, I would like to inform you that the attached letter was sent to the Committee via
the designated web portal, SV@Home, the League, Cities Association, Bay Area Caucus offices, and post on our website.
Thank you,
Danille
Danille Rice | Administrative Assistant
Office of the City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.329.2105 | Danille.Rice@cityofpaloalto.org
4/22/2019 How a Trump program could spur more Bay Area development
Business > Real Estate • News
How a Trump program could spur tit
a new wave of Bay Area
development
Critics worry about gentrification, displacement
Studio Current
A rendering shows what a planned office and retail development in
downtown San Jose, dubbed the Fountain Alley Building, will Look
Like. The building is in a federal opportunity zone, which is why
developer Urban Catalyst chose the Location. (Image courtesy of
Urban Catalyst)
By MARISA KENDALL I mkendall@bayareanewsgroup.com I Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: April 22, 2019 at 6:00 am I UPDATED: April 22, 2019 at 9:18 am
Dozens of low-income neighborhoods across the Bay Area are bracing for a
ootential rush of new develooment after being-marked as "oooortunitv zones" -
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/22/how-a-trump-program-could-spur-a-new-wave-of-bay-area-development/ 1/6
4/22/2019 How a Trump program could spur more Bay Area development
President Donald Trump's 2017 tax law offers .S..i.~.~.~.~~.~~ .. ~.~~ . .l?.!.~.~~S.. to investors
who fund a new development or new business in designated low-income
neighborhoods, including most of downtown San Jose, large swaths of West and
East Oakland and San Francisco's Hunter's Point and the Outer Mission. The
rules around the program have taken shape in recent months, and interested
investors and developers are lining up, setting the stage for a possible building
boom.
ADVERTISING
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/22/how-a-trump-program-could-spur-a-new-wave-of-bay-area-development/ 216
412212019 How a Trump program could spur more Bay Area development
WHERE OPPORTUNITY IS KNOCKING
Downtown San Jose. as well as la rge chunks of Vi.rest and East
Oakland , are foderiil Opportunity ZO!"le5. l hilt me~ns the)' rna.:,i
soon se-e a flood of n~w dsve-Jopmen as i 1VGsto:rs •Ml g.tlt
special lax breaks on prc1ec:ts bu1 It llere
I
Sao f.-ard,co
('
-(Pall>
Fede·ral
opportunity
zones
~ Alto ' . ~.
<t
S..'N t.41.TEO CO. !..., ' -Sa 1n:iy, US. f'lEPill1rntJnt of t~ ru..1~1
--
.l\..i\ME.O"i CC
.J ... -..... ---_.. ---• '" SANTA CLAR.\, CO.
"There's going to be so many people looking to make things happen in these
areas that they're going to find that projects that never would have been done
will be done,» said developer Erik Hayden, president of Urban Catalyst, which
launched earlier this year with the specific purpose of building in opportunity
zones. Hayden's team already is planning six projects in downtown San Jose.
hltps:/lwww.mercurynews.comf2019/04/22/how-a-trump-program-could-spur-a-new-wave-of-bay-area-development/ 3/6
412212019 How a Trump program could spur more Bay Area development
Under the new program, investors can avoid paying federal capital gains taxes
for seven years ifthey invest in an "opportunity fund," which backs projects in
the newly created zones. If they invest this year, they'll pay 15 percent less tax
at the end of that seven-year period. And if they hold onto the opportunity zone
investment for 10 years, they'll pay no tax on the profit. Gov. Gavin Newsom has
proposed adding additional state tax incentives for investments in opportunity
zones.
To qualify as an opportunity zone, a neighborhood must have a poverty rate of
at least 20 percent or a median family income that doesn't exceed 80 percent of
the regional or statewide median income. Using that criteria, California officials
selected nearly 900 of the state's roughly 8,000 census tracts for the program.
The goal is to spur job growth and economic opportunities in disenfranchised
areas that developers tend to overlook. But critics worry the program instead
may drive up rents in low-income neighborhoods and push poor residents out.
The program doesn't require developers to build affordable housing or provide
any other safeguards against displacement.
"What I'm afraid of is the watering down of Black culture and legacy in East
Oakland," said Marquita Price, urban and regional planning officer for The East
Oakland Collective, a civic engagement, economic empowerment and
homelessness services organization.
Price is exploring how her community can start its own opportunity fund and
use the federal tax breaks to bring affordable housing and other needed
amenities to East Oakland.
In San Jose, 11 census tracts are designated opportunity zones, including most
of downtown, North San Jose, East San Jose and Little Portugal. The per capita
income ofresidents inside those zones is $30,151, compared to $40,275 in the
city at large, according to the San Jose Office of Economic Development. And 67
percent of residents in San Jose opportunity zones are renters, compared to 43
percent in the entire city.
There's evidence the federal program already is pushing real estate prices up.
The average sales price of a home in an opportunity zone rose 25 percent this
year over the year before, according to a nation-wide Zillow analysis. By
contrast, the average sale price rose just 8 percent in low-income neighborhoods
that were eligible for opportunity zone status but were not selected.
hltps:/lwww.mercurynews.comf2019/04/22/how-a-trump-program-could-spur-a-new-wave-of-bay-area-development/ 4/6
412212019 How a Trump program could spur more Bay Area development
Several neighborhoods included in the federal program were gentrifying even
before they were deemed opportunity zones, leaving some to wonder if they
need the tax incentives. The Ice House -a large condo development going up in
West Oakland -is in an opportunity zone, for example. So is a South Berkeley
neighborhood blocks from the UC Berkeley campus. Zillow listed that Berkeley
neighborhood as one of the nation's most attractive zones for development
under the federal program, saying median home prices there rose more than
$300,000 in the three years before it was dubbed an opportunity zone.
But Cynthia Parker, president and CEO of nonprofit affordable housing
developer BRIDGE Housing, is hopeful the federal program will help the Bay
Area's poor by making it easier to build low-income housing. Cities struggle to
get enough affordable housing built in part because it's so expensive to build,
and it doesn't provide the profits that market-rate housing does. It can cost
close to $600,000 to build one unit of affordable housing, and it can take up to
14 different funding sources to get one project off the ground, Parker said. The
new tax breaks could help BRIDGE fill its funding gaps, she said. BRIDGE
already is working on about 20 projects in opportunity zones in Oakland, San
Jose, San Francisco, Oregon and Washington.
"We're very excited about it," Parker said.
In San Jose, where officials say !t!.8."!! .. ~l:!i.~~!1:~ .. ~<:>.~.~~--~--P..r.~Y.~.~~~--~-~~--!!.C?.IP:
~t::-~?..r.~Jt~l:'.~!. .. 1:1:'?.1:1.~i.~ .. P.!.~~!:1.~~-'?.~ .. 8."~~-, staff are doing their best to lure
investors into their opportunity zone neighborhoods. The city's Office of
Economic Development held a workshop in February to teach the community
about the tax incentives, and dozens of investors, nonprofits, officials and
others from around the Bay Area showed up. City staff also put together a ~~~!!¥.
P..~E.~?.!~ explaining how opportunity zones work, and providing information
about the San Jose neighborhoods that qualify.
Urban Catalyst has submitted preliminary paperwork with the city to get its first
opportunity zone building approved -a six-story office and retail development
on South First Street in downtown San Jose dubbed the ~<:>~-~~i.~--~~1::¥. .. ~.1:1.i.~~i.~·
The company has five other downtown buildings planned, some of which will be
residential and include housing for students and seniors.
It's all because of the opportunity zones, Hayden said.
"Would I be focused so much on downtown San Jose if it wasn't for the
opportunity zones?" he asked. "The answer's probably not."
hltps:/lwww.mercurynews.comf2019/04/22/how-a-trump-program-could-spur-a-new-wave-of-bay-area-development/ 5/6
4/22/2019 Bay Area needs housing, but we don't want to build faster: poll
Business > Real Estate • News
Bay Area paradox: We need
housing, but we don't want to
build faster
Poll: 7 in 10 think development in their city is
going about the right pace or too fast
Qose Carlos Fajardo/Bay Area News Group
Bay Area voters are split on the question of new development to
address the housing shortage, according to a recent poll. About 8 in
10 people surveyed said housing cost a very serious problem, but
about 7 in 10 said development was going at about the right pace or
too fast. (File photo: Jose Carlos Fajardo/Bay Area News Group)
By LOUIS HANSEN I Lhansen @bayarean ewsg roup.com I Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: April 22, 2019 at 6:30 am I UPDATED: April 22, 2019 at 9:17 am
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/22/bay-area-paradox-we-need-housing-but-we-dont-want-to-build/?utm _ email=1433142E2523F4F2D5555443... 1 /6
4/22/2019
~ The Trust Project
How a Trump program could spur more Bay Area development
SPONSORED CONTENT
Scientists Confirm The
Oak Island Mystery Is
Solved~
sy upbeat
The massive mystery behind Oak Island has
closed, once and for all!
Tags: Affordable Housing, East Bay Editors' Picks, Economy,
Editors' Picks, Housing, PM Report, Regional
Marisa Kendall Marisa Kendall covers housing for the Bay Area
News Group, focusing on the impact local companies have on
housing availability in the region. She's also written about
technology startups and venture capital for BANG, and covered
courts for The Recorder in San Francisco. She started her career as
a crime reporter for The News-Press in Southwest Florida.
'# Follow Marisa Kendall @MarisaKendall
SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
ALL ACCESS DIGITAL OFFER FOR JUST 99 CENTS!
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/22/how-a-trump-program-could-spur-a-new-wave-of-bay-area-development/ 6/6
4/22/2019 Bay Area needs housing, but we don't want to build faster: poll
If the Bay Area has an all-season contact sport, it's the recurring NIMBY fights
against housing construction.
ADVERTISING
And although almost everyone agrees housing prices are too high, few want to
see faster development to tackle the problem, according to a recent Bay Area
poll for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and this news organization.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/22/bay-area-paradox-we-need-housing-but-we-dont-want-to-build/?utm _email= 1433142E2523F4F2D5555443... 216
412212019 Bay Ania needs houll~. but-don't want to build fasl8r. poll
BAY AREA GROWTH: TOO FAST OR TOO SLOW?
Almost all Bay Area voters agree housing costs are a big problem.
But few think developers need to build faster.
Q: How serious is Extremely serious
the cost of housing
in your area? Very serious
Somewhat serious 11 12°10
Not too serious I 3010
57°/o
Q: Do you think the rate of growth and development in your city
or town is too fast, about right or too slow?
Too fast About right Too slow
All 33°/o 41°/o 18°/o
Alameda CQJ.Joty 31°& A ~o 1__8.o/o
Contra Co~ta Cou_nty_ 250/o 48°/o 19°/o
San tylateo County 340/o __ 40°/o 18°/o
Santa Clara Count'_ 37°/o 39°/o 14°/o
San Francisco County 38°/o 29°/o 22°/o
Homeowners 34°/o 46°/o 15°/o
Renters 32°/o 34°/o 23°/o
Current tech employees 25°/o 40°/o 28°/o
Source: FM3 Research poll conducted February 14-24. Survey consisted of 1.568 online
and telephone (landline and wireless) interviews with voters in Alameda. Contra Costa.
San Francisco, San Mateo. and Santa Clara counties. The study is +/·3.1 percentage
points at the 95% confidence level: margins of error for population subgroups within
the sample will be higher. Due to rounding. not all totals will sum lo 100%
BAY AREA NEWS GROUP
In the midst of an expanding housing shortage, rampant homelessness and
highest-in-the-nation housing costs, the poll suggests Bay Area voters haven't
reached the tipping point needed to demand action.
"Wm in a crisis,• said Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership
Group. He compared the housing shortage and resistance to new development
to an air:plane slowly descending, with few passengers recognizing how perilous
the journey has become. "Our job is to keep the plane from crashing.'"
About 83 percent of people surveyed said the cost of housing is a very or
extremely serious problem, but 74 percent of respondents say development in
their city ls m<MJig too fast or ust about ~t. Only 18 ~rcent felt
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 22, 2019 9:49 AM
To:Dennis Richards; Susan Kirsch; Rick Hall; Carey White
Subject:more than you ever want to know....pushing never stops
Attachments:190422 Federal Opportunity Zones and Downtown San Jose SJ Mercury April 22 2019.pdf; 190422
Public opinion about building more housing SJ Mercury April 22 2019.pdf
I decided to drive over to Sac and watch the SB50 legislative hearings Tuesday and Wed. Today's
two articles in the San Jose Mercury are equally enlightening.. As the pie gets smaller, table
manners are changing.
Take note of the LA Times portrayal of Palo Alto. I dont have access to another article in SF
Chronicle.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-apartment-construction-density-palo-alto-
20190422-story.html
Here are links. Articles also attached. Both articles avoid the obvious issue. Can we adjust to the
massive amount of job creation? There is no responsible reporting or policy analysis on the rate
of job creation and new office space. Here are two short excerpts:
"And although almost everyone agrees housing prices are too high, few want to see faster development
to tackle the problem, according to a recent Bay Area poll for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and
this news organization."
AND...
"Dozens of low-income neighborhoods across the Bay Area are bracing for a potential rush of new
development after being marked as “opportunity zones” — a new federal designation that suddenly
makes them prime targets for investors but also opens them up to gentrification and worries of rising
rent prices..........There’s evidence the federal program already is pushing real estate prices up. The
average sales price of a home in an opportunity zone rose 25 percent this year over the year before,
according to a nation-wide Zillow analysis. By contrast, the average sale price rose just 8 percent in
low-income neighborhoods that were eligible for opportunity zone status but were not selected."
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/22/bay-area-paradox-we-need-housing-but-we-dont-want-to-
build/?utm_email=1433142E2523F4F2D555544355&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_t
erm=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mercurynews.com%2f2019%2f04%2f22%2fbay-area-paradox-we-need-
housing-but-we-dont-want-to-build%2f&utm_campaign=bang-mult-nl-morning-report-
nl&utm_content=manual
2
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Friday, April 19, 2019 8:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:One couple's story
Dear Council Members:This was posted on nextdoor.com March 29th. Do you read these stories? I hear about
people like this every day. What are you doing to provide affordable housing? We want to see your plans.
"This evening, I met an elderly couple that had just been evicted from their home. They were sitting in their car in the
parking lot of the storage area where I was dropping off stuff for newly housed homeless (thank you @tomiDorsey
for your work). They were facing the prospect of their first night on the street and were grateful for the blankets and
towels I had brought to drop off. I was moved that even in the midst of their own stunned suffering, they noticed a
young woman nearby picking through a garbage can and wanted to share what I was giving them with her. That is
generosity of spirit that one rarely witnesses. I was shaken - humbled both by their grace and by the scale of the
need in one of the richest parts of one of the richest countries in the world. Luckily, I had extra blankets to give. The
young woman didn't want to take without reciprocating...she asked for my name so she could give what she was
able to ... an extremely gracious and personal thank you. I was humbled anew - by her civility in a world that more
often seems angry than not. It can be tempting to demonize poverty. Today, I came face to face with it in a palpably
human way. I write this note to urge you, if you can, to help our neighbor @tomiDorsey with collection efforts for
stuff for the newly housed homeless. I also write this because I wanted to share the # of CLSEPA (Community Legal
Services of EPA) who can help in cases of potential evictions in case you run into people in trouble. I wish I had
known about them earlier...phone #"
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jenny Barin <jenny@fwd.us>
Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2019 2:24 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Proclamation Request: Immigrant Heritage Month
Attachments:IHM2019_SampleProclamation.pdf
Dear City Council & Mayor & City Clerk,
I would like to request for the City of Palo Alto to issue a proclamation declaring June as Immigrant Heritage Month. This
summer marks the 5th annual Immigrant Heritage Month, which is a time to celebrate the many contributions
immigrants make to American communities. Palo Alto issued a proclamation for Immigrant Heritage Month in 2018, so I
hope you will continue the tradition this year! (And as a Stanford grad, it brings me great pride to see Palo Alto uplifting
immigrant voices!)
Attached is sample text you can use for the proclamation. Please let me know if you have any other questions or needs.
Thanks,
‐‐
Jenny Barin
Director of Systems and Projects, Immigration | FWD.us
Phone: 708.275.2834
E-mail: jenny@fwd.us
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2019 4:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail Grade Crossings
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Last night I attended the council discussion on rail grade crossings. Please be aware that Eileen Goodwin will chair the
WG meetings and has done an excellent job with the CAP meetings. She is in charge. There is no need for a chairman
and vice chair. There is no need for WG members with a certain technical background. Aecom has the required technical
background to provide preliminary design and display videos of the various rail grade separation options. Council
members, please view the videos of the various options already provided and shown at the CAP meetings and public
forums. They show information on utility issues and creek crossing information. One council member wanted to exclude
a viaduct solution near Churchill because 2 members of the public testified that they didn’t want people looking down in
their back yard. One or 2 people cannot speak for the other 60,000 Palo Alto residents. Please do not make hasty
decisions on items from a few people that speak at council meetings. I suggest that at least 2 members of the council
attend the WG meetings. It will be very educational.
Thank you,
Gary Lindgren
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-326-0655
Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading
@garyelindgren
Listen to Radio Around the World
Be Like Costco... do something in a different way
Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything
A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but
think what no one else has ever said.
The difference between being very smart and very foolish is
often very small.
So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when
they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when
they are supposed to be creative.
The secret to doing good research is always to be a little
underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste
hours.
2
It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to
prove you have made the world a better place.
Amos Tversky
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Barbara Kelsey <barbara.kelsey@sierraclub.org>
Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2019 6:16 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:PlannerOnDuty; Gladwyn d'Souza; Katja; James Eggers
Subject:Regional initiative to advance building Reach Codes
Attachments:Reach Code Letter to City Council Palo Alto.pdf
April 23, 2019
City Council of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sent via email to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: planner@cityofpaloalto.org
Honorable City Council Members,
On behalf of the thousands of Sierra Club members and supporters throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara
Counties we write to encourage your city’s participation in the Peninsula and Silicon Valley regional initiative to
advance building “reach codes” to make our buildings safer, healthier, more affordable as well as help meet
our local climate action plan goals.
Please see our comment letter attached.
Sincerely,
Gladwyn d’Souza, Conservation Committee Co-Chair
CC: Katja Irwin, Conservation Committee Co-Chair
James Eggers, Executive Director
sent by:
Barbara Kelsey
Chapter Coordinator
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
3921 E. Bayshore Rd, Suite 204 Palo Alto, CA 94303
ph 650-390-8411, Ext #5
barbara.kelsey@sierraclub.org
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
April 23, 2019
City Council of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sent via email to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: planner@cityofpaloalto.org
Honorable City Council Members,
On behalf of the thousands of Sierra Club members and supporters throughout San Mateo and
Santa Clara Counties we write to encourage your city’s participation in the Peninsula and Silicon
Valley regional initiative to advance building “reach codes” to make our buildings safer, healthier,
more affordable as well as help meet our local climate action plan goals.
What Are Reach Codes?
Every three years, cities and counties across the state can adopt local reach codes in line with the new Building Standards Code (Standards) or Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Cities and counties may adopt building codes more advanced than those required by the state, which are known as reach codes.
Reach codes aim to update local building codes concurrently with the state-required adoption of the 2019 Standards. The previous adoption cycle with new Standards took effect January 1, 2017. The next reach code adoption cycle, to coincide with the 2019 Title 24 Standards that go into effect January 1, 2020, must be adopted by cities and the County by the end of calendar year 2019. Reach codes may include:
Prescriptive Codes: Require one or more specific energy efficiency measures
Performance Codes: Require a building to perform more efficiently based on accepted
computer modeling and allow trade-offs between energy efficiency measures
Several cities within San Mateo County and Santa Clara County have utilized reach codes in the past similar to this effort, including Palo Alto and San Mateo.
We’ve had a preview of the emerging reach code being developed by Peninsula Clean Energy and
Silicon Valley Clean Energy. We were impressed by the extent and diligence that the staff have put
into the emerging code. The new code
1- saves money
2- improves health
3- helps cities meet climate goals in the midst of a climate emergency. Our challenge is not to
burden present construction with dangerous legacy infrastructure.
4- improves safety by removing one set of ignition triggers
5- creates jobs for retrofits and upgrades
sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Cities should look at getting the code to staff around June so that they can integrate it and bring it
back to council by August/September.
The reach codes effort is focused on ensuring buildings have greater readiness for electric vehicles
and encourage all-electric homes. Electric vehicle save drivers 50% or more on fuel, putting that
money instead into the local economy, and all-electric buildings save on avoided natural gas
plumbing and infrastructure – not to mention improving indoor air quality and reducing fire risk.
There is a major opportunity to gain these benefits and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels by
implementing reach codes in conjunction with the current statewide building code update. With the
support of Peninsula Clean Energy and Silicon Valley Clean Energy cities are eligible to receive
significant technical assistance from TRC Engineers, a leading consulting firm supporting code
development at State and local levels, and DNV-GL, which has supported local governments on
climate action plans for the past several years. Through the program cities receive:
1. Model codes developed with your input
2. Adoption assistance including cost-effectiveness analysis and other technical material
3. Implementation assistance including training, check-lists and other needs you may identify
4. $10,000 for your participation
Details of the program are available at www.peninsulareachcodes.org. Please make sure to check it
out. We highly encourage your participation in this valuable effort to combat climate change and
support our local economy.
Sincerely,
Gladwyn d’Souza, Conservation Committee Co-Chair
CC: Katja Irwin, Conservation Committee Co-Chair
James Eggers, Executive Director
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Amie Neff <amie.neff@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 22, 2019 10:49 PM
To:Council, City; Adrian Fine; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; Tom DuBois; Greg Tanaka;
Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com; Shikada, Ed; Keene, James; De Geus, Robert
Subject:Train Grade Separation Alternative
Just to be clear, there still is *very large support for the separation of freight from passenger rail in a tunnel among the
citizens living here in South Palo Alto, and not merely a "idea of the moment" that we lost enthusiasm for. Please don't
misrepresent community interest.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018, 11:21 Amie Neff <amie.neff@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Council and Rail Committee Members,
I am unable to attend tonights meeting, but would like to add to my neighbors voices and ask the council to carefully
consider the lasting impact tonight's decision will have on our community.
I would urge you to eliminate all above‐ground options for South Palo Alto.
I would also urge you to study the option of putting the passenger train in a tunnel below, with freight above. This will
be the best long‐term solution. The future of freight on this line is uncertain. Why would we spend millions to
accommodate a train which is running infrequently, and maybe not for long.
To Misters Keene, Scharff, and Wolbach, I'm sorry to see you three go and appreciate all your years of service and
dedication to this project, and the City of Palo Alto.
Happy Holidays Everyone, and Best Wishes for the New Year.
‐‐
Amie Neff
M.Arch, LEED® AP
‐‐
cell: 650/ 396/ 9146
amie.neff@gmail.com
www.capabledesign.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Phyllis Newhouse <phyllis4323@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Saturday, April 20, 2019 11:13 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received
I’m upset about the R Vs that are parked on El Camino. Is that an item that’s scheduled to be discussed? If so I’d like to
be notified. There’s got to be a better place to park!
Phyllis Newhouse
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2019, at 3:20 AM, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council
Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council
packet.
If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call
(650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.
If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an
explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.
We appreciate hearing from you.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Martha McClatchie <mcclatchie@babblelabs.com>
Sent:Monday, April 22, 2019 4:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Your invitation to the Girl Scout Gold & Silver Awards Tea Event
Hello, please forward this invitation to all of the city council members. We have a Palo Alto girl scout who is being
honored at this event.
Vedha Mahesh has earned her Gold Award this year.
We expect approximately 100 members of the community to be in attendance.
RSVP directly to me, or sign up with the link below.
Thank you,
Martha
https://su608-awardstea-28apr2019.cheddarup.com
Service Unit 608 Awards Tea 2019 4/28/19
PLEASE JOIN US IN CELEBRATING OUR GIRL SCOUTS' ACCOMPLISHMENTS!
Sunday, April 28, 3:30-5:30 p.m.
Grant Park Community Center, 1575 Holt Ave., Los Altos, CA 94024
Attire: business-casual/dressy-casual
Registration deadline: Wednesday, April 10
No cost to Gold and Silver honorees
For more information, please contact Pei Huang at peihuang2010@gmail.com
or 650-305-0267
If you have girls that can volunteer, please contact Pei. Thanks!
‐‐
Martha McClatchie, Controller
BabbleLabs, Inc. https://www.linkedin.com/company/babblelabs/
"Watch the BabbleLabs wombat video, download the App from Google Play or the Apple App Store, and try out Clear
Cloud ‐ any time, any where!" Thank you and Enjoy!
.,~·i>;to··, /~m~\ -'-'\ L,, CJ, .\ .;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPME l ~\~/
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-7000 ~-.:/ 7 ~
t" f4.;~ 'fa.flilOE~f.\.O
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
The Honorable Eric Filseth
Mayor of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301-2531
Dear Mayor Filseth,
ZOl9 APR 23 AH 9: 53
f !:.CEIVEO
April 15, 2019 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
I am pleased to inform you of your jurisdiction's Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 allocations for the
Office of Community Planning and Development's (CPD) formula programs, which provide
funding for housing, community and economic development activities, and assistance for low-and
moderate-income persons and special needs populations across the country. President Trump
signed Public Law 116-6 on February 15, 2019, which includes FY 2019 funding for these
programs. Your jurisdiction's FY 2019 available amounts are as follows:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
Housing Trust Fund (HTF)
$499,868
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
This letter highlights several important points related to these programs. We remind grantees
that CPD seeks to develop viable communities by promoting integrated approaches that provide
decent housing and suitable living environments while expanding economic opportunities for low-
and moderate-income and special needs populations, including people living with HIV/AIDS. The
primary means towards this end is the development of partnerships among all levels of government
and the private sector, including both for-profit and non-profit organizations.
Additionally, several of these CPD funding sources may serve as important resources to
leverage investments in any designated Opportunity Zones in your jurisdiction. Created by the
201 7 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, the Opportunity Zone program will stimulate private investment in
designated, low-income census tracts nationwide. CPD will publish further guidance on how
funding available through the formula grant programs can be deployed to leverage Opportunity
Zone financing.
Based on the demographic requirements of designated Opportunity Zones, it is possible that
your jurisdiction could use CDBG and Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Program funds to invest in
infrastructure, assist existing businesses, or provide gap financing sources for real estate projects in
these zones. Based on your jurisdiction's CDBG allocation for this year, you also have $2,499,340
in available Section 108 borrowing authority. Since Section 108 loans are federally-guaranteed, this
www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov
program can leverage your jurisdiction's existing CDBG funding to access low-interest, long-term
financing to invest in Opportunity Zones or other target areas in your jurisdiction.
ffiJD continues to emphasize the importance of effective performance measurements in all of
its formula grant programs. Proper reporting in the Integrated Disbursement and Information
System (!DIS) is critical to ensuring grantees are complying with program requirements and
policies, providing demographic and income information about the persons that benefited from a
community's activities, and allowing HUD to monitor grantees. Your ongoing attention to ensuring
complete and accurate reporting of performance measurement data continues to be an invaluable
resource with regard to the impact of these formula grant programs.
The Office of Community Planning and Development is looking forward to working with you
to promote simple steps that will enhance the performance of these critical programs and
successfully meet the challenges that our communities face. If you or any member of your staff have
questions, please contact your local CPD Office Director.
Sincerely,
David C. Woll, Jr.
Assistant Secretary (Acting)
Default Report
PAUSD Staff Housing Survey
March 21, 2019 4:03 PM PDT
01 -In which geographic area of the district do you primarily work?
North (Addison,
Ouveneck. Hays,
Poly, DD, Corporate
Yard)
Sou th (El Carmello,
Fa1rmoadow, Hoover.
Ohlone, Palo Verde,
Fletcher, JLS,
Gunn, Greene.Jell)
West (Escondido,
Briones, B.lrron
Park Nixon, Greene)
# Field
50
North (Addison, Duveneck, Hays, Paly, DO, Corporate Yard)
too t50
2 South (El Carmello, Fairmeadow, Hoover, Ohlone, Palo Verde, Fletcher, JLS, Gunn, Greendell)
3 West (Escondido, Briones, Barron Park, Nixon, Greene)
Showing rows 1 -4 of 4
200 250
Choice Count
38.28 253
39.33 260
22 10 148
661
027 -Are you a member of a staff association or bargaining group?
PAEA
CSEA
PAf~A -
Other/None -
50 100 150 200 300 350 400 •150 600
Choice
Count # Field
PAEA 71.0l> 474
2 CSEA 17? 115
3 PAMA 5 8f 39
4 Other/None 5.85'/o 39
667
Showing rows 1 -5 of 5
Q4 -How many minutes is your commute *round trip* on an average day?
# Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev1ation Variance Count
Estimated average commute time, in minutes. 0.00 300.00 75.81 50.40 2540.62 645
Q24 -After receiving your job offer from PAUSD, did you move closer to work?
I have moved, hut
for a reason other
thnn the commute
#
I would have liked
to but could not
ma\i:e il vJork
No
Field
Yes
0 50 mo
2 I have moved, but for a reason other than the commute
3 I would have liked to but could not make 1t work
4 No
150 200 250
Showing rows 1 -5 of 5
300
Choice Count
2'.43 144
8.3:3°1 56
26.93 'Q 181
43.30~·. 291
672
036 -Have you previously lived in the Palo Alto area and had to move?
Yes I had to move
because I couldn't
afford the cost of
living .n the area,
hut I would have liked
to ~t.1y
Mo, I ha1e never lived
in tho Palo Alto area
because I could not
afford to lr.:e there.
but would like to.
No, I have nover ivod
in the Palo Alto area
because I currentty
haveyood housing
situation amUor good
commute time
No, I have not.
# Field
0 20 40 60 80 100 IZO 140 160
Yes, I had to move because I couldn't afford the cost of living in the area, but I would have liked to stay.
2 No, I have never lived in the Palo Alto area because I could not afford to live there, but would like to.
180 200
3 No, I have never lived in the Palo Alto area because I currently have good housing situation and/or good commute time.
4 No, I have not.
Showing rows 1 -5 of 5
220 240
Choice Count
11:0 112
36138 236
88 57
235
640
Q5 -How do you currently commute to work? (Check all that apply.)
Wokorb1ko -
Public trans t Ill
Carpool
01ivc alone
0 50
# Field
Walk or bike
2 Public transit
3 Carpool
4 Drive alone
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Showing rows 1 -5 of 5
500 550 GOO
Choice Count
10 :is· 79
3 7C 29
'2.13',. 95
783
Q38 -Which of these routes do you primarily commute on?
Hwy IOI
1·260
El Camino Real
Central Expressway
/Alma
None of the above.
0
# Field
Hwy101
2 1-280
3 El Camino Real
4 Central Expressway I Alma
5 None of the above.
20 40 60 BO
Showing rows 1 -6 of 6
100 120 140
Choice
Count
23.17°1 120
25.10% 130
16.41"!., 85
1311% 71
21.32% 112
518
Q7 -Do you rent or own your current dwelling?
Rent or lease
Own
Other (e g hve with
family)
# Field
0
Rent or lease
2 Own
3 Other (e.g. live with family)
50 100 150 ?00
Showing rows 1 -4 of 4
<50 300 350
Choice Count
45.58 305
49.63°1-, 332
669
09 -Which type of dwelling do you live in?
Apartment
Smylefanuly
home
Mobilehome I
Temporary/transit I
1onalhousmg
0
# Field
Apartment
2 Condo
3 Single family home
4 Mobile home
60
5 Temporary/transitional housing
100 1~0 200
Showing rows 1 -6 of 6
250 300 350 4()0
Choice Count
25.19'l'o 169
13.26°, 89
59.91' 402
0.75<\o 5
0 89~ 6
671
010 -Approximately how many square feet is your current residence?
<GOO sq. ft.
601-1000 sq ft.
1001 1·100 sq ft
1401-2000 sq. ft
2001-2500 sq. fl.
>2501sqft -
0 20 40 60 80 l()fJ 1?0 1·10 !CO
# Field
< 600 sq. ft.
2 601-1000 sq. ft.
3 1001-1400 sq. ft.
4 1401-2000 sq. ft.
5 2001-2500 sq. ft.
6 > 2501 sq. ft
Showing rows 1 -7 of 7
1eo 200
Choice
Count
9.os·~·~ so
2708°1 179
'l 08°·; 60
3 ()3'.·. 20
661