Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20211108plCC
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: 11/08/2021 Document dates: 11/01/2021 – 11/08/2021 Public Comments Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Robert Chun To:Council, City Subject:Please support renter protections tonight Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 9:58:24 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rgchun@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I urge you to strongly consider the following measures at tonight's Council meeting: 1. Implementation of a Rental Survey Program (“Rent Registry”) 2. Expanded Tenant Relocation Assistance - covering all homes, renters, and eviction types 3. Close AB1482 loopholes 4. Explore a "COPA - Community Opportunity to Purchase Act" ordinance to preservenaturally occurring affordable housing These measures are essential to protecting tenants, and in particular rent-burdened families who struggle to maintain housing stability in Palo Alto. Thank you! Sincerely, Robert Chun From:Sydney Speizman To:Council, City Subject:Protect Palo Alto Renters Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 9:51:51 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sydneyspeizman@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council: As a Palo Alto resident and renter in College Terrace, it is deeply important to me that the complex housing needs of ALL Palo Alto Residents are met, including the 46% that are renters like me. I join the coalition calling on City Council to expand renter protections in Palo Alto. We need a robust rental survey program - but that’s just the start! Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic that increased the precarity of housing, the Bay Area suffered from a significant housing crisis with insufficient units, lack of access to affordable housing, looming evictions, and landlord harassment. Especially after the end of renter protections like the eviction moratorium, we are hearing story after story of renters facing eviction and suffering under the overwhelming weight of high housing costs. We call on you to protect and grow access to safe, affordable housing through enhanced renter protections, including the following: A Rental Survey Program Expanded tenant relocation assistance An eviction reduction program Anti-rent gouging Security Deposit Limits Fair Chance Ordinance • • • • • • • Right to Counsel If the City Council hopes to protect longtime renters who have lived in Palo Alto for decades - and new tenants with ties to the community - it must enhance protections for the 46% of Palo Altans who rent. It is our responsibility to care for one another at our most vulnerable. Thank you, Sydney Speizman From:Liao, Chuntao To:Council, City Subject:Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 9:45:17 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from liao1005@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, As a long time Palo Alto resident, I strongly oppose the Renter Protection Policy Recommendations, and urge you to reject it. As far as I know, the past 18 months have been very difficult for housing provides as well, thecost of owing a hour raised a lot, while the rent is actually going down. The recommendationsadd extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Alto residents. The extra costs addedby the proposal either will transfer to the additional rent that the tenants have to pay, or helpkilling the housing market. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; the expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; theeviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those strugglingto pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer;the security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the reviewgiven to prospective tenants;the fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk;the right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollarswould go to the tenant to clear back rent;the community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened codeenforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. Chuntao Liao,Resident at Arbutus Ave, Palo Alto From:Palo Alto Forward To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer;Burt, Patrick Subject:Supporting Renter Protections Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 9:26:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. RE: Agenda Item #14 Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council Members, Palo Alto Forward is a non-profit organization focused on innovating and expanding housing choices and transportation mobility for a vibrant, welcoming, and sustainable Palo Alto. We are a broad coalition with a multi-generational membership, including new and longtime residents. We’re writing to support the package of renter protections proposed by staff. As you know, the high cost of housing in Palo Alto has made entry level homeownership out of reach for many in the community. According to staff presentations at PTC and HRC on this topic, 80% of renters making less than $75,000 per year are rent-burdened. That demonstrates a profound need for deed-restricted affordable housing and the stabilization of rising housing costs. Unless you act with urgency, we will continue to see young families and longtime renters leave the community - and increasing homelessness. We recognize that the tenants impacted by high rents, landlord harassment, and unclear tenant protections are best positioned to provide feedback on this set of policies. As such, we support the Palo Alto Renters’ Association’s recommendations to fully implement the rental survey program, expand tenant relocation assistance, close loopholes from AB1482, and explore a community opportunity to purchase act ordinance. City Council demonstrated great leadership in passing one of the first temporary moratoria on residential evictions for nonpayment of rent related to COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic. We hope that the political will remains to extend protections to nearly half of our residents who are tenants. Thank you, Palo Alto Forward Board of Directors From:Matt Smith To:Council, City Subject:I support tenant protections Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 8:56:37 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from ndrhodymatt@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, I am a 10 year resident of Palo Alto. My family of four has been renting here for 10 years. Wecannot afford to own but want to remain in this community. With one child in 2nd grade and a second about to enter kindergarten, I am scared of how a sudden rental increase could force usto leave the city we have made our home and force us to uproot our kids from the school they love. We tenants have a voice and that voice is growing. As elected representatives of thiscommunity, please echo our voice and please vote to enhance renter protections by: 1. Implementation of a Rental Survey Program (“Rent Registry”) 2. Expanded Tenant Relocation Assistance - covering all homes, renters, and eviction types 3. Close AB1482 loopholes 4. Explore a "COPA - Community Opportunity to Purchase Act" ordinance to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing Thanks, Matt Smith 141 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Lik Wong To:Council, City Subject:Please reject Tenant Protection in Palo Alto Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 8:02:03 AM Attachments:2009-01-jenkins-reach_concl.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from lik.wong@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I can understand some tenants’ frustrations in finding a suitable place to live. There are numerous arguments for and against rent control. It should be beneficial for us to survey the past several decades of rent control experiences across the world. Attached please find this article “Rent Control: Do Economists Agree?”. Summary from the paper: My review of the rent-control literature indexed by EconLit (or cited by such indexed articles) finds that economic research quite consistently and predominantly frowns on rent control. My findings cover both theoretical and empirical research on many dimensions of the issue, including housing availability, maintenance and housing quality, rental rates, political and administrative costs, and redistribution. As Navarro (1985) notes, “the economics profession has reached a rare consensus: Rent control creates many more problems than it solves” (90). I see the literature as supporting the point of view that there are few long-run winners from the policy, that it is an example of the transitional gains trap. Some highlights from the paper are quoted below. Basic economic theory suggests that at controlled rates, quantity supplied is reduced and controlled housing is less available. Further, the regulatory cluster attenuates ownership, creates uncertainty, and increases the costs of supplying housing. Thus, basic economic theory would suggest that both short-run and long-run effects will reduce housing availability. many economists expect rent controls will undoubtedly decrease the supply of controlled rentable units Having closed off the main means of defending cash flows, profit maximizing landlords will look to other alternatives. The most likely results, given that returns to rental housing in controlled markets will decline relative to other investments, would be either sale at depressed price or abandonment. (Mengle 1985, 15) Developers will choose to build de-controlled new homes, condominiums, office buildings, or simply not to build at all, investing their funds elsewhere. (Navarro 1985, 90) The decay and shrinkage of the rental housing markets in Britain and Israel caused by long-term rent control are persuasively documented in Coleman (1988) and Werczberger (1988), respectively; Tenant’s benefit and rental rate Does rent control successfully target benefits to less fortunate individuals? Landlords and superintendents use non-price forms of rationing. In sifting through credit reports, references, and other components of applications, they are likely to select the individuals or families that appear to struggle the least. Both Arnott (1995) and Glaeser (2002) raise doubts about targeting to needy tenants. The benefits of rent controls go to individuals selected by landlords. Navarro (1985) further explains how this allocation occurs and who is more likely to benefit from rent controls. [W]hile some tenants win, other tenants unquestionably lose. (Navarro 1985, 96) The likely long-run effect of the regulatory cluster is to shift cost curves up and supply curves back, so it is not surprising that there is evidence that, in the long-run, rent control leads to higher rents even in the controlled markets The average estimated benefits are -$4 [a loss, in 1995 dollars] per month for households in ‘old style’ rent controlled housing and -$44 per month for households in rent stabilized apartments. This implies that, on average, households in regulated units would have been better off if rent regulations had never been established in New York City. (Early 2000, 197-199) Rent control’s impact on Tax revenue the control’s negative effect on aggregate housing rents (the tax based in this model) reduces tax revenues and causes a deficit. (Heffley 1998, 767) Rent control and homelessness Several empirical studies find no clear relationship between rent control and homelessness Administrative cost [T]he inefficiency costs of these regulations may be substantial, as they involve both administrative costs and the misallocation of resources. (Linneman 1987, 29) Regarding limiting landlords’ ability to ask applicants’ criminal history, please be mindful of unintended consequences in numerous situations: Duplex: Owner occupies one unit and plans to rent the other unit. Would Owner rent to a tenant with some criminal history? Single-family owner would like to rent ADU in the backyard or some spare room. Would Owner rent to a tenant with some criminal history? Neighboring tenants in a Duplex, Triplex, Apartments: do they have the right to know if a neighboring tenant has a criminal background? It is highly likely that such a limitation about criminal history inquiry would reduce housing supply. Please reject Tenant Protection in Palo Alto. Yours sincerely, Lik Wong • • • Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 73 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 blair Jenkins1 Ab s t r A c t Rent control is usually introduced to economics students as a price ceiling and an unambiguous source of inefficiency. Early rent controls mirrored price ceilings, but by the late 20th century the majority of controls had developed into complex systems. This paper organizes the judgments of economists regarding the impact of rent controls in the American context. Research is limited to jour- nal articles listed by the american economic association’s electronic bibliogra- phy, econlit, under the subject search “Rent control” performed February 18th, 2008. Articles must also meet the following criteria: the article focuses on rent control policies; data come from U.S. cities; and at least one author must be an economist. An economist is defined as any individual who holds a degree in the field of economics. I focus on the articles generated by the search in EconLit, but also include articles not in the EconLit search, but referenced by articles that are. i have been scrupulous to include any such once-removed articles that go against the main tendency of the literature, and hence assure the reader that my efforts have not accommodated a “picking and choosing” bias on my part. I find that the preponderance of the literature points toward the conclusion that rent con- trol introduces inefficiencies in housing markets. Moreover, the literature on the whole does not sustain any plausible redemption in terms of redistribution. The literature on the whole may be fairly said to show that rent control is bad, yet as of 2001, about 140 jurisdictions persist in some form of the intervention. A Brief History of Rent Control in the United States European countries first practiced rent control after World War I. Many 1 California State University, Northridge, 91330. Acknowledgment: I thank Dr. Shirley Svorny for her encouragement and guidance. Econ Journal WatchVolume 6, Number 1January 2009, pp 73-112 Rent Control: Do Economists Agree? Do Ec o n o m i s t s RE a c h a co n c l u s i o n ? Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 74 European governments imposed rent freezes, also called first generation rent con- trols. Rent increases were not allowed. European reconstruction struggled and most rent controls continued after World War II. over time, however, controls became more pliable and rents were allowed to fluctuate somewhat in response to market pressures. US governments first imposed rent controls in response to wartime diffi- culties. During World War II, housing markets in many cities were overwhelmed as soldiers and their families were relocated around the country. A declared goal was to “ensure affordable housing and to prevent profiteering” by landlords who may have taken advantage of the extreme market pressures (Arnott 1995, 100). The U.S. Emergency Price Act of 1942 established the rent controls of New York City. By November 1943, rents in New York were fixed to their March 1943 levels in an attempt to prevent “’speculative, unwarranted, and abnormal’ rent increases during the war” (Gyourko and Linneman 1989, 55). Although the Federal hous- ing and Rent Act of 1947 relieved rental units built after February 1947 from rent control, New York City continued to adopt control policies into the 1950s. After the original legislation expired in 1950, the New York Emergency housing Act of 1950 continued to impose traditional first generation rent controls throughout New York City. New York City’s extended adoption of rent control was not typical of the 1950s. For most of the United States, this time period was characterized by the expiration and removal of rent controls. The housing boom of the 1940s and 1950s met the demands of returning soldiers, allowing for plentiful and afford- able housing. By 1960 all jurisdictions, except for New York City, had removed rent controls. The 1960s and 1970s saw a resurgence of rent controls. Double-digit infla- tion rates caused rental levels to increase abruptly. In response, tenants found power in assembly, leading demonstrations, such as the harlem Rent Strikes of 1963, and forming organizations such as the Chicago Tenants Union. By the 1970s, rent control had been re-enacted in California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Baltimore, Maryland, Seattle, Washington and Washington, D.C. the majority of re-established rent controls occurred “in the northeast and cali- fornia where the rent pressures were most severe and tenant organization[s] were strongest” (Keating and Kahn 2001, 1). 2 another source of support for rent controls is the idea that landlords might take advantage of tenant “lock-in” and increase rent. Rent controls are an attempt to prevent landlords from acting opportunistically. Since increasing rents under such conditions is generally considered “taking advantage” of a tenant, “efficiency is deliberately sacrificed in favor of fairness,” resulting in rent controls (ho 1992, 1184). Controls enacted in the 1960s and 1970s are categorized as second generation 2 Keating and Kahn are not economists but we recognize their historical research of rent controls. Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 75 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 rent controls. Instead of simply freezing rents, these policies allowed for minor in- creases. Rent control creates a classic intervention dynamic, resulting in a cluster of controls including politically administered maintenance codes and requirements, response requirements, tenant-protection measures, rent reductions, eviction con- trols, relocation measures, apartment-access guidelines, subletting controls, and re- strictions on condominium conversion. The regulatory cluster tends to attenuate ownership of rental properties and create investment uncertainty. Private agree- ment is supplanted by political administration. Throughout the revival of rent controls, landlords had assembled to limit such regulations. By the 1980s the ma- jority view had changed and fewer voters favored government interference with market forces. As of 2001, about 140 jurisdictions in the United States regulated rents (Rent Control: Policy Link.org). Rent Control as a Price Ceiling Rent controls prohibit prices from rising above politically-determined levels. Under a price ceiling, fewer housing units are supplied than demanded, resulting in a shortage. While some tenants clearly benefit from the constraints, property owners experience a loss. however, the loss to landlords and would-be tenants is not completely redeemed by the gains of the benefiting tenants, resulting in a dead weight (net) loss and inefficiency (Varian 1996, 14). The results of first generation controls are uncontroversial. Writing in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Richard arnott (1995) offers an exceptionally am- bivalent “revisionist” view of rent control.3 Yet he wrote: “I shall not dispute that first-generation controls were harmful (they almost certainly were)” (102). While temporary price freezes might be beneficial under certain extreme situations, such as during “wartime [when rent controls] provide a way to ration housing without imposing undue hardship,” long-term rent freezes are undoubtedly harmful to economies (Arnott 1997, 8). Arnott (1997) notes the existing evidence of the negative impacts of rent freezes: [T]he cumulative evidence – both quantitative and qualitative – strongly supports the predictions of the textbook model [of rent freezes] in virtually all respects. The decay and shrinkage of the rental housing markets in britain and israel caused by long-term rent control are persuasively documented in coleman (1988) and Werczberger (1988), respectively; Friedrich v. hayek (Fraser Insti- 3 Aside from Arnott’s avowedly “revisionist” article, the EconLit search found no other articles pub- lished by the Journal of Economic Perspectives or the Journal of Economic Literature. Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 76 tute, 1975) provides evidence of the harmful effects of hard rent controls in interwar Vienna, including their adverse effects on la- bor mobility; and Bertrand de Jouvenel (Fraser Institute, 1975) and Milton Friedman and George Stigler (Fraser Institute, 1975) argue strongly that the retention of controls immediately after World War II adversely affected the Paris and U.S. housing markets, respectably. (Arnott 1997, 7-8) Knight (1950) expresses the inefficiency of first generation rent control and pondered the sources of support: [R]ent freezing for example, occurs not at all merely because tenants have more votes than landlords. It reflects a state of mind, a mode of reasoning, even more discouraging than blindness through self- interest—like protectionism among our Middle-Western farmers. (knight 1950, 4) since there is a clear consensus among economists, including even arnott, that first generation controls are bad, we will consider studies that examine other forms of rent controls, often referred to as second generation controls. Second Generation Rent Control Lind (2001) defines one form of second generation rent control: sitting tenants are protected against (certain types of) increases in market rents and there is also a ceiling for rent increases in new contracts. The ceiling is set so high that it smoothes increases in rent, but does not keep the rent in new contracts below the market level in the longer perspective. (Lind 2001, 54) other forms of second generation controls allow rents to increase relative to inflation rates. In one form or another, they allow rental levels to change over time. Because second generation controls do not fit the typical model of a price ceiling, it is difficult to know their effects. Based on this lack of certainty, Arnott (1995) argues that economists must reevaluate their opinions of second genera- tion controls: [S]econd-generation rent controls are so different that they should be judged largely independently of the experience with first-gener- Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 77 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 ation controls. (Arnott 1995, 118) [T]he case against second-generation rent controls is so weak that economists should at least soften their opposition to them. A de- gree of revisionism is certainly in order. (Arnott 1995, 118) Economists’ Theorizing the Effects of Rent Control I organize the literature by theory and empirics. First we examine effects as treated theoretically. Later we will survey the effects as studied empirically. Misallocation of Extant Housing Units one dimension of the resulting inefficiency of rent control is that, because they may act as a price control, units are in excess demand and hence it is not necessarily the highest-benefit users who get in. Tenants may apply for or remain settled in apartments that do not well suit their needs simply because the apart- ment carries a low price. In other words, many of those who do not get in have higher willingness-to-pay than many of those who do get in. Price is not function- ing to help assure that resources flow to highest valued uses. Further, since the gain to tenants who obtain rent controlled apartments might be great, tenants may engage in a lengthy search for an apartment with controls. Whereas rationing by free prices works as an efficient transfer of money, rationing by transaction costs induced by controls are a social waste—like sitting in traffic on an underpriced highway.4 The following economists suggest that rent controls lead to increased search costs, misallocation, and inefficiency: [A]ll forms of rent control limit landlords’ abilities to raise rents on long-term tenants. This creates an incentive to stay in the same apartment, which leads people to remain in the same apartment even if their tastes and conditions change. As the taste and needs of individuals change over time, there will be a misallocation of houses across people, even if goods are allocated efficiently initially. (glaeser and luttmer 2003, 1031) the reduction in rent due to rent control causes the reservation mismatch cost to increase; households become less fussy as the cost of search relative to tenancy rises. (Arnott and Igarashi 2000, 260) the more severe the rent control, the higher the mismatch cost … 4 Lindsey (2006) shows that economists reach a conclusion in favor of highway pricing. Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 78 (Arnott and Igarashi 2000, 270) Thies (1993) states collateral manifestations of inefficiency, outcomes ulti- mately harmful to tenants of controlled and uncontrolled units: alternative mechanisms that can potentially equilibrate supply and demand in housing markets include discrimination, quality deterio- ration, substitution of tenant for landlord maintenance, forced tie- ins, finder’s fees, side payments and bribes, and “spillover” into the noncontrolled sector. (Thies 1993, 159) It is shown that tenants as a class do not benefit, but rather—ignor- ing dead-weight losses—some tenants are benefitted (those in the controlled sector), and other tenants are hurt (those in the noncon- trolled sector). Taking dead-weight losses into account, even some of the tenants in the controlled sector are hurt. (Thies 1993, 159) Rent controls provide an added incentive for residents to remain in the unit. arnott (1995) suggests that it might be good to inhibit movement: mobility in an unregulated market may be excessive since neither the landlord (in the event of eviction) nor the tenant (in the event of moving) pays the full social cost of a separation; lower mobility in the controlled sector may therefore be welfare improving. (Ar- nott 1995, 114) many economists portray the inhibition of movement in a negative light: a second, potentially more serious cost can be traced to the immo- bilization of tenants that rent control induces. Because of the rental bargain that tenants in controlled units enjoy and because controls can make it difficult to find similarly-priced accommodations else- where, there is a tendency for tenants to ‘stay put.’ (Navarro 1985, 93) To the extent that artificially low rents reduce the mobility of the population they impose inefficiency People who would otherwise move away decide to stay in a controlled unit to keep the advantage of an artificially low rent. (Sims 2007, 144-145) The one clear impact that all rent control regulations will have is Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 79 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 to reduce rents for some groups of existing tenants and create a wedge between their housing costs, if they stay in their existing unit, and their housing costs if they move. This wedge has been found to severely reduce mobility. (Glaeser 2002, 5) Rapaport also believes rent controls induce tenants to stay too long, “reduc[ing] the inflow into vacancy” (Rapaport 1992, 446). The following economists suggest potential efficiency losses as a result of reduced mobility: Whether or not population is growing, housing market reform does affect the equilibrium allocation associated with long-run growth. If we restrict our setting to parameter values which ensure a unique steady-state equilibrium, then the lifting of restrictions lowers the steady-state capital-labor ratio. (hardman and Ioannides 1999, 334) …rent control might decrease the mobility of the labor force. As sitting tenants are reluctant to move from a rent-controlled apart- ment, they are less likely to accept a higher paying job in another city. (Basu and Emerson 2000, 959) In addition to the inefficient use of time and resources associated with extended commutes, it is not too much of a leap to postulate that a related consequence of rent control must be a decline in the quality of job matches for residents. (Krol and Svorny 2005, 435) if households are less inclined to move due to rent control they are also less inclined to react to changes in labor market conditions. (Munch and Svarer 2002, 557) one consequence of the ‘lock-in effect’ is increased unemployment as workers are less willing to commute longer distances to find and hold jobs. (Navarro 1985, 94) Economists predict that both first and second generation rent controls will result in misallocation, particularly in relation to the inhibition of movement. Maintenance Basic economic theory would suggest that rent controls will induce land- lords to reduce the maintenance of controlled units. With lower rental rates and Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 80 excess demand, why should a landlord maintain a $1000-value property for which she can only collect $750? She might as well skimp and let it deteriorate to a $750 value. This basic logic is affirmed by many economists, but of course reality is more complicated, and there are models in which positive maintenance effects are found. Kutty (1996) developed a “dynamic model to analyze various cases of rent control” in an attempt to analyze the relationship between rent control and rental maintenance (7). She applied her model to typical first generation controls as well as to numerous forms of second generation rent controls: It is only in the simplistic case [first generation rent controls] that the prediction of negative maintenance holds unambiguously. (Kut- ty 1996, 8) in all other cases, positive maintenance is possible under rent con- trol. (Kutty 1996, 8) [W]e find that the impact of rent control on housing maintenance, theoretically, is ambiguous. (Kutty 1996, 8) olsen (1988) offers a similar conclusion: [M]odels are seriously deficient in that they ignore essential features of actual rent control ordinances and important responses to them. When these features and responses are taken into account, the ef- fect of rent control on maintenance is theoretically ambiguous. (ol- sen 1988, 305) self-maintenance is an important matter to consider, since both tenants and landlords have an effect on a unit’s upkeep. No doubt a tenant’s assistance often partially offsets a landlord’s neglect. Moon and Stotsky (1993) make such a hy- pothesis: [L]ong-term tenants in rent–controlled dwellings are more likely to engage in self-maintenance, compensating for any under mainte- nance on the landlord’s part. (Moon and Stotsky 1993, 1139) gyourko and linneman also note that tenant maintenance as an important factor: While the landlord’s incentive to maintain the unit falls, that of the tenant to self-maintain increases. Since landlords are responsible for Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 81 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 maintaining the entire building including common areas and sup- port services, free-rider problems probably prevent tenants from maintaining those areas as effectively as landlords. Still, those re- ceiving relatively large implicit subsidies have a greater incentive to see that the building does not become unsound, thereby reducing the value of their implicit subsidy. (Gyourko and Linneman 1990, 402) olsen (1988) notes that self-maintenance as an important yet frequently overlook component of rent control and maintenance levels, especially since some second-generation rent controls limit a landlord’s ability to evict tenants. he finds that if a tenant remains in the same rent-controlled unit, “the tenant will maintain the unit better than his landlord due to the income effect [subsidy] of rent control” (olsen 1988, 302). however, olsen notes the complexity of the maintenance is- sue. While tenant maintenance is a notable impacting factor, there are many other elements to account for: consideration of other aspects of reality such as the superiority of the landlords in providing certain types of maintenance and the possibility that the tenant will move before receiving all of the ben- efits of a particular maintenance activity obviously cannot restore the unambiguous conclusion of the usual analyses. (olsen 1988, 302) Whether or not tenant maintenance is a deciding factor regarding unit up- keep depends on whether it is substantial enough to counter the expected lack of maintenance from landlords. Many other economists suggest that all rent controls, including second generation rent controls, will simply result in reduced mainte- nance on controlled units: [T]he price-taking landlords will allow maintenance expenditures to fall, perhaps to zero, in response to a control on rental revenue below the equilibrium levels. (Albon and Stafford 1990, 236) The landlord will let unit quality deteriorate to the point where the controlled rent is actually the market price. After all, the landlord has no incentive to make the apartment any nicer than he must in order to keep it occupied… i continue to believe that even second generation rent control creates strong disincentives for quality pro- vision when the unit is occupied. (Glaeser 2002, 10) [L]andlords cut back on operating and maintenance expenses and Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 82 allow their property to deteriorate, the quality and flow of housing services to tenants are reduced: heat may be lowered and supplied more erratically, halls may be swept less frequently, the exteriors may be allowed to chip and peel, the plumbing my drip and leak, and there may be an increase in roaches or mice infestations as ex- terminator visits are reduced. (Navarro 1985, 96) Rent control will generally lead to a decline in maintenance expen- diture by the landlord… (ho 1992, 1188) in the short run landlords have some latitude to vary the quantity of housing services from the existing housing stock by increasing or decreasing variable inputs (maintenance and repairs)… in the long run landlords will tend to permit the portion of their output that yields no revenue to disappear through deterioration. (Turner and Malpezzi 2003, 37-38) A final explanation of the decline in owner cost is that rent control leads to less maintenance and more rapid depreciation of controlled rental units. Since prices are not permitted to adjust to clear the market, quality adjustment will tend to perform this task, ultimately causing the market value to fall to the ceiling rent with the owner’s cost falling to zero. (Ault and Saba 1990, 39) Arnott and Shevyakhova (2007) focus on the impact of vacancy allowances, a form of second generation control where rent levels are “controlled within a tenancy but free to vary between tenancies” (24). They believe vacancy allowances lead to a decrease in maintenance. once a new tenant moves in and a new rental rate is established, the rental revenue received from the tenant is “independent of the landlord’s maintenance expenditure, and hence reduces his incentives to maintain” (24). however, the enforcement of vacancy allowances varies across districts. some other forms of second generation controls are designed to punish landlords for allowing rent controlled units to deteriorate. olsen (1988) summa- rizes the intentions of such rent controls: It is easy to show that, if the reward for upgrading and the penalty for downgrading a unit are sufficiently large, the apartment will be better maintained under rent control. (olsen 1988, 298) Mengle (1985) argues, however, that such constraints might be incapable of preventing this problem: Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 83 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 [o]ne of the alleged advantages of second generation controls is that they are designed to minimize quality deterioration. At the same time, maintenance levels are costly for tenants and local of- ficials to police, and cutbacks are typically slow to show their ef- fects. For example, tenants may be unaware that landlords under controls may now repair leaking roofs rather than replace them, or that formerly annual services may now be performed every two years. (Mengle 1985, 5) Housing Availability basic economic theory suggests that at controlled rates, quantity supplied is reduced and controlled housing is less available. Further, the regulatory cluster at- tenuates ownership, creates uncertainty, and increases the costs of supplying hous- ing. Thus, basic economic theory would suggest that both short-run and long-run effects will reduce housing availability. ho (1992) discusses the possibility that, under certain circumstances, rent controls can increase available housing for low income tenants. Because controls might “lead to faster deterioration” (1188), ho suggests that rent controls might lead middle and high income housing to deteriorate to the level of low income housing, “temporarily rais[ing] the supply of low-quality housing” (1188). hackner and Nyberg’s (2000) model makes the assumptions that individuals “have an equal chance of getting a rent controlled apartment” and that the produc- tion of housing is reversible (312). Under these assumptions, they formulate the possibility that “rent control may actually increase the aggregate housing stock” (324). it is interesting to note that the increase in aggregate demand that follows from a reduction in the regulate rent leads to construction of new housing in the less attractive area. (hackner and Nyberg 2000, 324) however, in the long run, controls lead “market-determined rent in the less attractive area [to] be lower than the marginal construction cost” reducing the incentive to build (324). While rent controls might provide a temporary in- crease in low income housing, overtime controls appear to eliminate all incentive to construct in less attractive areas since even market-level rents do not provide a potential profit to new construction there. McFarlane (2003) predicts a correlation between rent ceilings and the den- sity of rent-controlled unit development. As a rent ceiling rises, the landlord prof- its more from each rental unit, allowing for growth and “capital-intensive land Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 84 conversion” (330). Therefore, development occurs but at a slower pace and higher density. Conversely, as a rent ceiling is decreased, the landlord’s losses increase, al- lowing for less growth. Development is accomplished at a quicker pace, but with less capital intensity. Early and Phelps (1999) suggest that if rent controls have prevailed for a long period, developers might eventually come to build more uncontrolled units because uncertainties and apprehensions are abated: The reduction in the importance of rent control over time fits well with the notion that the supply of uncontrolled housing falls when investors are concerned that future ordinances will control the rents of new construction. It seems reasonable that the probability of new controls being implemented would decrease as the number of years since implementation increases. If investors become less wary of future controls, they will be more willing to supply housing. (Early and Phelps 1999, 276) Some models raise counter-intuitive possibilities – perhaps a case of the n- handed economist. Still, many economists expect rent controls will undoubtedly decrease the supply of controlled rentable units: The aggregate output of housing services will decline…The repre- sentative firm…will allow its dwelling units to deteriorate until the flow of housing services declines… (Frankena 1975, 306) It is important, however, to note that, despite the increase in the number of landlords in the controlled zone, the output per land- lord is reduced throughout the zone and the net effect on the ag- gregate production of housing services within the zone is negative, as commonly predicted. (heffley 1998, 765) [h]aving closed off the main means of defending cash flows, profit maximizing landlords will look to other alternatives. The most likely results, given that returns to rental housing in controlled markets will decline relative to other investments, would be either sale at depressed price or abandonment. (Mengle 1985, 15) mengle (1985) continues his discussion by relating maintenance levels and housing availability. As discussed, rent controls are expected to lower maintenance levels. In an attempt to prevent the deterioration of rent controlled housing, the regulatory cluster often punishes landlords for allowing maintenance levels to de- Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 85 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 preciate. Mengle suggests that, instead of dealing with the cluster of controls, landlords may find it advantageous to convert to condominiums or office space. The result is a decrease in rental availability. Mengle (1985) concludes “it is difficult to see how anyone could benefit unless one’s hidden agenda is to remove housing from the private sector” (15). Early and Phelps (1999) also find reason that rent controls might result in less available housing over time since the incentive for developers to build de- creases: …the supply of uncontrolled housing falls when investors are con- cerned that future ordinances will control the rents of new con- struction. (Early and Phelps 1999, 276) glaeser (2002) makes a similar observation by noting the difference in con- struction of uncontrolled rental units between Chicago and New York City: [I]t is hard for the casual observer not to notice the difference in the supply of new construction for rental purposes in Chicago (which is very much a non-rent controlled city) and New York City (which has among the most Byzantine and volatile rent control rules…). Chicago’s lakefront is dotted with apartment buildings built after World War II for rental purposes. New York’s Upper East Side is filled with one-time rental buildings that were gradually turned into cooperatives and lacks new rental buildings despite the fact that technically these buildings would be free from rent control. (Glaes- er 2002, 12) Converting apartments to non-rentable units is a route by which rent con- trols may decrease housing availability: [D]evelopers will choose to build de-controlled new homes, con- dominiums, office buildings, or simply not to build at all, investing their funds elsewhere. (Navarro 1985, 90) It is worth mentioning that rent control also creates an incentive to demolish rental buildings prematurely – either legally or through arson – and to build uncontrolled dwellings in their place. (Navarro 1985, 91) [R]ent control can reduce the stock of low-quality housing, by in- ducing upgrading (from rent level decontrol), rehab (to convert to owner-occupancy), and abandonment. (Arnott 1995, 116) Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 86 [C]onversion activity increases when the market rent surpasses the rent ceiling. (McFarlane 2003, 328) the theoretical conclusion that rent controls result in a decrease of the stock of rent controlled units is compelling. The effect of rent controls on uncontrolled units, however, is more ambiguous. As noted above, some economists regard the uncertainty and decreased maintenance levels as an element which prompts a de- crease in overall stock of rentable units, not just controlled units. however, the magnitude of conflicting factors causes other economists to reach other complex conclusions. The theoretical effect of controls on the aggregate supply of rent- able housing is therefore ambiguous. The Effect of Rent Controls on Controlled Rents Whether the consumer can find “affordable” housing depends not only on the number of housing units available but also on whether rents are “affordable.” Nagy (1997) believes that, under second generation controls which allow for va- cancy allowances, landlords may find a way around rent controls by “offer[ing] a price higher than what would prevail in an uncontrolled market” (76). Therefore, the ability of rent controls to lower rents is hampered by the landlord’s ability to set the initial price. This effect may be seen as a kind of inverse to a possible consequence of minimum wages: That employers make the schedule of pay raises flatter on account of the initially high wage paid in compliance with the minimum- wage law. Again, the allowing of landlords to set the initial rental level may, as Nagy (1997) states, reduce a rent control’s effect as a price control. The landlord may chooses to set the rental level at a rate higher level since the rate will remain fixed until the tenant decides to move. This alters the stories about the lost return to landlords; a decrease in maintenance level, a decrease in the supply of apartments, a potential increase in homelessness, and a potential increase in the rental level in the uncontrolled sector. Basu and Emerson (2003) provide another analysis of vacancy allowances, also termed tenancy rent control. They suggest that the allowance to set incoming rent leads to results similar to those of first generation controls. Given tenancy rent control [vacancy allowances], the presence of even a small positive inflation gives rise to an adverse selection problem. Landlords now prefer short-staying tenants to long- staying tenants (as long-stayers impose greater costs on landlords because of the erosion of real rents during a single tenancy), but they have no way of telling the types apart…. Long-staying tenants Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 87 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 know their type but have no interest in revealing this information to prospective landlords. (Basu and Emerson 2003, 225) the combination of asymmetric information and monopolistic landlords leads vacancy allowances to result in very low rental levels, similar to a typical first generation rent control. [Vacancy allowances] can cause landlords to operate in a way that mimics the old-style rent control. To wit, they hold down price, even with excess demand, to attract a better-‘quality’ tenant (i.e. one that will not stay too long). (Basu and Emerson 2003, 230) Therefore, Basu and Emerson (2003) find some second generation rent controls lead to lower rental levels, but this comes at the cost of inefficiencies like those of first generation controls. By their nature, rent controls provide rental levels lower than short-run free-market levels. Yet, queuing, waiting lists, bribes, and high search costs are additional costs not reflected in rental rates. In the spirit of Tullock’s transitional gains trap (1975), the beneficiaries of rent control may not extend much beyond those who were situated at the time of imposition. Moreover, the attenuation of ownership might discourage supply such that even controlled rates are, in the long run, not lower than the rates that would have prevailed if the regulatory cluster had never been created. The Effect of Rent Controls on Uncontrolled Rents If rent controls reduce housing availability, this will lead to a shortage in the entire housing market. A shortage will increase in outward demand shifts in the other, substitute uncontrolled markets, resulting in higher rental rates. Therefore those who do not live in rent controlled units must pay a higher rent as a result of local rent control. This effect is analogous to how minimum wage laws may increase demand for high-skilled labor and mechanization. hubert (1993) does not draw the same conclusion. Instead he suggests that second generation rent control might decrease rents in the uncontrolled sector: if the rationing system induces tenants in the controlled sector to accept a reduction of housing consumption – compared to the case of an unregulated market – rent control effectively acts like a sub- sidy to decrease consumption. Not surprisingly, this would lower the rent in the free sector of the market. (hubert 1993, 58) Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 88 Also, heffley’s spatial equilibrium model of rent control derives this uncon- ventional conclusion: [N]either the price per unit of service nor the rental payment rises in the uncontrolled area when the control is imposed elsewhere. This result, too, is sensitive to model specification and parameter values, but it suggests that the external effects of rents control may be quite complicated and counter to the conventional story when the long-run economic and locational adjustments of both tenants and landlords are considered. (heffley 1998, 766) however, other economists are confident that controls will lead to higher rents in the uncontrolled housing market. [W]e can be quite confident that the greater the extent of rent con- trol in an urban area, the higher will be the supply price in the un- controlled market… (early and olsen 1998, 804) While rent control unquestionably reduces rents of tenants in rent- controlled units, it actually increases rents of tenants in uncon- trolled units. (Navarro 1985, 96) [T]he greater imbalance as a result of rent control forces the unsat- isfied renters to look for more expensive substitutes, which there- fore becomes even more expensive. (ho 1992, 1188) Homelessness Standard analysis would suggest that rent controls increase homelessness since controls are expected to reduce housing availability. [I]t might reasonably be argued that rent control leads to homeless- ness by impeding new construction due to a fear of future regula- tion and hastening removals form the existing stock. This decrease in supply should lead to a higher rental price of housing in the un- controlled sector and a lower vacancy rate. Since the worst units are the most likely to be converted to non-residential uses, households with the highest propensity to be homeless, namely the extremely poor, are likely to be the households displaced. They are also the most susceptible to eviction for non-payment of rent. Since land- lords of controlled units ration based on non-pecuniary character- istics, these households are unlikely to find a controlled unit and the Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 89 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 higher rental price or housing and lower vacancy rate in the uncon- trolled sector may make homelessness their best choice. (Early and olsen 1998, 799) Yet, many results suggest the relationship is ambiguous: With these lower rents, poor households are less likely to be evicted for non-payment of rent when they experience financial difficul- ties. So there is at least one mechanism through which rent control could lead to less homelessness. (Early and olsen 1998, 799) An increase in the lower bound on housing consumption should induce some households to occupy better housing at the same time that it makes homelessness the best choice for others…(early and olsen 1998, 805) [B]ut since no empirical studies adequately account for the many possible linkages between rent control and homelessness, whether rent control contributes to homelessness remains an open issue. (arnott 1995, 116) Economists show no preponderant prediction on homelessness. As home- lessness is a complex matter, the ambiguity is understandable. Targeting the Benefits of Rent Control Does rent control successfully target benefits to less fortunate individu- als? Landlords and superintendents use non-price forms of rationing. In sifting through credit reports, references, and other components of applications, they are likely to select the individuals or families that appear to struggle the least. Both Arnott (1995) and Glaeser (2002) raise doubts about targeting to needy tenants. [T]he traditional advocates of controls emphasize distributional concerns. Specifically, they argue that controls redistribute from rich to poor and ensure cheap housing. I find little merit in either argument. Whatever redistribution controls achieve is poorly tar- geted…For related reasons, cheap housing, as distinct from a re- duction in inequality or poverty, is a dubious goal of social policy. (arnott 1995, 108) in most cases the landlord or superintendent may allocate apart- ments on the basis of the tenant characteristics or a tenant bribe. If Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 90 landlords get to choose among prospective renters, then it seems quite possible that the reduced rents from rent control may actually end up increasing segregation. After all what will landlords look for? Tenants who make the building more attractive to other tenants. In general, this will mean tenants who resemble the existing stock of tenants, or richer tenants. This will tend to exacerbate segregation, at least in richer communities. (Glaeser 2002, 9) The benefits of rent controls go to individuals selected by landlords. Na- varro (1985) further explains how this allocation occurs and who is more likely to benefit from rent controls. as an example of this form of discrimination in cambridge, Jef- frey Sterns has noted that ‘due to the high demand for housing in the city, landlords prefer and are able to rent their units to higher income tenants not receiving public subsidies.’ (Navarro 1985, 94- 95) [W]hile some tenants win, other tenants unquestionably lose. (Na- varro 1985, 96) Effects on the Community The primary goal of rent control is to provide affordable housing. Yet the controls affect other facets of a community. Glaeser (2002) expects these to be negative: “if the city is getting poorer, then rent control may tend to exacer- bate poverty and stop rich people from renting the more desirable apartments” (Glaeser 2002, 6). Glaeser (2002) notes the correlation between rent controls and poverty in New Jersey. he suggests that rent controls result in decreased growth “because rent control[s] limit new construction or because other factors [make] these places less attractive” (18). Navarro (1985) explains that rent controls can negatively affect a community by affecting the community’s tax base; “because tax assessments are based on a property’s market value, the amount of taxes the owner pays shrinks with the reduction in rents” (Navarro 1985, 92). In an attempt to replace the taxes lost from rent control, taxes in the uncontrolled sector might be increased. In effect “the tax burden is shifted not only to single family hom- eowners, but also to tenants in the uncontrolled market” (Navarro 1985, 96). heffley (1998) also remarks on the potential tax base erosion caused by rent control: in moving to the rent control case…the level of public spending Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 91 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 and the tax rate are maintained. But the control’s negative effect on aggregate housing rents (the tax based in this model) reduces tax revenues and causes a deficit. (heffley 1998, 767) in reality, rent controlled communities should be expected to pur- sue some mixture of these strategies: general increase in effective property tax rates coupled with selective abatements to some land- lords, cutbacks in public spending, increased efforts to secure non- local sources of income, and greater reliance on other forms of local taxation. (heffley 1998, 769) navarro (1985) suggests that controls may lead to an increase in energy consumption: [T]he ‘lock-in effect’ leads to longer commutes, workers consume more gasoline… the city’s rent control mechanism provides little in- centive for landlords to conserve fuel because of a ‘dollar-for-dollar’ clause which allows landlords to pass any increase in fuel expenses directly through to tenants. This gives the renter little incentive to conserve and the landlords little incentive to install conservation devices. (Navarro 1985, 94) Empirical Research on Rent Control The preceding review of theoretical effects is now paralleled by a review of effects in empirical findings. Misallocation of Extant Housing Units glaeser and luttmer (2003) offer some empirical evidence of the misalloca- tion caused by first generation controls: [New York City, 1990:] [A]t least in theory, ignoring the misalloca- tion costs of price control may result in a far too positive view of these regulations… our methodology suggests that 21 percent of New York apartment renters live in apartments with more or fewer rooms than they would if they were living in a free market city. (glaeser and luttmer 2003, 1028-1029) [o]ur procedure suggests significant misallocation. our estimates indicate that 11 percent of the renters are misallocated and 15.9 Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 92 percent of the owners are misallocated. (Glaeser and Luttmer 2003, 1044) Gyourko and Linneman’s (1989) analysis of New York City’s rent control system during 1968 finds that controls “encourage excessive immobility among controlled sector renters” while they “encourage excessive mobility among fami- lies hoping to obtain controlled apartments” (72-73). Therefore, they find the effect of rent controls on a tenant’s movement depends on whether the tenant is lucky enough to reside in a rent controlled apartment. Nagy’s (1995) regression analysis of data from New York City in the years 1978, 1981, 1984, and 1987 gives similar results: “between 1978 and 1987 tenants in the controlled sector were less mobile than those in the stabilized sector” (137). however, Nagy notes that rent controls do not necessarily reduce mobility, as those who live in the controlled sector tend to be less mobile individuals: it appears that much of the difference in mobility can be explained by differences in tenant characteristics across sectors. (Nagy 1995, 137) [T]enants in the controlled sector are predominantly white. They also tend to be older and have less income. Because these charac- teristics are associated with immobility, this suggests that tenants in the controlled sector may move less often because they tend to have the characteristics of immobile tenants. (Nagy 1995, 133) however, the majority of researched articles agree with the results that in- dividuals who currently live in rent controlled units are significantly more likely to stay put: [New York City, 1981:] [R]esidents of the controlled sector receive significant rental subsides relative to those of the stabilized and uncontrolled sectors and hence remain in their units significantly longer than they would otherwise be expected in order to realize these subsidies. (Linneman 1987, 22) [New York City, 1968:] [T]he “average” rent control tenant would choose to remain in his or her residence about 18 years longer than an otherwise identical tenant in an identical residence which was not rent controlled due solely to these differing marginal effects... Clearly rent control results in large distortions in the way changes in personal and structural characteristics change the preference for residential stability. (Ault, Jackson, and Saba 1994, 156) Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 93 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 [New York City, 1997:] Tenants will still have longer duration than those in an uncontrolled sector. Increased duration may have detri- mental consequences … [T]enants may be willing to live in a crowd- ed apartment because they cannot find an apartment that is prop- erly sized. Increased duration may have positive benefits as well. A tenant will have a greater incentive to maintain the apartment if he or she has a long duration. (Nagy 1997, 76) Krol and Svorny find that tenants in rent controlled apartments appear to sacrifice shorter commutes for lower rents: [New Jersey, 1980, 1990, and 2000:] Using New Jersey census tract data… we are able to show a positive and statistically significant relationship between rent control and the percent of the work- ing population that has a long commute for 1980, 1990, and 2000. (krol and svorny 2005, 435) the most constraining types of controls are systematically empiri- cally associated with longer commute times. (Krol and Svorny 2005, 435) Another consequence of rent control has to do with a tenant’s potential to become a homeowner. Because rent controls make renting more attractive and lead tenants to stay put, controls generally decrease renters’ incentives to become homeowners: [New York City, 1968:] A potentially large efficiency effect of rent controls is that the expectation of subsidized rents induces nonop- timal homeownership patterns (Gyourko and Linneman 1989, 69) [C]onsumers with large expected rent control benefits had lower demands for homeownership. (Gyourko and Linneman 1989, 71) The tenancy duration results in combination with our findings of substantial influences on homeownership propensities and housing trait prices indicate that the small redistributive impacts associated with rent controls were achieved at the expense of substantial ef- ficiency costs. (Gyourko and Linneman 1989, 73) Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 94 Maintenance the model of rent control as a strict price ceiling predicts maintenance levels in controlled units will depreciate. Yet Arnott (1995) reports: “the empirical literature has been unable to uncover significantly higher levels of maintenance in the uncontrolled sector” (114). In an empirical research paper on New York City’s first generation rent controls in the 1970s and 1980s, Moon and Stotsky (1993) reached an ambiguous conclusion on maintenance: [New York City, 1978, 1981, 1984, and 1987:] [W]e find little evi- dence that the rent control status dummy variable influences hous- ing quality change… it suggests that housing units that stay under control from the beginning to the end of the transition period are less likely to deteriorate. (Moon and Stotsky 1993, 1139) With the subsidy measured in level form, we again observe no significant relationship between rent control and housing quality change. (Moon and Stotsky 1993, 1139) Some economists, however, find a negative relationship between rent con- trols and maintenance levels: [A]lthough tenants may pay less for their rent-controlled apartment, over time, the regulated landlord provides less. For example, in their analysis of Los Angeles, Rand researchers found that 3.5 percent rent reduction from controls was partially offset by a 2.2 percent deterioration, for a net rent benefit of only 1.3 percent to tenants. (navarro 1985, 96) [U.S., 1973-1976:] [F]avorable distributional effects may be partially offset by quality deterioration. (Mengle 1985 5, 14) Some economists also find maintenance controls to be ineffective: [Boston 1985, 1989, 1993, 1998:] Though rent control does not seem to lead to catastrophic maintenance failures, it appears to re- duce the maintenance performed on rental units. As landlords can be fined for allowing water and heat failures, but not for cracked paint, this result is not surprising. (Sims 2007, 144) 5 Mengle (1985) used data from The Department of housing and Urban Development composed of sixty Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) recorded from 1973-1976. Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 95 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 [S]anctions against landlords who cut back maintenance expendi- tures have not realized their intended results. (Mengle 1985, 14) Gyourko and Linneman (1990) find “a change in the rent control status of the building’s apartments from uncontrolled to controlled reduces the probability of the building being in sound condition” (405). While these findings correlate with the expected negative relationship, Gyourko and Linneman find these results are highly subject to certain rental units and certain locations: [New York City, 1968:] Rent controls have had their biggest adverse quality effect on the already relatively deteriorated rental housing stock in smaller buildings. The impacts are largest in Manhattan. For smaller pre-1947 buildings in Manhattan, there is an 8.96% higher probably of being in unsound condition if the building’s units are rent controlled versus uncontrolled. The analogous effects for Brooklyn and Bronx are around 7.5%. The adverse impact on quality is smallest in Queens at 3.42%. (Gyourko and Linneman 1990, 408) The impacts are much less in newer smaller buildings and are non- existent for units in buildings under ten years old. (Gyourko and linneman 1990, 408) While other factors such as age and initial building quality play a clear role in apartment maintenance levels, these elements are erratic and not within human control. Given even a small negative impact on maintenance, Gyourko and Lin- neman (1990) find “it is virtually impossible to justify this price control as good public policy” (409). The empirical research pertaining to maintenance reflects the net effect of the upkeep from tenant self-maintenance and the neglect from landlords. Many researchers find decreases in maintenance levels, but the evidence does not offer a clear conclusion. Since the regulatory cluster usually tries to address maintenance, it is not surprising that the empirics are mixed. Housing Availability Sims’ (2007) empirical examination of rent decontrol in Boston in 1985, 1989, 1993, and 1998 finds that “being in a decontrolled zone leads to an increase of about 0.2 percentage points in the relative quantity of [total] housing supplied” (141). This counts as a “small effect” and Sims concludes “the end of rent control had little effect on the construction of new housing” (141-142). Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 96 Rent controls give landlords the incentive to convert units into non-rentable housing, such as condominiums: [Cambridge, Massachusetts:] [R]oughly 10 percent of the city’s rent-controlled housing stock was converted to condominiums and moved out from under the grasp of the ordinance. As a result, the share of renter-occupied private units has shrunk from 75 percent in 1970, to 72 percent in 1975, to 66 percent in 1980. (Navarro 1985, 91) [Boston, Massachusetts 1985, 1989, 1993, 1998:] In summary, there is weak evidence that rent control affected the extensive quantity of housing units supplied in boston, but much stronger evidence that rent control lead owners to shift units away from renting. The 6-7 percentage point change in rental probability between controlled and uncontrolled zones may seem small, but when applied to all three [6] cities it implies that rent control kept thousands of unit off the market. (Sims 2007, 143) [T]he end of rent control is associated with a 6 percentage point in- crease in the probability of a unit being a rental. (Sims 2007, 142) The Effect of Rent Controls on Controlled Rents Several studies find that rent control reduces rents in the controlled sector. Studying Los Angeles, California, 1969-1978, Fallis and Smith (1997) find that “the data confirm that rent controls effectively constrained rents on controlled units” (199). Writing of New York City in 1968, Gyourko and Linneman (1989) interpret the lower rents as a subsidy to the tenant: “All benefits are expressed in 1984 dollars. The benefit associated with occupying a rent-controlled unit is quite large, with a mean annual subsidy of approximately $2440 or an average 27.2% of annual income” (61). Where second generation rent controls involve vacancy allowances, new ten- ants may be willing to pay higher rents for the promise of controlled future rents. Nagy (1997) finds that “in 1981 new tenants to New York City’s rent-stabilized sector paid on average more than tenants in an uncontrolled sector.” (65). Nagy (1997) explains landlords are able to set the initial rental level, therefore, “tenants forgo low current rent in exchange for low future rent” (65). Therefore, he found the system simply altered the timing of payment rather than the total cost of rent: 6 The three cities Sims refers to are Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge. Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 97 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 [New York City, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1987]: [T]he 258 new stabilized- sectors paid on average $21.55 more per month than the 284 un- controlled-sector tenants did in 1981… (Nagy 1997, 73) Politicians who wish to soften rent control by adding vacancy de- control-recontrol provisions may be undoing the control altogether. these provisions may be doing little more than altering the timing of payment time. Renters pay the same in the long run. They simply pay higher rent sooner and lower rent later. (Nagy 1997, 76) Again, this effect eradicates rent controls ability to act as a price control. As discussed earlier this has a notable impact on the level of negative impacts result- ing from rent control. the likely long-run effect of the regulatory cluster is to shift cost curves up and supply curves back, so it is not surprising that there is evidence that, in the long-run, rent control leads to higher rents even in the controlled markets: [New York City, 1996:] The results suggest that due to the higher price in the unregulated market, on average, tenants in rent sta- bilized and ‘old style’ rent controlled units would be better off if controls had never been established. If controls had never been put in place in New York City, these tenants would have faced a lower price of housing in the uncontrolled sector and would find units in the free sector that better fit their needs. (Early 2000, 202) The average estimated benefits are -$4 [a loss, in 1995 dollars] per month for households in ‘old style’ rent controlled housing and -$44 per month for households in rent stabilized apartments. This implies that, on average, households in regulated units would have been better off if rent regulations had never been established in New York City. (Early 2000, 197-199) only under the belief that prices in the uncontrolled sector are little changed by rent regulations, between 2 and 4%, are the benefits to households in controlled units high enough to compensate for the loss to households unable to find a unit of controlled housing. (early 2000, 202) Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 98 The Effects of Rent Controls on Uncontrolled Rents Many empirical studies find rent controls increase rents in the uncontrolled sector: [New York City, 1996:] The results suggest a positive and statisti- cally significant relationship between the fraction of rental units under rent control and the price of rental housing in the free sector. (early 2000, 193) [Los Angeles, California 1969-1978:] [A]fter two years, controlled rents had risen an average of 13.7 percent and uncontrolled rents had risen an average of 46.2 percent. (Fallis and Smith 1997, 199) [T]he data confirm that rent controls effectively constrained rents on controlled units, but enabled larger rent increases on decon- trolled units than would have occurred in the absence of rent con- trols. (Fallis and Smith 1997, 199) Caudill (1993) offers a dual analysis of New York City’s rent controls in 1968. he observes the impact of rent controls on the rental level in the uncontrolled market by using both the traditional ordinary least squares regression method as well as the frontier method. Both regressions give similar results. he estimates that if controls are removed, “rents in the uncontrolled sector would fall about 22%-25%” (731). Sims’ (2007) regression offers an interesting outcome regarding the impact on the uncontrolled sector. he finds that, depending on the uncontrolled unit’s proximity to controlled units, the rent might actually decrease. Sims’ conclusion is based on rent control’s effect on maintenance levels. As stated above, controls often reduce maintenance. As a result, uncontrolled rental units located nearby will fall in value. While economists are not unanimous regarding rent controls impact on maintenance, it is interesting to note the potential negative externalities that might result. [Boston 1985, 1989, 1993, 1998:] Though the underprovision of housing due to rent control might raise rents in the uncontrolled sector, the reduced care given to rent controlled units may make the zones with rent control less desirable for those living in non- controlled housing. This spillover effect due to sub-optimal mainte- nance may decrease all rents in an area. (Sims 2007, 148) The coefficients imply that having 10-12% rent controlled units in Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 99 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 your zone will decrease your rent by 23-28 dollars [1998 dollars] a month. (Sims 2007, 149) Early and Phelps (1999) conclude that the impact on the uncontrolled rental market is more ambiguous. While they find “the existence of rent control in- creases rents in the uncontrolled sector by more than 13 percent,” these effects diminish over time (274): [American housing Survey, 1984-1996:] [o]n average, the monthly rent of a typical uncontrolled unit is roughly $85 higher [1996 dol- lars] because of the existence of rent controls. (Early and Phelps 1999, 277) These results suggest that the introduction of new controls would increase the price of uncontrolled housing. however, policy makers concerned with the second-generation controls that are currently in existence can look to these results as an indication that the det- rimental effects on the price of uncontrolled housing have passed. According to our findings, the elimination of current controls would not be expected to alter the price of uncontrolled housing. (Early and Phelps 1999, 279) Homelessness Several empirical studies find no clear relationship between rent control and homelessness: [U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1984:] Rent control, which has been cited as a cause of homelessness … had no effect on either homelessness or crowding… (honig and Filer 1993, 252) Rent control does not have a statistically significant effect on home- lessness. (olsen 1998, 677) 7 [American housing Survey, 1985-1988:] our results lend no sup- port to the view that rent control is a major cause of homelessness. If anything, they suggest that it reduces homelessness. Although our estimates indicate that rent control does lead to a lower vacancy rate and higher price per unit of housing service in the uncontrolled sector and they suggest that these lead to more homelessness, they 7 olsen’s (1998) conclusion is based on his empirical study with Early (1998). Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 100 also indicate that these effects of rent control are more than offset by other effects that decrease homelessness. (Early and olsen 1998, 799-800) Grimes and Chressanthis’ (1997) regression finds a clear positive correlation between rent controls and the rate of homelessness. Therefore, it is possible that controls may increase the number of homeless individuals. [U.S., 1990:] The empirical results, irrespective of the measure of the homeless population, strongly confirm the positive impact of rent control on the level of homelessness. (Grimes and Chressan- this 1997, 33) Even though the estimated effect is relatively small, this finding suggests that rent controls, while providing economic benefits to special interest groups in society, impose social costs by increasing the rate of chronic homelessness. (Grimes and Chressanthis 1997, 36) Yet, Gissy (1997) finds a possibility that rent control mitigates homeless- ness: [U.S., 1984:] Cities with rent controls may have higher rates of homelessness, but it is due to the high costs of housing. Without the rent controls, which lower the relative rents in these cities, the homeless rate would be even higher. (Gissy 1997, 119) Gissy (1997) warns that his findings might be influenced by other channels: [U.S., 1984:] Since rent-controlled cities had higher housing costs than the non rent-controlled cities, it may well be that those cities where rent controls would serve to lower vacancy rates happen to be the ones that instituted rent controls. (Gissy 1997, 119) there does not seem to be any clear conclusion regarding rent control and homelessness. Political and Administrative Costs Empirical work has also been done on the costs of administering and en- forcing rent controls: Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 101 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 [Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970, 1975 and 1980:] In Cambridge, for example, the annual budget for the city’s rent control board and related rent control activities runs to about $700,000. That means it costs taxpayers about $40 in regulatory costs for each of the rough- ly 18,000 apartment units under control. (Navarro 1985, 93) [New York City, 1981:] The results presented here suggest that the administrative costs associated with the new style controls do little other than to formalize the market forces which would have otherwise occurred through the “invisible hand” of competition… [T]he inefficiency costs of these regulations may be substantial, as they involve both administrative costs and the misallocation of re- sources. (Linneman 1987, 29) measurements of administrative costs remind us that bureaucracies are a player and an interest group. Targeting the Benefits of Rent Control As stated by the Governor of New York, David A. Paterson (2008), “Rent regulation [including rent control] is intended to protect tenants in privately-owned buildings from illegal rent increases and allow owners to maintain their buildings and realize a reasonable profit.” The general goal of rent controls is to assist those who can barely afford housing. A stereo-typical beneficiary is disabled, elderly, or living on a fixed or limited income. In Gyourko and Linneman’s (1989) empirical study of New York City in 1968, they estimated the benefit of rent control to lucky tenants as $2440, in 1984 dollars (Gyourko and Linneman 1989, 61). Linneman’s (1987) study of New York City in 1981 concludes rent controls’ targeting abilities are haphazard. While the benefits of controls were found to go to some intended individuals such as those who had “low incomes and were elderly,” the benefits were distributed by chance and therefore, “the targeting of these benefits was poor” (15). other economists agree with Linneman’s findings: [Boston, Massachusetts 1985, 1989, 1993, 1998:] only 26% of rent controlled apartments were occupied by renters in the bot- tom quartile of the household income distribution, while 30% of units were occupied by tenants in the top half of this distribution… this suggests that much of the transferred surplus may have been received by wealthier households. (Sims 2007, 148) If much of the benefit accrues to white upper income households, rent control may prove to be an ineffective transfer program as well Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 102 as an inefficient one. (Sims 2007, 150) [Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970, 1975 and 1980:] [T]he poor, the elderly, and families – the three major groups targeted for benefits of rent control – were no more likely to be found in controlled than uncontrolled units. (Navarro 1985, 97) [New York City, 1972; Los Angles, California, 1991; Santa Moni- ca, California, 1990; Washington D.C., 1988:] We also learned that within a market the distributions of costs and benefits of controls are sometimes “progressive,” sometimes perverse, but virtually al- ways poorly focused. (Malpezzi 1993, 622) [New York City, 1981:] [T]he rent control subsidies were very poor- ly targeted. (Linneman 1987, 30) [New York City, 1968:] [W]hile many poor families received bene- fits, so too did many higher income families. In a similar vein, while many low-income families benefitted from rent controls, many other equally poor families received no benefits… [T]his indicates that if the primary social benefits of rent controls are their distri- butional impacts, they were not successful in New York. (Gyourko and linneman 1989, 66) olsen’s (1972) study of New York City in 1968, however, yields contradic- tory results. he finds the mean annual income of tenants in controlled apartments to be $6,223, while the mean annual income of tenants in uncontrolled units is $9,000 (olsen 1972, 1095). Therefore, poorer households tend to receive the ben- efits of rent controls: [New York City, 1968:] Though there are many rich people living in controlled housing and poor people in uncontrolled housing … on average the occupants of rent-controlled apartments are poorer than the occupants of uncontrolled housing. (olsen 1972, 1094) Therefore, among the set of families who receive a net benefit from rent control, poorer families receive larger benefits…In this senses, rent control achieves some of the objectives desired by supporters of the program. (olsen 1972, 1095) While poorer tenants appear to be the recipients of most of rent controls benefits, olsen mentions that there is no accurate distribution of benefits within Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 103 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 this group. A poorer individual does not necessarily receive more of a benefit then an individual who is considered less poor: [New York City, 1968:] [T]he extremely low coefficients of deter- mination …suggest a great variance in the distribution of benefits among recipient families… (olsen 1972, 1095) there is nothing approaching equal treatment of equals among the beneficiaries of rent control. In this sense, rent control is a very poorly focused redistribution device. (olsen 1972, 1096) Ault and Saba (1990) also analyzed the rent controls of New York City. Their research focused on the long-run impact of rent controls and whether the “costs and benefits changed over time…” (26) Their regression applies data from the New York City housing and Vacancy Surveys of 1965 and 1968. They find that recipients of rent controlled apartments have the following characteristics: in each year there is a higher proportion of minority families in the controlled sector, and the families in that sector are older and poorer than their counterparts. (Ault and Saba 1990, 36) Yet, similarly to olsen’s conclusion, they find the distribution of the benefits of rent controls are erratic. In all cases the coefficient of determination is very low, indicating that the program of rent control in New York City did a poor job of providing equal benefits to similarly situated families. Among families in controlled rental housing in 1965 and in 1968, benefits are higher for wealthier and older families and lower for larger fami- lies and minority families. (Ault and Saba 1990, 37) inequalities resulted from the failure of the program to provide equal benefits to similar families in controlled rental housing… (ault and saba 1990, 39) Further empirical analysis provides insight into what type of renters usually receives the benefits. Landlord’s preference of tenants plays a vital role in deter- mining who receives the benefits of rent controls. [New York City, 1996:] [T]he results suggest that a decrease in the age of the head and an increase in the number of persons lead to a decrease in the estimated benefits of rent control. These relation- Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 104 ships may be due to a preference by landlords for older and small- er households. It is plausible that controlled units are rationed. If landlords believe that larger households headed by young persons lead to quicker depreciation of their units, that rationing of units by landlords would lower the probability of larger and younger house- holds finding rent regulated units. (Early 2000, 202) [New York City, 1981:] The rental subsidy for those residing in the old style sector … increased with age but was not significantly at conventional confidence levels… Family size significantly reduced the subsidy in the controlled sector for family sizes under four and increased the subsidy for larger families. (Linneman 1987, 25) [New York City, 1968:] Single renters of each sex fared significantly worse on average than their married counterparts. (Gyourko and linneman 1989, 63) [New York City, 1968:] We can be rather certain that blacks receive greater benefits than whites, but we are only moderately confident that households headed by males received larger benefits than households headed by females. (olsen 1972, 1095) [New York City, 1965 and 1968:] [W]e find that tenant benefits in- crease with income and age of the household head and that white families receive larger benefits than do similar minority families. (ault and saba 1990, 38) as stated by gyourko and linneman (1989), “economists have long pre- dicted that racial discrimination could result in markets where non-price rationing occurred” (73). The following empirical research describes the impact of race on the distribution of rent-control benefits: [New York City, 1968:] Blacks and Puerto Ricans in the controlled sector received lower benefits than their white counterparts. how- ever, both groups tended to be overrepresented in the controlled sector relative to their share in the renter population. Thus, although we found significant differences between the rent control benefits expected by blacks and Puerto Ricans relative to their white coun- terparts, these differences were not as large as the benefit differ- ences found among controlled sectors renters. (Gyourko and Lin- neman 1989, 73) Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 105 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 While the benefits received by blacks in the controlled sector were not as large as those for whites, blacks do not appear to have been disproportionately denied entrance into the controlled sector. Spe- cially, although blacks were 14.4% of the overall sample, they occu- pied just over 19% of all controlled units. (Gyourko and Linneman 1989, 61) [New York City, 1981:] Thus, even though minorities are less likely to reside in the controlled sector, minorities with controlled units fare very well. (Linneman 1987, 27) [New York City, 1981:] [N]o significant race effect on the uncondi- tional subsidy was found. This absence of a significant race effect indicates that the higher subsidies realized by minorities in the old style sector…completely offset the underrepresentation of minori- ties in the control sector… hence yielding a neutral overall racial impact. (Linneman 1987, 27) Glaeser’s results find controls might be incapable of preventing segregation, an intended goal of some control systems: [U.S., 1991:] Neighborhoods in rent controlled cities appear to be as segregated as neighborhoods in free market cities. Finally, when rent control is imposed on declining cities, it seems to make them more, not less segregated. (Glaeser 20028, 21) Far from eliminating segregation, at least in New Jersey, rent con- trol has appeared to increase it. (Glaeser 2002, 20) Summary Assessment of the Findings My review of the rent-control literature indexed by EconLit (or cited by such indexed articles) finds that economic research quite consistently and predominantly frowns on rent control. My findings cover both theoretical and empirical research on many dimensions of the issue, including housing avail- ability, maintenance and housing quality, rental rates, political and administrative costs, and redistribution. As Navarro (1985) notes, “the economics profession has reached a rare consensus: Rent control creates many more problems than it solves” (90). I see the literature as supporting the point of view that there are 8 Glaeser uses 1991 data from the Department of housing and Urban Development. Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 106 few long-run winners from the policy, that it is an example of the transitional gains trap. If rent-control is such a “no-brainer,” why bother to scrutinize the litera- ture? the cluster of restrictions persists in roughly 140 jurisdictions in the united States as of 2001. As hazlett (1982) notes, “economists have been notoriously thorough in convincing themselves of the destructive effects of rent control and notoriously inept at convincing anyone else” (278). Better understanding of the issue might help correct the error, prevent other governments from falling into it, and promote an understanding among more than just economists. Also, better understanding is an end in itself. The Modal Economist Versus the Issue-Expressive Economist This investigation provides another installment in the analysis of whether economists reach a conclusion. I have examined the judgments, or indications of judgment, of economists as expressed in published works. Thus, I survey issue- expressive economists and ask whether they reach a conclusion on rent control. An- other question is whether the modal economist in the population of economists at large also supports liberalization. To my knowledge, the last time U.S. economists were surveyed on rent con- trol was in 1990, in the survey of Alston, Kearl, and Vaughan (1992). The ques- tion asked for an evaluation of the statement: “A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.” The results were: Generally agree: 76.3% Agree with provisions: 16.6% Generally disagree: 6.5% Although agreement would not necessarily imply support for liberalization, it seems safe to conclude that the modal economist of 1990 favored liberaliza- tion. Rent control, then, is an issue on which we find basic agreement between the modal economist and the issue-expressive economists. Such an agreement is also found for other issues including sports subsidies (Coates and humphreys 2008) and most likely agricultural subsidies (Pasour 2004, Whaples 2006). on other issues, however, such as the U.S. Postal Services’s monopoly (Ged- des 2004; Whaples 2006)9 and the Food and drug administration (klein 2008), 9 The results of the postal monopoly question are misstated in Whaples’ article. As Whaples’ appendix shows, less than half of respondents agree that the postal monopoly should be ended. Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 107 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 as well as most likely occupational licensing (Svorny 2004) and rail transit projects (Balaker and Kim 2006), there appear to be significant impasses between the modal economist and the issue-expressive economists. The issue-expressive economists are presumptively more expert and accountable for their published judgments. When they agree, we should have some faith in their conclusion. If economics is to serve the public interest, their insights must permeate the public culture. An intermediate step must be permeation of the thinking of other economists. What issues show such agreement, and what issues do not? Why is there broad agreement between the two kinds of economist judgment on rent-control, sports subsidies, and agricultural subsidies, but not postal reform and the Fda? What factors affect whether the modal economist and the issue-expressive econo- mists agree? here, international comparisons of the modal/issue-expressive com- parisons may be instructive.10 These questions deserve scholarly attention. References Albon, Robert P., and David C. Stafford. 1990. Rent Control and housing Maintenance. Urban Studies 27(3): 233-240. Alston, Rirchard M., J.R. Kearl, and Michael B. Vaughan. 1992. Is there a consensus among economists in the 1990s? American Economic Review 82(2): 203-209. Arnott, Richard. 1995. Time for Revisionism on Rent Control? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(1): 99-120. Arnott, Richard. 1997. Rent Control. Boston College Department of Economics, Boston College Working Papers in Economics No. 391. Department of Economics, Boston College, Chestnut hill, MA. Arnott, Richard, and Masahiro Igarashi. 2000. Rent Control, Mismatch Costs and Search Efficiency. Regional Science and Urban Economics 30(3): 249-288. Arnott, Richard, and Elizaveta Shevyakhova. 2007. Tenancy Rent Control and Cred- ible Commitment in Maintenance. Boston College Department of Economics, Boston Col- lege Working Papers in Economics. department of economics, boston college, chest- nut hill, MA. Ault, Richard W., John D. Jackson, and Richard P. Saba. 1994. The Effect of Long- term Rent control on tenant mobility. Journal of Urban Economics 35(2): 140-158. Ault, Richard, and Richard Saba. 1990. The Economics Effects of Long-Term Rent Con- trol: The Case of New York. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 3(1): 25-41. 10 on british opinion, see Ricketts and shoesmith 1990; on european opinion see Frey et al 1984; on Swedish social scientists (including economists) see Berggren et al 2007; on Italian economists see De Benedictis and Di Malo 2008. Some thoughts on international differences are offered in Frey and Eichenberger 1992. Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 108 Balaker, Ted and Cecilia Joung Kim. 2006. Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Rail transit? Econ Journal Watch 3(3): 551-602. link. Basu, Kaushik, and Patrick M. Emerson. 2000. The Economics of Tenancy Rent Control. The Economics Journal 110(466): 939-962. Basu, Kaushik, and Patrick M. Emerson. 2003. Efficiency Pricing, Tenancy Rent Con- trol and Monopolistic Landlords. Economica 70(278): 223-232. Berggren, Niclas, Henrik Jordahl and Charlotta Stern. 2007. The Political opinions of Swedish Social Scientists. Ratio Institute Working Paper No. 112. Ratio Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. link. Caudill, Steven B. 1993. Estimating the Costs of Partial-Coverage Rent Controls: A Sto- chastic Frontier Approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 75(4): 727-731. Coates, Dennis and Brad R. Humphreys. 2008. Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on subsidies for sports Franchises, stadiums, and mega-events? Econ Journal Watch: 5(3): 294-315. link. Coleman, D. 1988. Rent Control: The British Experience and Policy Response. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 1(3): 233-255. DeBenedictis, Luca and Michele Di Malo. 2008. Economists’ Views about the Econ- omy: Evidence from a Survey of Italian Economists. The Selected Works of Lucas DeBenedictis. online: http://works.bepress.com/luca_de_benedictis/11/. link. Early, Dirk W. 2000. Rent Control, Rental housing Supply, and the Distribution of Ten- ant Benefits. Journal of Urban Economics 48(2): 185-204. Early, Dirk W., and Edgar O. Olsen. 1998. Rent Control and homelessness. Regional Science and Urban Economics 28(6): 797-816. Early, Dirk W., and Jon T. Phelps. 1999. Rent Regulations’ Pricing Effect in the Uncon- trolled Sector: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Housing Research 10(2): 267-285. Epple, Dennis. 1998. Rent Control with Reputation: Theory and Evidence. Regional Sci- ence and Urban Economics 28(6): 679-710. Fallis, George, and Lawrence B. Smith. 1984. Uncontrolled Prices in a Controlled Market: The Case of Rent Controls. The American Economic Review 74(1): 193-200. Frankena, Mark. 1975. Alternative Models of Rent Control. Urban Studies 12(3): 303-308. Frey, Bruno S., and Reiner Eichenberger. 1992. Economics and Economists: A Euro- pean Perspective. The American Economic Review 82(2): 216-220. Frey, Bruno S., Werner W. Pommerehne, Friedrich Schneider, and Guy Gilbert. 1984. Concensus and Dissension Among Economists: An Empirical Inquiry. Amer- ican Economic Review 74(5): 986-94. link. Fraser Institute. 1975. Rent Control: A Popular Paradox. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute. Geddes, Rick. 2004. Do Vital Economists Reach a Conclusion on Postal Reform? Econ Journal Watch 1(1): 61-81. link. Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 109 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 Gissy, William G. Rent Controls and homeless Rates. International Advances in Economic Research 3(1): 113-121. Glaeser, Edward L. 2002. Does Rent Control Reduce Segregation? Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 1985. Cambridge, MA: harvard University. Glaeser, Edward L., and Erzo F.P. Luttmer. 2003. The Misallocation of housing under Rent Control. American Economic Review 93(4): 1027-1046. Grimes, Paul W., and George A. Chressanthis. 1997. Assessing the Effect of Rent Control on homelessness. Journal of Urban Economics 41(1): 23-37. Gyourko, Joseph, and Peter Linneman. 1989. Equity and Efficiency Aspects of Rent Control: An Empirical Study of New York City. Journal of Urban Economics 26(1): 54-74. Gyourko, Joseph, and Peter Linneman. 1990. Rent Controls and Rental housing Quality: A Note on the Effects of New York City’s old Controls. Journal of Urban Economics 27(3): 398-409. Hackner, Jonas, and Sten Nyberg. 2000. Rent Control and Prices of owner-occu- pied housing. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 102(2): 311-324. Hardman, Anna M., and Yannis M. Ioannides. 1999. Residential Mobility and the housing Market in a Two-Sector Neoclassical Growth Model. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 101(2): 315-335. Hazlett, Thomas. 1982. Rent Controls and the housing Crisis. In: Johnson, M.B. (Ed.), Resolving the Housing Crisis, ed. M.B. Johnson Pacific Institute for Policy Studies: San Francisco, CA, 277-300. Heffley, Dennis. 1998. Landlords, Tenants and the Public Sector in a Spatial Equilib- rium Model of Rent Control. Regional Science and Urban Economics 28(6): 745-772. Ho, Lok Sang. 1992. Rent Control: Its Rationale and Effects. Urban Studies 29(7): 1183-1190. Honig, Marjorie, and Randall K. Filer. 1993. Causes of intercity variation in home- less. The American Economic Review 83(1): 248-255. Hubert, Franz. 1993. The Impact of Rent Control on Rents in the Free Sector. Urban Studies 30(1): 51-61. Keating, Dennis, and Mitch Kahn. 2001. Rent Control in the New Millennium. NhI: National housing Institute: Shelterforce online, May. link. Klein, Daniel B. 2008. Colleagues, Where Is the Market Failure? Economists on the FDA. Econ Journal Watch 5(3): 316-348. link. Knight, Frank H. 1950. The Role of Principles in Economics and Politics. Presidential address delivered at the 62nd annual meeting of the american economic associa- tion. Chicago. Published in American Economic Review 41(1): 1-29. Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 110 Krol, Robert, and Shirley Svorny. 2005. The Effect of Rent Control on Commute times. Journal of Urban Economics 58(3): 421-36. Kutty, Nandinee K. 1996. The Impact of Rent Control on housing Maintenance: A dynamic analysis incorporating european and north american Rent Regula- tions. Housing Studies 11(1): 69-89. Lind, Hans. 2001. Rent Regulation: A Conceptual and Comparative Analysis. European Journal of Housing Policy 1(1): 41-57. Lindsey, Robin. 2006. Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Road Pricing? The Intel- lectual history of an Idea. Econ Journal Watch 3(2): 292-379. link. Linneman, Peter. 1987. The Effect of Rent Control on the Distribution of Income among New York City Renters. Journal of Urban Economics 22(1): 14-34. Malpezzi, Stephen. 1993. Can New York and Los Angeles Learn from Kumasi and Bangalore? Costs and Benefits of Rent Controls in Developing Countries. Housing Policy Debate 4(4): 589-626. McFarlane, Alastair. 2003. Rent Stabilization and the Long-Run Supply of housing. Regional Science and Urban Economics 33(3): 305-333. Mengle, David L. 1985.The Effect of Second Generation Rent Controls on the Quality of Rental housing. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Working Paper No. 85-5. Rich- mond: Federal Reserve Bank. Moon, Choon-Geol, and Janet G. Stotsky. 1993. The Effect of Rent Control on housing Quality Change: A Longitudinal Analysis. The Journal of Political Economy 101(6): 1114-1148. Munch, Jakob Roland and Michael Svarer. 2002. Rent Control and Tenancy Dura- tion. Journal of Urban Economics 52(3): 542-560. Murrary, Michael P., Peter C. Rydell, Lance C. Barnett, Carol E. Hillestand, and Kevin Neels. 1991. Analyzing Rent Control: The Case of Los Angeles. Economic Inquiry 29(4): 601-625. Nagy, John. 1995. Increased Duration and Sample Attrition in New York City’s Rent Controlled Sector. Journal of Urban Economics 38(2): 127-137. Nagy, John. 1997. Do Vacancy Decontrol Provisions Undo Rent Control? Journal of Urban Economics 42(1): 64-78. Navarro, Peter. 1985. Rent Control in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Public Interest 78(4): 83- 100. Olsen, Edgar O. 1972. An Econometric Analysis of Rent Control. Journal of Political Economy 80(6): 1081-1100. Olsen, Edgar O. 1988. What Do Economists Know about the Effect of Rent Control on housing Maintenance? Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 1(3): 295-307. Olsen, Edgar O. 1998. Economics of Rent Control. Regional Science and Urban Economics Rent contRol: do economists agRee? 111 Volume 6, numbeR 1, Jan 2009 28(6): 673-678. Pasour, E.C., Jr. 2004. Agricultural Economists and the State. Econ Journal Watch 1(1): 106-133. link. Paterson, David A. Fact Sheet: #1 Rent Stabilization and Rent Control. A Publication of New York State Division of housing and Community Renewal. office of Rent Administration. link. Pomerehne, Werner W., Friedrich Schneider, Guy Gilbert, and Bruno S. Frey. 1984. Concordia Discors: or: What do Economists Think? Theory and Decision 16(3): 251-308. Rapaport, Carol. 1992. Externalities, Government Intervention, and Individual Re- sponses: Rent Regulation and housing-Market Dynamic. American Economic Review 82(2): 446-451. Rent Control. 2001. Policy Link: Lifting Up What Works. September 18, 2008. link. Rydell, Peter C., Lance C. Barnett, Carol E. Hillestad, Michael Murray, Kevin Neels, and Robert H. Sims. 1981. A RAND Note: The Impact of Rent Con- trol on the Los Angeles housing Market. The Rand Publication Series document Number: N-1747-LA. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. Sims, David P. 2007. out of Control: What Can We Learn from the End of Massachu- setts Rent control? Journal of Urban Economics 61(1): 129-51. Svorny, Shirley. 2004. Licensing Doctors: Do Economists Agree? Econ Journal Watch 1(2): 279-305. link. Thies, Clifford F. 1993. Rent Control with Rationing by Search Costs: A Note. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 7(2): 159-165. Tullock, Gordon. 1975. The Transitional Gains Trap. Bell Journal of Economics 6(2): 671-678. Turner, Bengt, and Stephen Malpezzi. 2003. A Review of Empirical Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Rent Control. Swedish Economic Policy Review 10(1): 11-56. Varian, Hal R. 1996. Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach 4th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Werczberger, Elia 1988. The Experience with Rent Control in Israel: From Rental housing to Condominiums. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 1(3): 277- 293. Whaples, Robert. 2006. Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes! Economists’ Voice 3(9), 1-6. link. Jenkins ECoN JoURNAL WATCh 112 About the Author Blair Jenkins graduated from california state university Northridge with her BA in Economics and a Minor in Mathematics in 2008. She has been honored by the CSUN outstanding Economics Student Award, and by the CSUN College of Business and Economics, Warner K. Masters Award. From 2003-2008, she has worked at the innovative private school, Math Support Services, which specializes in providing affordable private schooling in the subjects of math and science. her research interests are education, in- ternational, and urban economics. her E-mail address is blairjnkns@yahoo.com. Go to January 2009 Table of Contents with links to articles go to archive of Do Economists Reach A Conclusion? section From:Joyce Liu To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 7:54:05 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from joyceliu94301@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. The past 18 months have been very difficult for the housing providers. Debt has accumulated due to unpaid or late- paid rent. The rent has actually decreased in many cases to help the renters to stay. On the other side, the costs of building materials, labor, utilities, and insurance for maintaining the property have been skyrocketed. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. This recommendations will add extra burdens to housing providers, to the housing industry, and to the renters as well. The recommendations will add extra costs and burdens to the City for the enforcement. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. Joyce Liu Sent from my iPhone View this email in your browser We are proud to announce our upcoming Virtual Speaker event featuring: Lori Nishiura MackenzieLead Strategist, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion,Stanford Graduate School of Business Language of Leadership (for all)Thursday, December 9th 12:00 to 1:00 pm Language is a powerful tool. The word choices you make shape the culture in your organization. Sometimes we are intentional in our language use. However, oftentimes our word choices are not intentional or well thought out. In these instances, stereotypes about gender, ethnicity and other characteristics may inadvertently influence the words we choose in ways that can advantage some or disadvantage others on your teams. Learn the language of leadership so that you can be the best advocate for yourself, your peers, and your teammates. Register in advance for this seminar. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining From:LWV Palo Alto Speaker SeriesTo:Council, CitySubject:Language of Leadership (for all) with Lori Nishiura Mackenzie Dec. 9thDate:Monday, November 8, 2021 7:29:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Register Now LEAGUE OF -WOMEN VOTERS OF PALO ALTO o o e the webinar. Submit your questions for Lori Nishiura Mackenzie in advance here. Please share with others who may be interested. Lori is lead strategist for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and cofounder of the new Stanford VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab, offering her a unique view at the intersection of the two organizations. Under her leadership, the lab launched a corporate affiliates program in 2014, and is now the second largest affiliates program on the Stanford campus. In her work at Stanford GSB, Lori is pioneering “small wins” to make the classroom experience more inclusive, to diversify our community, and to foster new research in the areas of leadership, inclusion, and diversity. Lori is a keynote speaker to a wide range of audiences, was featured as one of the BBC 100 Women 2017, and was interviewed for the award-winning documentary, Bias, which premiered in 2018. She has an MBA from the Wharton School of Business and a BA in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley. LWVPaloAlto.org Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Email Copyright © 2021 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. From:Bonnie Liu To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 7:07:08 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bonnieliu2006@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. I’m extremely concerned about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. The costs for building materials, construction worker chargers, utilities, and insurance have skyrocketed. However the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Alto residents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you! Bonnie Liu From:Stanford MOT To:Council, City Subject:Tonight"s vote: Chan Zuckerberg Foundation Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 6:43:30 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from stanfordmot@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To our dear City Council members: I strongly oppose this costly rent control and monitoring proposal founded by Chan Zuckerberg Foundation. Chan Zuckerberg Foundation should use its resources to create moreaffordable units to solve the housing problem. Currently, Eviction is already very difficult and almost impossible during the Pandemic. Thecurrent legal process enables tenants not paying rent for 4-12 months and will NOT be evicted as long as they negotiate to move out at the last minute. CZI's proposal is basicallyencouraging people to not pay the rent. This proposal will also discourage Mom and Pa Landlord to provide rentals which will further impact the housing supply. Does CZI hire people without background checks of their own employees? Rent Control forsingle-family homes is a terrible idea. CZI should use its resources to fund homeless shelters instead. Regards, William Young, a citizen of Palo Alto for 30+ years Stanford MOT Mobile: 650-283-7046 From:Jack He To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on housing Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 12:56:14 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jackhe168@outlook.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. We are seniors, retired several years ago, while our child is still in college and so we need to support their tuition. The social security benefit is far from enough for us living in this area, and so we have to get rental income to pay for the mortgage and to keep the finance balance for the living of the family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas price is now almost doubled than before, and the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you! Palo Also Resident Jack He From:Roger Chen To:Council, City Cc:Emily Hong Xu Subject:Opposition to the "Renter Protection Policy" Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 11:57:25 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from chenrmail@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are longtime Palo Alto residents and love this great city. This email is to express our deep concerns and opposition to the proposed "Renter Protection Policy". This policy is tooextreme. It adds extra burdens on the landlords and does consider how to maintain a healthy and quality rental market in Palo Alto. It will discourage landlords from offering rental housesand developers from building more rental homes in Palo Alto, which will eventually harm renters. Furthermore, the extreme protection of renters wilt have an adverse impact on the crime and safety of Palo Alto, far beyond just the rental market We are sure that you have heard similar opposition from many Palo Alto residents. We deeplyappreciate your attention to our concerns. Sincerely Yours, Roger Chen From:danielleenh To:Council, City Subject:No harassment to property owners Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 11:30:48 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from danielleenh@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. I’m extremely concerned about the proposed RenterProtection Policy recommendations. The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. The costs for building materials, constructionworker chargers, utilities, and insurance have skyrocketed. However the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Altoresidents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners;The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer;The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants;The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollarswould go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city;and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcementdepartment. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. Daniel Lee From:Jennifer Liu To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:44:44 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jenliu_01@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a Palo Alto resident and a mom-and-pop housing provider. I’m deeply concerned about the Renter Protection Policy recommendations. Those proposals are bad for landlords as well as for tenants. The past year and a half is extremely hard for us housing providers. Rents have decreased, there are more unpaid or delayed rents, and expenses for maintenance, utilities and insurance skyrocketed. This means that it’s getting harder and harder to do the rental business. Passing the proposed Renter Protection Policy is like hitting a man when he’s down. When housing providers give up, it hurts renters since it’ll be even harder to find accordable housing. In Sweden, the average wait time to rent an apartment is 9 years. Why? Because there’s severe rent control. Housing providers give up the rental business when it’s getting too hard. Builders stop building apartments because no one is interested in buying them. The ultimate suffers are the renters. Are we trying to repeat the story of Sweden? Please think twice! Thank you very much! Jennifer Liu From:BAHN Org To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:03:15 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bahn.org@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, BAHN, representing hundreds of mom and pop Palo Alto housing providers, strongly opposesthe proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past two years have been extremely difficult for mom and pop housing providers. They are the victims of the pandemic and the victims of the eviction moratorium, they got a doublehit. They have been struggling to survive, needing help from the government instead of punishment again and again with unjust law from our policing makers. We hope that you can consider the following facts:1. The rent in Palo Also has actually decreased during the past two years. 2. The costs for building materials, construction worker chargers, utilities, and insurance haveskyrocketed since last year. 3. Mom and pop housing providers' debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid orlate-paid rent? This Renter Protection Policy Package will not only kill Palo Alto mom and pop housing providers, but also, in the long-run, harm the free housing market and tenant you intend toserve. Please reject it! Thank you. Dan Pan BAHN Representative website: BAHN.house Phone: 408-475-8498 BAHN is a non-profit, grassroots organization representing mom and pop rental property owners in California. BAHN advocates constitutional rights and housing friendly policies. It promotes education and professional development among members for their daily property management needs. It provides a platform for homeowners to connect and help each other. Its mission is to help members achieve greater success in their rental housing business. From:Suemei Jiang To:Council, City Subject:We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:43:28 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from suemeij@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are working class working hard to support our growing family. We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and we oppose this recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. My husband was laid off, my children are in college we need to support their tuition. I am a self employee. My tenant has not paid rent for 6 months, and I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage to raise the family, I am the only one working in this family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated from unpaid or late rent. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Palo Alto Resident From:Linda Chan To:Council, City Subject:346 College Avenue Palo Alto, Calif. Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:32:14 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from blchan09@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ As a owner, I dolly reject extreme rent control. According to present economics, rent should be par to the present times. Linda Chan Sent from my iPhone From:Alice Sing To:Council, City Subject:rental control Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:27:54 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from singfamilysf@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are working class working hard to support our growing family. We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and we oppose this recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. My husband was laid off, my children are in college we need to support their tuition. I am a self employee. My tenant has not paid rent for 6 months, and I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage to raise the family, I am the only one working in this family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated from unpaid or late rent. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Palo Alto Resident Sent from my iPhone From:carial To:Council, City Subject:Objection to proposed rent protection policies Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:06:12 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from carial_2002@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and Council members, I am a Palo Alto resident working hard to support our growing family. I have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and I oppose all recommended rent protection items. The past 2 years have been very difficult for me as one of the housing providers. I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage and raise the family. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and materialto maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers it is very difficult for is to survive! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually toadminister; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in thecity; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! ------- Yinqing From:Peter Jon Shuler To:DuBois, Tom; Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:Objective Standards and Equity for RM-40 Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 8:33:21 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from peterjon@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council, Just a reminder. When the "objective standards" were last discussed, the city council came very close to voting on a motion that included exploration of treating residents of RM-40 like other residential zones. But the motion was dropped in order to continue the item to this Monday's meeting. We urge you not to forget the residents of RM-40 and other multi-family zones when you take up this issue once again. We would further suggest that the instructions to staff regarding the treatment of RM-40 residents provide some specific guidance to roll back existing inequities in the current code. As we have stated time and again, the city's zoning code has long created a two-tier system of haves and have-nots -- those who live in R-1 and most other residential zones, and those like us who live in RM-40 developments. The “haves” are protected from obstructive and intrusive developments that are too close and too high, blocking daylight and invading privacy. Those of us who can’t afford more expensive homes receive virtually no protection from these developments. This has been made painfully clear to those of us living in the Palo Alto Central condominium complex next to the California Avenue Caltrain station, which has become the epicenter of development in the city. Even though we are considered high-density, most of our complex has a lower profile than the proposed projects surrounding us. Here is just a sample of the ways the Palo Alto Municipal Code discriminates against residents of multi-family neighborhoods: 1. RM-40 home heights are restricted to 40 feet or 35 feet next to more restrictive residential zones. But structures next to us can be as high as 50 feet in a variety of situations: PC developments next to us can be as tall as 50 feet. a. Next to R-1 these developments can only reach 35 feet. (18.38.150) PC developments next to mixed-use sites with residences have NO HEIGHT LIMIT, even if the mixed-use site itself has a very low profile. (18.38.150) b. Office buildings and mixed-use developments can be only 35 feet when they are within 150 feet of EVERY residential district EXCEPT RM-40 or PC zones. It doesn’t matter if the RM-40 or PC zone development has a lower profile and density than the new project. (18.16.060(a) Table 3) 2. Daylight plane - the daylight plane is designed to ensure that residences in Palo Alto receive adequate light and air. The city makes no such allowance for residents of RM-40, residential PCs and mixed-use developments. Under Palo Alto law, we have no right to light and air. (18.16.060(a) Table 3) There are many more examples but these may be the most egregious. Our community – and the Mayfield neighborhood as a whole -- has been choked with massive developments that dwarf ours in recent years – 2555 Park, the public safety building with much more to come. Yet there has been no provision for parks near us. We have seen the recent effort to expand park space in Ventura, which we applaud. Our single neighborhood park barely deserves to be called a park, Do we not deserve the same access to light, air and green space that other Palo Alto residents enjoy? Why are we being punished for living in the kind of multi-family, transit-oriented housing that city leaders claim to want? Besides being unjust, this unequal treatment violates the city’s own policies outlined in the Race & Equity Statement, adopted only a little over a year ago. As the city is going through these massive changes to its zoning code, this is a golden opportunity to end this long-standing inequity once and for all. Please include justice for RM-40 residents in any motions directing staff modifications to the zoning code overhaul. Sincerely, Peter Shuler and Jamie Beckett Park Boulevard, Palo Alto From:Aram James To:Sajid Khan; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jeff Rosen; Human Relations Commission; Binder, Andrew; Tannock,Julie; Tony Dixon; Jeff Moore; Council, City; chuck jagoda; Planning Commission; Jay Boyarsky; WinterDellenbach; Raj; Roberta Ahlquist; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Greer Stone; Jonsen, Robert; RebeccaEisenberg; Joe Simitian; Enberg, Nicholas; Cecilia Taylor; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Vara Ramakrishnan Subject:When Police Call a Car a Weapon ( aka: Why many people have an extraordinary distaste for police) Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:41:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: Front page of today’s ( Sunday) NYT’s https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/police-traffic-stops-shooting.amp.html Sent from my iPhone From:Kerry Yarkin To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Closure + Mitigations Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:00:21 PM Attachments:WBAPS_2021114172348.pdf WBAPS_2021114171914.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from kya.ohlone@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 11/6/2021 Dear City Council Members: I was unable to attend the CC Meeting on Monday 11/1 where the options for Churchill Ave. grade separation were presented. I viewed the meeting online. I would like to give my opinion in this letter about why Churchill +mitigations is the best option and also highlight the Railroad collision/accident data for Churchill .Avenue Watching the meeting online I was surprised at all the people that wanted you to eliminate the Churchill Closure + mitigations option. I went to approx 3/4th of all the XCAP meetings where there was a public comment portion of every meeting for citizens to speak. I never felt that the majority of XCAP attendees were opposed to the Churchill Closure + mitigations option. The analysis of Churchill Closure +mitigations took quite a few XCAP Meetings with AECOM and other traffic data consultants refining their mitigation measures to deal with University South streets and Page Mill/Embarcadero at El Camino intersections. City Council-Adopted Criteria (City of Palo Alto Rail Fact Sheet page3) lists 10 criteria that meet the City’s goals. All the options for Churchill were discussed in terms of the City Council Adopted Criteria. In comparing the Viaduct to the Closure + mitigations, the cost for Viaduct was around 6 Times more expensive than Closure + mitigations. Southgate residents also came out STRONGLY against this option. Looking at the traffic data for Churchill + mitigations , the Intersection Level of Service (LOS) that would absorb the current Churchill traffic was accomplished. The Embarcadero/High Street/Kingslely Intersection design mitigation is a long needed improvement to connect Alma and Embarcadero instead of going in and out of side streets to connect currently. It is interesting to note that almost all traffic impacted streets studied for Churchill Closure +mitigations will improve from where they stand now in terms of traffic. Alma/Lincoln, Alma/Embarcadero,Alma/Kingsley, Alma/Oregon WB, and Alma/Oregon EB all improve significantly from LOS F to LOS A or LOS B. I applaud AECOM for designing this unique design mitigation to improve circulation Alma/Embarcadero and deal with the diverted Churchill car traffic. So watching the CC Meeting Monday, I felt the audience of naysayers is now trying to get their way, without having done the hard work of sitting and discussing the Churchill Closure +mitigations with XCAP(traffic studies), and putting in the time and energy to discuss their criticisms in the proper forum. I listened to much hearsay and anecdotes regarding traffic being pushed to their streets, but no data to back this up. The CC meeting felt like a politically orchestrated attack to take the Closure + mitigations option off the table. I also felt that this was an underhanded attack of the City Staff, City Manager, XCAP , AECOM and other professional traffic engineers hired by the City. As CC members I hope you stand up for your Staff and other hardworking interested citizens and professionals who showed up at the XCAP meetings to evaluate and find the best workable solution for Churchill. I think there is no perfect solution, but the Churchill Closure + Mitigations is something we can all live with. Secondly, I would like to highlight SAFETY, which I think you all should focus on during your deliberations about Churchill options. During the XCAP meetings, a few sessions were devoted to a discussion of the Evaluation Criteria for Grade Separations (Trench, hybrid, viaduct, tunnel, closure). This color coded chart ---11 X 14, does not rank the evaluation criteria.There are 10 evaluation criteria that you all adopted for the grade separation plans. XCAP discussed these criteria for each option. During the discussions, it was brought up that these criteria were not ranked in terms of importance. I felt very Strongly that” Criteria C --- provide clear,safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists crossing the rail corridor, separate from vehicles “ should have ranked No. 1. At the CC Meeting on Monday night most of those opposed to Churchill Closure + mitigations felt that connecting Palo Alto East/West for all modes of transportation should be the deciding factor of the grade separation options. (Criteria A). I hope you all will discuss the Evaluation Criteria before eliminating the XCAP and other previous City Council ‘s support of Churchill + mitigations. Next I would like to share some of the safety data produced by US Dept. of Transportation, FRA (Federal Railroad Admin.) WBAPS(Safety Analysis). This first attachment ranks Churchill RR crossing as the number 7th worst crossings in terms of Safety and Accidents in California. Also note, the AADT (Average Daily Traffic Count) is 12,000 vehicles crossing this intersection. The second data attachment is for Santa Clara County. Here, Churchill is ranked 2nd worst for rail crossing safety/trespassing. (Data attachments below.) The XCAP Report pages 121 - 123 , Section 6 discusses Rail Safety. I know most of you were here in 2015 with the second wave of student suicides on the tracks. Also, in mid-January of this year, a well-known doctor died by suicide about 75 ft from Churchill intersection. If yearly, we can save 1 life, and prevent the serious accidents at this unsafe intersection, then I feel the community can live with the inconvenience of having to drive a bit more to get around this area. In Section 6.3 , XCAP, the Importance of Means Restriction is noted. According to Frank Frey, general engineer with track safety expertise for the Federal Railroad Administration,” the safest option for preventing injuries and fatalities at a dangerous crossing is closure.” Please keep this in mind! In conclusion, I feel that when you weigh the advantages/disadvantages of the grade separation options for Churchill you will come to the conclusion that Closure + mitigations will improve traffic circulation for vehicles and will prioritize bicyclists and pedestrians over cars. Let's continue living up to our reputation as one of the most bike-friendly cities in the Country. Sincerely, Kerry Yarkin Annual WBAPS WEB ACCIDENT PREDICTION SYSTEM Accident Prediction Report for Public at-Grade Highway-Rail Crossings Including: Disclaimer/Abbreviation Key Accident Prediction List Provided by: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis Highway-Rail Crossing Safety & Trespass Prevention Date Prepared:11/4/2021 Data Contained in this Report: STATE: CA COUNTY: SANTA CLARA, SAN MATEO, SAN FRANCISCO 2021 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration USING DATA PRODUCED BY WBAPS (Web Accident Prediction System) WBAPS generates reports listing public highway-rail intersections for a State, County, City or railroad ranked by predicted collisions per year. These reports include brief lists of the Inventory record and the collisions over the last 10 years along with a list of contacts for further information. These data were produced by the Federal Railroad Administration's Web Accident Prediction System (WBAPS). WBAPS is a computer model which provides the user an analytical tool, which combined with other site-specific information, can assist in determining where scarce highway-rail grade crossing resources can best be directed. This computer model does not rank crossings in terms of most to least dangerous. Use of WBAPS data in this manner is incorrect and misleading. WBAPS provides the same reports as PCAPS, which is FRA's PC Accident Prediction System. PCAPS was originally developed as a tool to alert law enforcement and local officials of the important need to improve safety at public highway-rail intersections within their jurisdictions. It has since become an indispensable information resource which is helping the FRA, States, railroads, Operation Lifesaver and others, to raise the awareness of the potential dangers at public highway-rail intersections. The PCAPS/WBAPS output enables State and local highway and law enforcement agencies identify public highway-rail crossing locations which may require additional or specialized attention. It is also a tool which can be used by state highway authorities and railroads to nominate particular crossings which may require physical safety improvements or enhancements. The WBAPS accident prediction formula is based upon two independent factors (variables) which includes (1) basic data about a crossing's physical and operating characteristics and (2) five years of accident history data at the crossing. These data are obtained from the FRA's inventory and accident/incident files which are subject to keypunch and submission errors. Although every attempt is made to find and correct errors, there is still a possibility that some errors still exist. Erroneous, inaccurate and non-current data will alter WBAPS accident prediction values. While approximately 100,000 inventory file changes and updates are voluntarily provided annually by States and railroads and processed by FRA into the National Inventory File, data records for specific crossings may not be completely current. Only the intended users (States and railroads) are really knowledgeable as to how current the inventory data is for a particular State, railroad, or location. It is important to understand the type of information produced by WBAPS and the limitations on the application of the output data. WBAPS does not state that specific crossings are the most dangerous. Rather, the WBAPS data provides an indication that conditions are such that one crossing may possibly be more hazardous than another based on the specific data that is in the program. It is only one of many tools which can be used to assist individual States, railroads and local highway authorities in determining where and how to initially focus attention for improving safety at public highway-rail intersections. WBAPS is designed to nominate crossings for further evaluation based only upon the physical and operating characteristics of specific crossings as voluntarily reported and updated by States and railroads and five years of accident history data. PCAPS and WBAPS software are not designed to single out specific crossings without considering the many other factors which may influence accident rates or probabilities. State highway planners may or may not use PCAPS/WBAPS accident prediction model. Some States utilize their own formula or model which may include other geographic and site-specific factors. At best, PCAPS and WBAPS software and data nominates crossings for further on-the-ground review by knowledgeable highway traffic engineers and specialists. The output information is not the end or final product and the WBAPS data should not be used for non-intended purposes. It should also be noted that there are certain characteristics or factors which are not, nor can be, included in the WBAPS database. These include sight-distance, highway congestion, bus or hazardous material traffic, local topography, and passenger exposure (train or vehicle), etc. Be aware that PCAPS/WBAPS is only one model and that other accident prediction models which may be used by States may yield different, by just as valid, results for ranking crossings for safety improvements. Finally, it should be noted that this database is not the sole indicator of the condition of a specific public highway-rail intersection. The WBAPS output must be considered as a supplement to the information needed to undertake specific actions aimed at enhancing highway-rail crossing safety at locations across the U.S. The authority and jurisdiction to appropriate resources towards the safety improvement or elimination of specific crossings lies with the individual States. 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Third Floor West Washington, DC 20590 The lists produced are only for public at-grade highway-rail intersections for the entity listed at the top of the page. The parameters shown are those used in the collision prediction calculation. RANK: PRED COLLS: Crossings are listed in order and ranked with the highest collision prediction value first. The accident prediction value is the probability that a collision between a train and a highway vehicle will occur at the crossing in a year. CROSSING:The unique sight specific identifying DOT/AAR Crossing Inventory Number. RR:The alphabetic abbreviation for the railroad name. CITY:The city in (or near) which the crossing is located. ROAD: NUM OF COLLISIONS: The name of the road, street, or highway (if provided) where the crossing is located. DATE CHG:The date of the latest change of the warning device category at the crossing which impacts the collision prediction calculation, e.g., a change from crossbucks to flashing lights, or flashing lights to gates. The accident prediction calculation utilizes three different formulas, on each for (1) passive devices, (2) flashing lights only, and (3) flashing lights with gates. When a date is shown, the collision history prior to the indicated year-month is not included in calculating the accident prediction value. WD:The type of warning device shown on the current Inventory record for the crossing where: FQ=Four Quad Gates; GT = All Other Gates; FL = Flashing lights; HS = Wigwags, Highway Signals, Bells, or Other Activated; SP = Special Protection (e.g., a flagman); SS = Stop Signs; XB = Crossbucks; OS = Other Signs or Signals; NO = No Signs or Signals. Number of total trains per day. Total number of railroad tracks between the warning devices at the crossing. TTBL SPD:The maximum timetable (allowable) speed for trains through the crossing. HWY LNS: HWY PVD: AADT: Is the highway paved on both sides of the crossing? The number of highway traffic lanes crossing the tracks at the crossing. The Average Annual Daily Traffic count for highway vehicles using the crossing. 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Third Floor West Washington, DC 20590 ABBREVIATION KEY for use with WBAPS Reports The number of accidents reported to FRA in each of the years indicated. Note: Most recent year is partial year (data is not for the complete calendar year) unless Accidents per Year is 'AS OF DECEMBER 31'. HWY LNS: AADT:The Average Annual Daily Traffic count for highway vehicles using the crossing.AADT: TOT TRNS: TOT TRKS: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration PUBLIC HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS RANKED BY PREDICTED RANK PRED CROSSING RR COUNTY 20*19 18 17 DATE CHG TOT TOT TRK W D TTBL SPD HWY PVD HWY LNS AADT ACCIDENTS PER YEAR AS OF 12/31/2020* 16 *Num of Collisions: Most recent year is partial year (data is not for the complete calendar year) unless Accidents per Year is 'AS OF DECEMBER 31'. TRNCOLLS. ROADCITYSTATE NUM OF COLLISIONS PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME BROADWAY 1 1 1 2 2 GT 79 6YES962 28,00010.690094 754879V PCJX CA SANTA CLARA PALO ALTO CHARLESTON ROAD 0 1 2 1 1 GT 79 4YES962 20,00020.464465 755011Y PCJX CA SANTA CLARA PALO ALTO CHURCHILL AVEN 0 1 1 3 0 GT 79 3YES962 12,00030.422541 754998E PCJX CA SANTA CLARA PALO ALTO EAST MEADOW DR 0 0 0 1 2 GT 79 4YES962 9,33140.284707 755010S VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE PARKMOOR AVE 0 1 1 1 0 GT 55 4YES2342 8,84450.284218 750158G PCJX CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY WHIPPLE AVENUE 0 0 0 1 1 GT 79 7YES962 36,00060.267741 754935A VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE BASCOM AVE 0 1 0 1 0 GT 55 6YES2342 43,76970.263249 750164K PCJX CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY MAIN STREET 1 1 1 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 7,00080.248266 754941D PCJX CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 16TH STREET 0 1 0 1 0 GT 40 6YES922 10,00090.232421 754749Y VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LINCOLN AVE 1 0 1 0 0 GT 55 4YES2342 9,765100.212674 750155L PCJX CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY BREWSTER AVENUE 0 0 1 1 0 GT 79 4YES962 9,000110.210054 754936G VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE STOKES AVE 1 1 0 0 0 GT 55 3YES2343 5,751120.190146 750163D PCJX CA SAN MATEO MENLO PARK OAK GROVE AVEN 1 1 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 8,000130.185942 754990A PCJX CA SANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE MARY AVENUE 0 0 0 0 1 GT 79 8YES962 17,000140.173059 755037B PCJX CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS MISSION BAY BL 2 0 0 0 0 GT 40 5YES923 500150.167323 922712X PCJX CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI CASTRO STREET 0 1 0 0 0 GT 70 6YES962 20,000160.162425 755015B PCJX CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI RENGSTORFF AVE 0 0 1 0 0 GT 79 5YES962 21,000170.156313 755013M UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Branham Lane 0 2 0 0 0 GT 79 5YES122 14,392180.153886 755136Y PCJX CA SAN MATEO MENLO PARK RAVENSWOOD AVE 0 0 1 0 0 GT 79 4YES962 25,000190.151838 754991G VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE FRUITDALE AVE 0 0 1 0 0 GT 55 5YES2343 11,464200.147989 750161P UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Montague Expre 1 0 0 0 0 09/18 GT 10 6YES61 59,351210.146792 750086F PCJX CA SANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE SUNNYVALE AVEN 0 0 1 0 0 GT 79 4YES962 14,000220.143188 755042X VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LEIGH AVE 0 0 0 1 0 GT 55 4YES2343 7,727230.134669 750162W PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN MATEO FOURTH AVENUE 0 0 1 0 0 GT 79 3YES962 10,005240.130645 754903U PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME HOWARD AVENUE 0 0 0 0 1 GT 79 2YES962 10,000250.123187 754891C VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA CAMPBELL CAMPBELL AVE 0 0 0 1 0 GT 55 2YES2342 8,000260.120319 750168M PCJX CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE AUZERAIS STreet 0 0 0 0 1 GT 35 2YES962 7,700270.119330 755097K PCJX CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY CHESTNUT STREET 0 0 0 0 1 GT 79 3YES962 4,500280.118335 754942K PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME OAK GROVE AVEN 1 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES762 10,000290.117813 754886F VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE AUZERAIS AVE 0 1 0 0 0 GT 55 2YES2342 5,594300.114853 750154E PCJX CA SAN MATEO MILLBRAE CENTER STREET 0 0 0 0 1 GT 79 2YES962 5,000310.112597 754873E PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN BRUNO SCOTT ST 0 1 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 4,300320.110327 754867B PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME NORTH LANE 0 1 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 2,500330.102324 754887M I I I I I I I I I UP CA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA AGNEW ROAD 0 0 0 1 0 GT 60 4YES261 11,725340.098808 749965G PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN MATEO BELLEVUE AVENUE 0 0 0 0 1 GT 79 2YES962 1,861350.098093 754895E PCJX CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE VIRGINIA STreet 0 0 0 0 1 GT 35 2YES962 1,500360.095213 755099Y UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE CHYNOWETH AVEN 0 1 0 0 0 GT 79 5YES122 10,198370.092774 755137F PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN MATEO VILLA TERRACE 0 1 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 1,028380.089913 754894X PCJX CA SAN MATEO ATHERTON WATKINS AVENUE 0 0 0 1 0 GT 79 2YES662 2,111390.089618 754987S UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE GOLD STREET CO 0 1 0 0 0 GT 45 2YES261 10,232400.083947 749961E VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI CENTRAL EXPWY 0 0 0 0 0 GT 15 6YES2282 31,000410.080643 755017P PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN MATEO NINTH AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 4YES962 15,000420.067166 754905H PCMZ CA SAN MATEO BRISBANE TUNNEL AVE 0 0 0 0 0 NO 60 2YES671 3,500430.064237 754795A PCJX CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY BROADWAY 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 4YES962 10,000440.063740 754937N PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME PENINSULA AVEN 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 3YES962 15,000450.063082 754893R PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN MATEO THIRD AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 3YES962 9,872460.059503 754902M VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE RACE ST 0 0 0 0 0 GT 55 4YES2342 5,381470.058753 750157A PCJX CA SANTA CLARA PALO ALTO ALMA AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 14,200480.058481 754992N UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY BUENA VISTA AV 0 0 1 0 0 GT 79 2YES121 2,574490.056118 755175P VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA CAMPBELL ORCHARD CITY DR 0 0 0 0 0 GT 55 2YES2322 10,000500.055716 750215T VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA CAMPBELL CIVIC CENTER DR 0 0 0 0 0 GT 55 2YES2342 8,053510.053938 925811F PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN MATEO FIFTH AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 6,724520.052091 754904B UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY LEAVESLY ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 35 7YES121 31,810530.051434 755179S VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA CAMPBELL KENNEDY AVE 0 0 0 0 0 FQ 55 2YES2342 5,000540.049900 750171V PCJX CA SAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F LINDEN AV 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES762 6,467550.048816 754866U UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS GREAT MALL PAR 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 9YES61 28,137560.048316 750085Y PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME BAYSWATER AVEN 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 4,000570.047730 754892J PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN MATEO SECOND AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 3,942580.047608 754901F PCJX CA SAN MATEO MENLO PARK GLENWOOD AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES662 6,200590.045234 754989F PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN MATEO FIRST AV 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 2,950600.045225 754900Y VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SUNOL ST 0 0 0 0 0 GT 55 2YES2342 2,730610.044894 750153X UP CA SANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL TENNANT AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 6YES122 21,093620.044032 755170F PCJX CA SAN MATEO ATHERTON FAIR OAKS LANE 0 0 0 0 0 FQ 79 2YES662 5,305630.043971 754986K SFBR CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS AMADOR ST 0 0 0 0 0 05/18 XB 15 2YES62 2,000640.043838 913894M PCJX CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY MAPLE STREET 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES962 2,100650.042489 754940W PCJX CA SAN MATEO MENLO PARK ENCINAL AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES662 4,200660.042105 754988Y UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE BROKAW ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 6YES61 44,039670.040250 751984L UP CA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA MARTIN AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 50 4YES262 9,435680.040230 749981R UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY 10TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 5YES122 21,003690.040179 755186C VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI WHISMAN STA DR 0 0 0 0 0 GT 15 2YES2282 1,500700.039936 926828M UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE OLD BAYSHORE H 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 4YES62 13,867710.039718 750098A UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN MARTIN SAN MARTIN AVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 6YES121 8,491720.036968 755173B UP CA SANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL DUNNE AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 4YES121 16,505730.034771 755162N UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Blomquist Stre 1 0 0 0 0 05/16 HS 5 4YES21 120740.034416 754968M UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE OLD OAKLAND RO 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 6YES61 19,381750.034143 750088U UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SKYWAY DRIVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 4YES122 7,468760.032800 755135S UP CA SANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL Masten Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 3YES121 15,996770.031196 755168E UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS GREAT MALL DRI 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 6YES61 12,237780.030969 750084S UP CA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA NORMAN AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 60 3YES261 4,006790.030561 749976U UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE NORTH 10TH STR 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES72 15,317800.029681 750118J VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI MIDDLEFIELD RO 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 4YES41 19,500810.029175 755024A VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE TRADE ZONE BLVD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 20 4YES41 50,000820.028811 834503X UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS DIXON LANDING 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES62 22,498830.028644 750076A UP CA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA REED STREET 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES262 4,391840.028039 749987G UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Autumn Parkway 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES71 11,430850.027815 924191R UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY SR 25 0 0 0 0 0 GT 70 2YES62 28,947860.027395 755195B UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE NORTH 10TH STr 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 5YES21 20,000870.027374 750099G UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE HEDDING STREET 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 3YES71 15,539880.026736 750121S VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI ELLIS STOFFRAMP 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 5YES21 16,500890.025874 755030D VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE BERRYESSA RD.0 0 0 0 0 GT 20 4YES41 30,000900.025675 833820Y VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE E SANTA CLARA 0 0 0 0 0 GT 12 4YES41 30,000910.025675 833835N UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY LUCHESSA AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 35 2YES121 10,537920.025526 755187J MUNX CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 3RD & CARROLL 0 0 0 0 0 OS 10 4YES41 20,000930.025136 754765H UP CA SANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL TILTON AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 3YES121 5,352940.024402 755155D UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY 6TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES122 8,042950.023976 755184N UP CA SANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL EAST MAIN AVEN 0 0 0 0 0 05/17 GT 79 2YES121 10,458960.023396 755159F UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE East Taylor St 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES71 12,842970.022874 750127H UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS CURTIS AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES61 8,333980.022805 750083K VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE HOSTETTER RD.0 0 0 0 0 GT 20 2YES41 45,000990.022529 833912L VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE MAYBERRY ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 12 2YES51 24,0001000.022324 833823U VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE 7TH ST 0 0 0 0 0 FL 12 2YES43 7,3001010.022248 833848P VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE DIXON LANDING 0 0 0 0 0 GT 25 4YES61 6,7001020.021650 833890N UP CA SANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL SAN PEDRO Av 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES121 4,6141030.021012 755164C UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY IOOF AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 35 2YES121 4,5691040.020963 755181T UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE North 6th Stre 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES71 3,1001050.020507 750131X VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LUNDY RD.0 0 0 0 0 GT 20 2YES41 30,0001060.020440 833815C UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE North 1st Stre 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES71 7,8361070.020319 750136G VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE JULIAN STREET 0 0 0 0 0 GT 12 2YES41 28,0001080.020100 833830E CCRC CA SAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F FORBES BLVD 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES81 6,5001090.019695 754854A UP CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS CUSTER AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES11 32,0001100.019365 016593S UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY VETERANS BOULE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 4YES21 10,0001110.019277 754963D UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SR 82 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 6YES21 33,0001120.019155 755110W UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE NORTH 2ND STRE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES71 5,9741130.019014 750135A UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE North 4th Stre 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES71 5,7091140.018802 750133L UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE OLD OAKLAND RO 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 6YES21 30,0001150.018710 750092J UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE EAST GISH ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES61 9,4311160.018601 750090V UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY 7th Street 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES126 2,7641170.018539 755185V CCRC CA SAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F HARBOR WAY 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES43 6,5001180.018205 754843M UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE OLD BAYSHORE H 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 4YES21 8,2001190.018062 750102M UP CA SANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL EAST MIDDLE AV 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES122 2,2061200.017528 755171M UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE ELIZABETH STRE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 70 2YES261 5881210.017385 749958W UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Brokaw Road 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 5YES21 35,0001220.017241 750106P UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE North 3rd Stre 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES71 3,9921230.017201 750134T UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE CATHERINE STRE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 70 2YES261 5631240.017196 749959D UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY MARSHALL STREET 0 0 0 0 0 SS 10 2YES21 10,7001250.017165 754962W UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE HORNING STREET 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES72 3,8241260.017016 750117C UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE NORTH 7TH STRE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES71 3,6201270.016783 750129W UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY Las Animas Ave 0 0 0 0 0 05/17 GT 79 3YES121 3,3411280.016454 755177D UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LIVE OAK AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES121 1,6181290.016212 755154W UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN MARTIN CHURCH AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES121 1,6151300.016205 755166R UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY BOLSA ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 70 2YES62 3,2181310.016162 755194U UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Jackson Street 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES71 2,9001320.015867 750128P VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI FREEWAY ON-RAMP 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 13,0001330.015638 755028C VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LENFEST RD.0 0 0 0 0 XB 12 2YES21 7,2001340.015393 833824B UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE PALM AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES121 1,2831350.015283 755153P UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY MARSH ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES22 35,0001360.015257 750013V UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY LEWIS STREET 0 0 0 0 0 05/17 GT 35 2YES191 1,8221370.015211 755182A UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE NORTH 5TH STRE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES71 2,2271380.014832 750132E VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE JULIAN ST 0 0 0 0 0 GT 12 4YES41 3,0001390.014625 833829K UP CA SANTA CLARA SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES21 27,0001400.014273 750196R UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 0 FL 35 YES121 1,0001410.014109 755180L UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SCHALLENBERGE R 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES61 2,8531420.013734 750089B UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Broadway Street 0 0 0 0 0 HS 10 3YES21 5,0001430.013096 754961P UP CA SANTA CLARA CUPERTINO BUBB ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES21 18,0001440.012845 750203Y UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE GISH ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 4YES21 3,0001450.012794 750101F UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS YOSEMITE DRIVE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 4YES22 3,0001460.012794 834515S MUNX CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS JENNINGS& CARRO 0 0 0 0 0 SS 10 2YES42 2,0001470.012615 754768D UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE CHARCOT AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 7,0001480.012604 750109K VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SAN FERNANDO ST 0 0 0 0 0 XB 12 2YES41 7501490.012306 833837C UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY MIDDLEFIELD RO 0 0 0 0 0 05/17 GT 10 4YES23 18,0001500.012278 750010A UP CA SANTA CLARA CUPERTINO STEVENS CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES21 15,0001510.012244 750204F UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY RUCKER AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES121 5321520.012159 755174H UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE QUEENS LANE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 6,1001530.012001 750103U UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE ROGERS AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 6,0001540.011931 750104B VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE E. ST. JAMES 0 0 0 0 0 XB 12 2YES41 6001550.011447 833832T VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE E.SAN ANTONIO 0 0 0 0 0 GT 12 2YES41 3,0001560.011361 833839R UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE PHELAN AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 4,8001570.011010 755114Y UP CA SANTA CLARA CUPERTINO MC CLELLAN ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 3YES21 16,0001580.010960 750202S UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS RAILROAD AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES61 1,1981590.010930 750078N UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Henry A Beeger 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES21 2,5001600.010829 754974R CCRC CA SAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F E GRAND AV 0 0 0 0 0 05/18 HS 15 3YES121 6,0001610.010699 754852L UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY COHANSEY AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 79 2YES121 3141620.010571 755176W UP CA SANTA CLARA SARATOGA QUITO ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 20,0001630.010225 750190A UP CA SANTA CLARA LOS GATOS WINCHESTER BOU 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 16,6001640.009725 750185D UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY BLOMQUIST STRE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES22 3,4001650.009708 753740J UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE STONE AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 3,3001660.009602 755107N VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SHORTRIDGE AVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 12 2YES42 1,5001670.009435 833836V UP CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS EVANS AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 09/18 GT 10 4YES11 15,0001680.009260 016590W UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY 5TH AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES23 10,0001690.008476 750012N UP CA SANTA CLARA CAMPBELL CAMDEN AVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES21 3,5001700.008283 750172C UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE JUNCTION AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 1,8001710.007661 750112T CCRC CA SAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F GATEWAY BLVD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES11 5,0001720.007553 768413T VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI Infinity Way 0 0 0 0 0 FQ 30 2YES2842 11730.007372 926831V UP CA SANTA CLARA CUPERTINO RAINBOW DRIVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 5,7001740.007264 750201K UP CA SANTA CLARA SARATOGA COX AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 06/17 GT 10 2YES21 11,0001750.007157 750195J UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY MARTIN STREET 0 0 0 0 0 05/17 GT 10 1YES122 6921760.007004 755183G UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Spring Street 0 0 0 0 0 HS 10 2YES61 4001770.006569 754959N UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE North Montgome 0 0 0 0 0 06/17 GT 10 2YES71 1,7921780.006400 750151J UP CA SANTA CLARA SARATOGA GLEN BRAE DRIVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 3,5001790.006346 750193V VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE WHITTON AV 0 0 0 0 0 GT 12 2YES41 3001800.006061 833838J MUNX CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS INGALL& CARROLL 0 0 0 0 0 SS 10 5YES43 2001810.005820 754770E UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Seaport Court 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 2,5001820.005778 754972C UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY LUCHESSA AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 6001830.005031 755190S UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS AMES AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES22 3001840.004967 834514K UP CA SANTA CLARA GILROY ENGEL WAY 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES21 2501850.004939 755189X UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY HINMAN ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 05/16 FL 10 2YES21 501860.004929 754981B UP CA SANTA CLARA SARATOGA PROSPECT ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 1,4001870.004910 750198E UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS MILPITAS BOULE 0 0 0 0 0 02/21 GT 10 4YES21 2,0001880.004695 833901Y PCJX CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI LOGUE AVE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES41 2501890.004686 755025G UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Middle Field R 0 0 0 0 0 HS 10 4YES21 2001900.004638 754946M UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY HERKNER ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES21 2001910.004567 754976E UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LOS ESTEROS RO 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 1,0001920.004465 749957P UP CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS QUINT STREET 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES11 3001930.004125 016595F VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI FAIRCHILD DR 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 3501940.004076 755027V UP CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS JERROLD AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES11 1,3001950.003951 016581X UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS AMES AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 3001960.003836 833902F PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN MATEO SOUTH HAYWARD 0 0 0 0 0 08/19 FL 79 2YES962 01970.003474 922716A PCJX CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI MT VIEW STATIO 0 0 0 0 0 09/19 FL 79 2YES962 01980.003474 922723K PCJX CA SAN MATEO MILLBRAE SANTA PAULA 0 0 0 0 0 08/19 FL 79 2YES962 01990.003474 754874L PCJX CA SAN MATEO SAN MATEO HWD PK NORTH P 0 0 0 0 0 08/19 FL 79 2YES962 02000.003474 754906P PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME MORRELL avenue 0 0 1 0 0 08/19 FL 79 2YES962 02010.003474 754885Y PCJX CA SAN MATEO MENLO PARK MENLO PARK STA 0 0 0 0 0 09/19 FL 79 2YES962 02020.003474 922720P UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY 2 ND AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 06/17 GT 10 2YES22 1,5002030.003225 750011G VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE DUPONT STREET 0 0 0 0 0 FQ 10 2YES42 1492040.003163 750152R UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LITTLE ORCHARD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES21 1002050.003051 755108V PCJX CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY REDWOOD CITY S 0 0 1 0 0 08/19 FL 79 1YES962 02060.003017 754909K UP CA SANTA CLARA CUPERTINO SEVEN SPRINGS 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 2002070.002822 753632M VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA CAMPBELL ORCHARD CITY DR 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 2002080.002822 750169U UP CA SANTA CLARA SARATOGA ARROYO DE ARGU 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 2002090.002822 750197X UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY PINE STREET 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES21 502100.002789 754944Y PCJX CA SANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE SUNNYVALE STAT 0 0 0 0 0 09/19 FL 79 NO962 02110.002620 922725Y UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY CHESAPEAKE DRI 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 4YES21 502120.002501 753739P PCJX CA SANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE SUNNYVALE STAT 0 0 0 1 0 03/18 FL 79 YES962 02130.002488 922724S PCJX CA SAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F SOUTH SAN FRAN 0 0 0 0 0 NO 79 NO963 02140.002374 922739G UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS PIPER DRIVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES21 1002150.002312 833898T UP CA SANTA CLARA LOS GATOS WEDGEWOOD AVEN 0 0 0 0 0 06/17 GT 10 2YES21 1,6002160.002295 750187S UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY STAMBAUGH STRE 0 0 0 0 0 05/16 FL 10 2YES61 2002170.002135 754947U VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE PARKMOOR WEST 0 0 0 0 0 08/19 FL 55 YES2342 02180.002040 925806J VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI PACIFIC DR 0 0 0 0 0 10/18 FL 25 YES2162 02190.001987 926830N UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY STEIN AM RHEIN 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES21 502200.001880 748351T UP CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE GRAND AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 06/21 GT 10 2YES21 1,0002210.001768 749956H PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME broadway sta c 0 0 0 0 0 NO 79 YES762 02220.001278 979466A PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME BROADWAY STA S 0 0 0 0 0 NO 79 1YES762 02230.001278 979467G PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME Broadway Sta N 0 0 0 0 0 NO 79 YES862 02240.001268 979465T UP CA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA Yerba buena way 0 0 0 0 0 10/19 GT 45 2YES261 12250.001167 749962L UP CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY HELLER STREET 0 0 0 0 0 05/16 GT 10 2YES21 2002260.001024 754945F PCJX CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE COLLEGE PARK S 0 0 0 0 0 NO 40 2YES864 02270.000997 922745K UP CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS DAVIDSON AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 09/18 FL 10 2YES01 1,2002280.000898 016592K PCJX CA SANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI MT VIEW STATIO 0 0 0 0 0 09/19 FL 79 NO962 02290.000839 922722D VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA CAMPBELL HAMILTON AVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 8YES01 87,0002300.000720 750165S PCJX CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE San Jose Stati 0 0 0 0 0 SS 70 2YES13 02310.000625 450371B UP CA SAN MATEO MENLO PARK UNIVERSITY AVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 0 4YES01 65,0002320.000409 768406H UP CA SANTA CLARA CAMPBELL HACIENDA AVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 3YES01 5,5002330.000355 750176E VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA LOS GATOS WINCHESTER CIR 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 3YES01 4002340.000355 750181B UP CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 3RD STREET 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 6YES01 21,0002350.000309 016597U BNSF CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS QUINT ST 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES01 1,3002360.000308 016579W UP CA SANTA CLARA LOS GATOS KNOWLES DRIVE 0 0 0 0 0 GT 10 2YES01 1002370.000308 753743E UP CA SAN MATEO MENLO PARK CHILCO STREET 0 0 0 0 0 GT 0 2YES01 4,0002380.000308 768399A UP CA SAN MATEO MENLO PARK WILLOW ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 GT 0 2YES01 48,0002390.000308 750017X VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LAS PLUMAS ST 0 0 0 0 0 XB 12 2YES02 4002400.000292 833827W BNSF CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS MISSION ROCK ST 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 6YES02 1,0002410.000287 016601G BNSF CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 25TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES01 3002420.000287 017424H BNSF CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 19TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES01 2,5002430.000287 017405D BNSF CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 23RD STREET 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES01 1,6002440.000287 017414C BNSF CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS ARMY STREET 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES01 1,2002450.000287 019176T BNSF CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 25TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 2YES04 3002460.000287 019175L UP CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 0 NO 10 YES11 02470.000287 976458X BNSF CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS SB ILLINOIS ST 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 1YES01 7002480.000287 017407S UP CA SANTA CLARA MILPITAS YOSEMITE DRIVE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 0 4YES01 1,0002490.000215 833900S VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE RACE LRS PED X 0 0 0 0 0 FL 55 YES2342 02500.000203 925804V VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA CAMPBELL CAMPBELL PED X 0 0 0 0 0 FL 55 YES2342 02510.000203 925812M VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE FRUITDALE PED 0 0 0 0 0 FL 55 YES1182 02520.000187 925807R VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE BASCOM EAST PED 0 0 0 0 0 FL 55 YES1182 02530.000187 925808X VTAZ CA SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE BASCOM WEST PED 0 0 0 0 0 FL 55 YES1182 02540.000187 925809E UP CA SANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 0 FL 79 NO121 02550.000181 920463M BNSF CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS MARIN STREET 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 2YES01 1,7002560.000149 019177A 10 18 16 17 1310.985386TTL: PUBLIC HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS RANKED BY PREDICTED No.PREDCROSSING RRCOUNTY ACCIDENTS PER YEAR AS OF 12/31/2020* *Num of Collisions: Most recent year is partial year (data is not for the complete calendar year) unless Accidents per Year is 'AS OF DECEMBER 31'. COLLS. ROADCITYSTATE MPRANK BNSFCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS QUINT ST10.000308016579W 236 0000.14 UPCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS JERROLD AVENUE20.003951016581X 195 0002. 810 UPCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS EVANS AVENUE30.009260016590W 168 0002. 518 UPCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS DAVIDSON AVENUE40.000898016592K 228 0002. 400 UPCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS CUSTER AVENUE50.019365016593S 110 0002. 357 UPCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS QUINT STREET60.004125016595F 193 0002. 260 UPCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 3RD STREET70.000309016597U 235 0003. 150 BNSFCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS MISSION ROCK ST80.000287016601G 241 0000.27 BNSFCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 19TH STREET90.000287017405D 243 0001.02 BNSFCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS SB ILLINOIS ST100.000287017407S 248 0001.07 BNSFCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 23RD STREET110.000287017414C 244 0001.44 BNSFCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 25TH STREET120.000287017424H 242 0001.66 BNSFCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 25TH STREET130.000287019175L 246 0001.55 BNSFCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS ARMY STREET140.000287019176T 245 0001.80 BNSFCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS MARIN STREET150.000149019177A 256 0001.88 PCJXCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE San Jose Stati160.000625450371B 231 0047. 420 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY STEIN AM RHEIN170.001880748351T 220 0027. 330 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE GRAND AVENUE180.001768749956H 221 0037. 497 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LOS ESTEROS RO190.004465749957P 192 0037. 350 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE ELIZABETH STRE200.017385749958W 121 0039. 040 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE CATHERINE STRE210.017196749959D 124 0039. 110 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE GOLD STREET CO220.083947749961E 40 0039. 800 UPCASANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA Yerba buena way230.001167749962L 225 0039. 920 UPCASANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA AGNEW ROAD240.098808749965G 34 0041.63 UPCASANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA NORMAN AVENUE250.030561749976U 79 0042. 270 UPCASANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA MARTIN AVENUE260.040230749981R 68 0043. 760 UPCASANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA REED STREET270.028039749987G 84 0044. 258 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY MIDDLEFIELD RO280.012278750010A 150 0026. 734 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY 2 ND AVENUE290.003225750011G 203 0027. 053 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY 5TH AVENUE300.008476750012N 169 0027. 252 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY MARSH ROAD310.015257750013V 136 0028. 098 UPCASAN MATEO MENLO PARK WILLOW ROAD320.000308750017X 239 0030. 039 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS DIXON LANDING 33 0.028644750076A 83 0008. 741 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS RAILROAD AVENUE340.010930750078N 159 0010. 240 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS CURTIS AVENUE350.022805750083K 98 0011. 350 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS GREAT MALL DRI360.030969750084S 78 0011. 550 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS GREAT MALL PAR370.048316750085Y 56 0011. 720 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Montague Expre380.146792750086F 21 0012. 400 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE OLD OAKLAND RO390.034143750088U 75 0013. 530 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SCHALLENBERGER400.013734750089B 142 0014. 150 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE EAST GISH ROAD410.018601750090V 116 0014. 822 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE OLD OAKLAND RO420.018710750092J 115 0014. 690 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE OLD BAYSHORE H430.039718750098A 71 0015. 140 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE NORTH 10TH STr440.027374750099G 87 0014. 880 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE GISH ROAD450.012794750101F 145 0014. 760 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE OLD BAYSHORE H460.018062750102M 119 0014. 650 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE QUEENS LANE470.012001750103U 153 0014. 550 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE ROGERS AVENUE480.011931750104B 154 0014. 520 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Brokaw Road490.017241750106P 122 0013. 785 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE CHARCOT AVENUE500.012604750109K 148 0013. 445 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE JUNCTION AVENUE510.007661750112T 171 0013. 000 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE HORNING STREET520.017016750117C 126 0015. 460 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE NORTH 10TH STR530.029681750118J 80 0015. 500 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE HEDDING STREET540.026736750121S 88 0015. 640 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE East Taylor St550.022874750127H 97 0016. 000 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Jackson Street560.015867750128P 132 0016. 172 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE NORTH 7TH STRE570.016783750129W 127 0016. 190 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE North 6th Stre580.020507750131X 105 0016. 345 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE NORTH 5TH STRE590.014832750132E 138 0016. 448 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE North 4th Stre600.018802750133L 114 0016. 546 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE North 3rd Stre610.017201750134T 123 0016. 630 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE NORTH 2ND STRE620.019014750135A 113 0016. 702 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE North 1st Stre630.020319750136G 107 0016. 777 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE North Montgome640.006400750151J 178 0017. 464 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE DUPONT STREET650.003163750152R 204 0000. 110 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SUNOL ST660.044894750153X 61 0003.70 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE AUZERAIS AVE670.114853750154E 30 0003.75 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LINCOLN AVE680.212674750155L 10 0003.90 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE RACE ST690.058753750157A 47 0004.12 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE PARKMOOR AVE700.284218750158G 5 0004.16 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE FRUITDALE AVE710.147989750161P 20 0004.71 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LEIGH AVE720.134669750162W 23 0005.06 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE STOKES AVE730.190146750163D 12 0005.57 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE BASCOM AVE740.263249750164K 7 0005.87 VTAZCASANTA CLARA CAMPBELL HAMILTON AVE750.000720750165S 230 0050.04 VTAZCASANTA CLARA CAMPBELL CAMPBELL AVE760.120319750168M 26 0006.83 VTAZCASANTA CLARA CAMPBELL ORCHARD CITY DR770.002822750169U 208 0003. 500 VTAZCASANTA CLARA CAMPBELL KENNEDY AVE780.049900750171V 54 0007.24 UPCASANTA CLARA CAMPBELL CAMDEN AVE790.008283750172C 170 0051.45 UPCASANTA CLARA CAMPBELL HACIENDA AVE800.000355750176E 233 0052.10 VTAZCASANTA CLARA LOS GATOS WINCHESTER CIR810.000355750181B 234 0052.93 UPCASANTA CLARA LOS GATOS WINCHESTER BOU820.009725750185D 164 0005. 939 UPCASANTA CLARA LOS GATOS WEDGEWOOD AVEN830.002295750187S 216 0006. 233 UPCASANTA CLARA SARATOGA QUITO ROAD840.010225750190A 163 0007. 810 UPCASANTA CLARA SARATOGA GLEN BRAE DRIVE850.006346750193V 179 0009. 143 UPCASANTA CLARA SARATOGA COX AVENUE860.007157750195J 175 0009. 534 UPCASANTA CLARA SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD870.014273750196R 140 0010. 252 UPCASANTA CLARA SARATOGA ARROYO DE ARGU880.002822750197X 209 0010. 506 UPCASANTA CLARA SARATOGA PROSPECT ROAD890.004910750198E 187 0010. 830 UPCASANTA CLARA CUPERTINO RAINBOW DRIVE900.007264750201K 174 0011. 352 UPCASANTA CLARA CUPERTINO MC CLELLAN ROAD910.010960750202S 158 0012. 420 UPCASANTA CLARA CUPERTINO BUBB ROAD920.012845750203Y 144 0012. 488 UPCASANTA CLARA CUPERTINO STEVENS CREEK 93 0.012244750204F 151 0012. 953 VTAZCASANTA CLARA CAMPBELL ORCHARD CITY DR940.055716750215T 50 0006.91 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE BROKAW ROAD950.040250751984L 67 0013. 870 UPCASANTA CLARA CUPERTINO SEVEN SPRINGS 96 0.002822753632M 207 0011. 154 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY CHESAPEAKE DRI970.002501753739P 212 0027. 927 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY BLOMQUIST STRE980.009708753740J 165 0027. 360 UPCASANTA CLARA LOS GATOS KNOWLES DRIVE990.000308753743E 237 0005.47 PCJXCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 16TH STREET1000.232421754749Y 9 0000.89 MUNXCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 3RD & CARROLL1010.025136754765H 93 0004.02 MUNXCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS JENNINGS&CARRO1020.012615754768D 147 0004.20 MUNXCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS INGALL&CARROLL1030.005820754770E 181 0004.32 PCMZCASAN MATEO BRISBANE TUNNEL AVE1040.064237754795A 43 0005.58 CCRCCASAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F HARBOR WAY1050.018205754843M 118 0010.19 CCRCCASAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F E GRAND AV1060.010699754852L 161 0010.40 CCRCCASAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F FORBES BLVD1070.019695754854A 109 0010.73 PCJXCASAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F LINDEN AV1080.048816754866U 55 0010.13 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN BRUNO SCOTT ST1090.110327754867B 32 0010.48 PCJXCASAN MATEO MILLBRAE CENTER STREET1100.112597754873E 31 0012.63 PCJXCASAN MATEO MILLBRAE SANTA PAULA1110.003474754874L 199 0012.91 PCJXCASAN MATEO BURLINGAME BROADWAY1120.690094754879V 1 0015.03 PCJXCASAN MATEO BURLINGAME MORRELL avenue1130.003474754885Y 201 0015.53 PCJXCASAN MATEO BURLINGAME OAK GROVE AVEN1140.117813754886F 29 0015.81 PCJXCASAN MATEO BURLINGAME NORTH LANE1150.102324754887M 33 0016.14 PCJXCASAN MATEO BURLINGAME HOWARD AVENUE1160.123187754891C 25 0016.30 PCJXCASAN MATEO BURLINGAME BAYSWATER AVEN1170.047730754892J 57 0016.43 PCJXCASAN MATEO BURLINGAME PENINSULA AVEN1180.063082754893R 45 0016.56 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN MATEO VILLA TERRACE1190.089913754894X 38 0016.81 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN MATEO BELLEVUE AVENUE1200.098093754895E 35 0016.96 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN MATEO FIRST AV1210.045225754900Y 60 0017.66 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN MATEO SECOND AVENUE1220.047608754901F 58 0017.73 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN MATEO THIRD AVENUE1230.059503754902M 46 0017.80 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN MATEO FOURTH AVENUE1240.130645754903U 24 0017.87 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN MATEO FIFTH AVENUE1250.052091754904B 52 0017.93 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN MATEO NINTH AVENUE1260.067166754905H 42 0018.15 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN MATEO HWD PK NORTH P1270.003474754906P 200 0018.93 PCJXCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY REDWOOD CITY S1280.003017754909K 206 0025.36 PCJXCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY WHIPPLE AVENUE1290.267741754935A 6 0024.72 PCJXCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY BREWSTER AVENUE1300.210054754936G 11 0025.04 PCJXCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY BROADWAY1310.063740754937N 44 0025.21 PCJXCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY MAPLE STREET1320.042489754940W 65 0025.64 PCJXCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY MAIN STREET1330.248266754941D 8 0025.71 PCJXCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY CHESTNUT STREET1340.118335754942K 28 0025.88 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY PINE STREET1350.002789754944Y 210 0026. 463 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY HELLER STREET1360.001024754945F 226 0026. 527 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Middle Field R1370.004638754946M 190 0026. 597 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY STAMBAUGH STRE1380.002135754947U 217 0026. 665 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Spring Street1390.006569754959N 177 0026. 801 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Broadway Street1400.013096754961P 143 0026. 975 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY MARSHALL STREET1410.017165754962W 125 0027. 039 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY VETERANS BOULE1420.019277754963D 111 0027. 123 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Blomquist Stre1430.034416754968M 74 0027. 502 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Seaport Court1440.005778754972C 182 0028. 190 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY Henry A Beeger1450.010829754974R 160 0028. 419 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY HERKNER ROAD1460.004567754976E 191 0028. 641 UPCASAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY HINMAN ROAD1470.004929754981B 186 0028. 837 PCJXCASAN MATEO ATHERTON FAIR OAKS LANE1480.043971754986K 63 0027.61 PCJXCASAN MATEO ATHERTON WATKINS AVENUE1490.089618754987S 39 0027.92 PCJXCASAN MATEO MENLO PARK ENCINAL AVENUE1500.042105754988Y 66 0028.24 PCJXCASAN MATEO MENLO PARK GLENWOOD AVENUE1510.045234754989F 59 0028.45 PCJXCASAN MATEO MENLO PARK OAK GROVE AVEN1520.185942754990A 13 0028.65 PCJXCASAN MATEO MENLO PARK RAVENSWOOD AVE1530.151838754991G 19 0028.84 PCJXCASANTA CLARA PALO ALTO ALMA AVENUE1540.058481754992N 48 0029.62 PCJXCASANTA CLARA PALO ALTO CHURCHILL AVEN1550.422541754998E 3 0030.88 PCJXCASANTA CLARA PALO ALTO EAST MEADOW DR1560.284707755010S 4 0032.86 PCJXCASANTA CLARA PALO ALTO CHARLESTON ROAD1570.464465755011Y 2 0033.20 PCJXCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI RENGSTORFF AVE1580.156313755013M 17 0034.61 PCJXCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI CASTRO STREET1590.162425755015B 16 0035.80 VTAZCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI CENTRAL EXPWY1600.080643755017P 41 0013.08 VTAZCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI MIDDLEFIELD RO1610.029175755024A 81 0037.50 PCJXCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI LOGUE AVE1620.004686755025G 189 0037.95 VTAZCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI FAIRCHILD DR1630.004076755027V 194 0038.22 VTAZCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI FREEWAY ON-RAMP1640.015638755028C 133 0038.26 VTAZCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI ELLIS STOFFRAMP1650.025874755030D 89 0038.33 PCJXCASANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE MARY AVENUE1660.173059755037B 14 0037.82 PCJXCASANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE SUNNYVALE AVEN1670.143188755042X 22 0038.79 PCJXCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE AUZERAIS STreet1680.119330755097K 27 0047.35 PCJXCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE VIRGINIA STreet1690.095213755099Y 36 0048.51 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE STONE AVENUE1700.009602755107N 166 0050. 410 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LITTLE ORCHARD1710.003051755108V 205 0050. 590 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SR 821720.019155755110W 112 0051. 000 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE PHELAN AVENUE1730.011010755114Y 157 0051. 470 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SKYWAY DRIVE1740.032800755135S 76 0053. 450 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Branham Lane1750.153886755136Y 18 0053. 970 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE CHYNOWETH AVEN1760.092774755137F 37 0054. 800 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE PALM AVENUE1770.015283755153P 135 0062. 650 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LIVE OAK AVENUE1780.016212755154W 129 0064. 130 UPCASANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL TILTON AVENUE1790.024402755155D 94 0065. 230 UPCASANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL EAST MAIN AVEN1800.023396755159F 96 0067. 300 UPCASANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL DUNNE AVENUE1810.034771755162N 73 0067. 780 UPCASANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL SAN PEDRO Av1820.021012755164C 103 0068. 100 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN MARTIN CHURCH AVENUE1830.016205755166R 130 0072. 630 UPCASANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL Masten Avenue1840.031196755168E 77 0073. 510 UPCASANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL TENNANT AVENUE1850.044032755170F 62 0068. 750 UPCASANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL EAST MIDDLE AV1860.017528755171M 120 0070. 050 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN MARTIN SAN MARTIN AVE1870.036968755173B 72 0071. 320 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY RUCKER AVENUE1880.012159755174H 152 0073. 950 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY BUENA VISTA AV1890.056118755175P 49 0074. 600 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY COHANSEY AVENUE1900.010571755176W 162 0075. 120 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY Las Animas Ave1910.016454755177D 128 0075. 492 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY LEAVESLY ROAD1920.051434755179S 53 0076. 250 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY Pedestrian1930.014109755180L 141 0076. 350 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY IOOF AVENUE1940.020963755181T 104 0076. 750 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY LEWIS STREET1950.015211755182A 137 0076. 980 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY MARTIN STREET1960.007004755183G 176 0077. 100 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY 6TH STREET1970.023976755184N 95 0077. 180 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY 7th Street 198 0.018539755185V 117 0077. 300 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY 10TH STREET1990.040179755186C 69 0077. 670 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY LUCHESSA AVENUE2000.025526755187J 92 0078. 360 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY ENGEL WAY2010.004939755189X 185 0078. 440 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY LUCHESSA AVENUE2020.005031755190S 183 0078. 320 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY BOLSA ROAD2030.016162755194U 131 0080. 210 UPCASANTA CLARA GILROY SR 252040.027395755195B 86 0080. 700 UPCASAN MATEO MENLO PARK CHILCO STREET2050.000308768399A 238 0029. 440 UPCASAN MATEO MENLO PARK UNIVERSITY AVE2060.000409768406H 232 0030. 638 CCRCCASAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F GATEWAY BLVD2070.007553768413T 172 0010.18 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LUNDY RD.208 0.020440833815C 106 0014.60 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE BERRYESSA RD.209 0.025675833820Y 90 0015.20 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE MAYBERRY ROAD2100.022324833823U 100 0015.70 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LENFEST RD.211 0.015393833824B 134 0016.40 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE LAS PLUMAS ST2120.000292833827W 240 0016.90 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE JULIAN ST2130.014625833829K 139 0016.50 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE JULIAN STREET2140.020100833830E 108 0016.52 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE E. ST. JAMES2150.011447833832T 155 0016.70 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE E SANTA CLARA2160.025675833835N 91 0016.09 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SHORTRIDGE AVE2170.009435833836V 167 0017.00 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE SAN FERNANDO ST2180.012306833837C 149 0017.05 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE WHITTON AV2190.006061833838J 180 0017.10 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE E.SAN ANTONIO2200.011361833839R 156 0017.20 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE 7TH ST2210.022248833848P 101 0019.40 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE DIXON LANDING 222 0.021650833890N 102 0008.90 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS PIPER DRIVE2230.002312833898T 215 0011. 946 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS YOSEMITE DRIVE2240.000215833900S 249 0011. 025 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS MILPITAS BOULE2250.004695833901Y 188 0011. 746 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS AMES AVENUE2260.003836833902F 196 0011. 274 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE HOSTETTER RD.227 0.022529833912L 99 0014.00 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE TRADE ZONE BLVD2280.028811834503X 82 0012.90 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS AMES AVENUE2290.004967834514K 184 0011. 270 UPCASANTA CLARA MILPITAS YOSEMITE DRIVE2300.012794834515S 146 0011. 010 SFBRCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS AMADOR ST2310.043838913894M 64 0000.00 UPCASANTA CLARA MORGAN HILL Pedestrian2320.000181920463M 255 0067. 530 PCJXCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS MISSION BAY BL2330.167323922712X 15 0000.62 PCJXCASAN MATEO SAN MATEO SOUTH HAYWARD 234 0.003474922716A 197 0019.52 PCJXCASAN MATEO MENLO PARK MENLO PARK STA2350.003474922720P 202 0028.80 PCJXCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI MT VIEW STATIO2360.000839922722D 229 0035.90 PCJXCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI MT VIEW STATIO2370.003474922723K 198 0036.03 PCJXCASANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE SUNNYVALE STAT2380.002488922724S 213 0038.56 PCJXCASANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE SUNNYVALE STAT2390.002620922725Y 211 0038.68 PCJXCASAN MATEO SOUTH SAN F SOUTH SAN FRAN2400.002374922739G 214 0009.20 PCJXCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE COLLEGE PARK S2410.000997922745K 227 0046.30 UPCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE Autumn Parkway2420.027815924191R 85 0017. 315 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE RACE LRS PED X2430.000203925804V 250 0004.06 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE PARKMOOR WEST 244 0.002040925806J 218 0004.23 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE FRUITDALE PED2450.000187925807R 252 0004.77 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE BASCOM EAST PED2460.000187925808X 253 0005.71 VTAZCASANTA CLARA SAN JOSE BASCOM WEST PED2470.000187925809E 254 0005.76 VTAZCASANTA CLARA CAMPBELL CIVIC CENTER DR2480.053938925811F 51 0006.81 VTAZCASANTA CLARA CAMPBELL CAMPBELL PED X2490.000203925812M 251 0006.96 VTAZCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI WHISMAN STA DR2500.039936926828M 70 0012.90 VTAZCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI PACIFIC DR2510.001987926830N 219 0012.76 VTAZCASANTA CLARA MOUNTAIN VI Infinity Way2520.007372926831V 173 0012. 058 UPCASAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS Pedestrian2530.000287976458X 247 0002. 169 PCJXCASAN MATEO BURLINGAME Broadway Sta N2540.001268979465T 224 0015.09 PCJXCASAN MATEO BURLINGAME broadway sta c2550.001278979466A 222 0015.11 PCJXCASAN MATEO BURLINGAME BROADWAY STA S2560.001278979467G 223 0015.14 10 18 16 17 1310.985386TTL: Annual WBAPS WEB ACCIDENT PREDICTION SYSTEM Accident Prediction Report for Public at-Grade Highway-Rail Crossings Including: Disclaimer/Abbreviation Key Accident Prediction List Provided by: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis Highway-Rail Crossing Safety & Trespass Prevention Date Prepared:11/4/2021 Data Contained in this Report: STATE: CA 2021 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration USING DATA PRODUCED BY WBAPS (Web Accident Prediction System) WBAPS generates reports listing public highway-rail intersections for a State, County, City or railroad ranked by predicted collisions per year. These reports include brief lists of the Inventory record and the collisions over the last 10 years along with a list of contacts for further information. These data were produced by the Federal Railroad Administration's Web Accident Prediction System (WBAPS). WBAPS is a computer model which provides the user an analytical tool, which combined with other site-specific information, can assist in determining where scarce highway-rail grade crossing resources can best be directed. This computer model does not rank crossings in terms of most to least dangerous. Use of WBAPS data in this manner is incorrect and misleading. WBAPS provides the same reports as PCAPS, which is FRA's PC Accident Prediction System. PCAPS was originally developed as a tool to alert law enforcement and local officials of the important need to improve safety at public highway-rail intersections within their jurisdictions. It has since become an indispensable information resource which is helping the FRA, States, railroads, Operation Lifesaver and others, to raise the awareness of the potential dangers at public highway-rail intersections. The PCAPS/WBAPS output enables State and local highway and law enforcement agencies identify public highway-rail crossing locations which may require additional or specialized attention. It is also a tool which can be used by state highway authorities and railroads to nominate particular crossings which may require physical safety improvements or enhancements. The WBAPS accident prediction formula is based upon two independent factors (variables) which includes (1) basic data about a crossing's physical and operating characteristics and (2) five years of accident history data at the crossing. These data are obtained from the FRA's inventory and accident/incident files which are subject to keypunch and submission errors. Although every attempt is made to find and correct errors, there is still a possibility that some errors still exist. Erroneous, inaccurate and non-current data will alter WBAPS accident prediction values. While approximately 100,000 inventory file changes and updates are voluntarily provided annually by States and railroads and processed by FRA into the National Inventory File, data records for specific crossings may not be completely current. Only the intended users (States and railroads) are really knowledgeable as to how current the inventory data is for a particular State, railroad, or location. It is important to understand the type of information produced by WBAPS and the limitations on the application of the output data. WBAPS does not state that specific crossings are the most dangerous. Rather, the WBAPS data provides an indication that conditions are such that one crossing may possibly be more hazardous than another based on the specific data that is in the program. It is only one of many tools which can be used to assist individual States, railroads and local highway authorities in determining where and how to initially focus attention for improving safety at public highway-rail intersections. WBAPS is designed to nominate crossings for further evaluation based only upon the physical and operating characteristics of specific crossings as voluntarily reported and updated by States and railroads and five years of accident history data. PCAPS and WBAPS software are not designed to single out specific crossings without considering the many other factors which may influence accident rates or probabilities. State highway planners may or may not use PCAPS/WBAPS accident prediction model. Some States utilize their own formula or model which may include other geographic and site-specific factors. At best, PCAPS and WBAPS software and data nominates crossings for further on-the-ground review by knowledgeable highway traffic engineers and specialists. The output information is not the end or final product and the WBAPS data should not be used for non-intended purposes. It should also be noted that there are certain characteristics or factors which are not, nor can be, included in the WBAPS database. These include sight-distance, highway congestion, bus or hazardous material traffic, local topography, and passenger exposure (train or vehicle), etc. Be aware that PCAPS/WBAPS is only one model and that other accident prediction models which may be used by States may yield different, by just as valid, results for ranking crossings for safety improvements. Finally, it should be noted that this database is not the sole indicator of the condition of a specific public highway-rail intersection. The WBAPS output must be considered as a supplement to the information needed to undertake specific actions aimed at enhancing highway-rail crossing safety at locations across the U.S. The authority and jurisdiction to appropriate resources towards the safety improvement or elimination of specific crossings lies with the individual States. 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Third Floor West Washington, DC 20590 The lists produced are only for public at-grade highway-rail intersections for the entity listed at the top of the page. The parameters shown are those used in the collision prediction calculation. RANK: PRED COLLS: Crossings are listed in order and ranked with the highest collision prediction value first. The accident prediction value is the probability that a collision between a train and a highway vehicle will occur at the crossing in a year. CROSSING:The unique sight specific identifying DOT/AAR Crossing Inventory Number. RR:The alphabetic abbreviation for the railroad name. CITY:The city in (or near) which the crossing is located. ROAD: NUM OF COLLISIONS: The name of the road, street, or highway (if provided) where the crossing is located. DATE CHG:The date of the latest change of the warning device category at the crossing which impacts the collision prediction calculation, e.g., a change from crossbucks to flashing lights, or flashing lights to gates. The accident prediction calculation utilizes three different formulas, on each for (1) passive devices, (2) flashing lights only, and (3) flashing lights with gates. When a date is shown, the collision history prior to the indicated year-month is not included in calculating the accident prediction value. WD:The type of warning device shown on the current Inventory record for the crossing where: FQ=Four Quad Gates; GT = All Other Gates; FL = Flashing lights; HS = Wigwags, Highway Signals, Bells, or Other Activated; SP = Special Protection (e.g., a flagman); SS = Stop Signs; XB = Crossbucks; OS = Other Signs or Signals; NO = No Signs or Signals. Number of total trains per day. Total number of railroad tracks between the warning devices at the crossing. TTBL SPD:The maximum timetable (allowable) speed for trains through the crossing. HWY LNS: HWY PVD: AADT: Is the highway paved on both sides of the crossing? The number of highway traffic lanes crossing the tracks at the crossing. The Average Annual Daily Traffic count for highway vehicles using the crossing. 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Third Floor West Washington, DC 20590 ABBREVIATION KEY for use with WBAPS Reports The number of accidents reported to FRA in each of the years indicated. Note: Most recent year is partial year (data is not for the complete calendar year) unless Accidents per Year is 'AS OF DECEMBER 31'. HWY LNS: AADT:The Average Annual Daily Traffic count for highway vehicles using the crossing.AADT: TOT TRNS: TOT TRKS: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration PUBLIC HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS RANKED BY PREDICTED RANK PRED CROSSING RR COUNTY 20*19 18 17 DATE CHG TOT TOT TRK W D TTBL SPD HWY PVD HWY LNS AADT ACCIDENTS PER YEAR AS OF 12/31/2020* 16 *Num of Collisions: Most recent year is partial year (data is not for the complete calendar year) unless Accidents per Year is 'AS OF DECEMBER 31'. TRNCOLLS. ROADCITYSTATE NUM OF COLLISIONS PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME BROADWAY 1 1 1 2 2 GT 79 6YES962 28,00010.690094 754879V UP CA CONTRA COSTA RICHMOND South Cutting 1 1 1 3 2 GT 79 5YES543 19,51320.663334 751678U BNSF CA LOS ANGELES SANTA FE SP ROSECRANS/MAR Q 0 2 0 2 1 GT 79 6YES462 31,32430.469896 027656A SCRT CA SACRAMENTO RANCHO CORD BRADSHAW RD 0 1 1 1 1 GT 55 6YES2732 25,59540.465810 753524R PCJX CA SANTA CLARA PALO ALTO CHARLESTON ROAD 0 1 2 1 1 GT 79 4YES962 20,00050.464465 755011Y BNSF CA RIVERSIDE CORONA MCKINLEY ST 1 2 0 0 2 GT 60 4YES602 29,26960.444570 026519P PCJX CA SANTA CLARA PALO ALTO CHURCHILL AVEN 0 1 1 3 0 GT 79 3YES962 12,00070.422541 754998E UP CA ALAMEDA OAKLAND High Street 1 2 1 0 1 GT 79 4YES243 20,65880.384412 749712Y SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO OCEAN VIEW BLVD 0 0 0 0 0 07/19 XB 30 4YES2942 6,00090.380363 661884H SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 14TH NATL AVE 0 0 0 0 0 07/19 SS 30 4YES2942 5,000100.374309 661824Y SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 32ND ST 0 0 0 0 0 07/19 XB 30 4YES2942 5,000110.374309 661895V SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 16TH ST 0 0 0 0 0 07/19 XB 30 4YES2942 4,000120.366548 661823S UP CA SAN BERNARD ONTARIO CAMPUS AVENUE 0 0 3 0 3 GT 55 4YES221 10,331130.365089 810907A SCAX CA LOS ANGELES BALDWIN PARK RAMONA BLVD 0 1 0 3 0 GT 70 6YES381 19,771140.351488 747282J SCAX CA LOS ANGELES LANCASTER AVE K 1 0 2 1 0 GT 79 7YES241 30,449150.349348 750608B BNSF CA FRESNO FRESNO BELMONT AV 2 1 1 1 0 GT 35 4YES341 12,760160.348946 028558M SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 26TH ST 0 0 0 0 0 07/19 SS 30 2YES2942 6,000170.348408 661885P BNSF CA SAN JOAQUIN STOCKTON S LINCOLN ST 0 2 3 0 1 GT 60 4YES162 5,725180.342435 029617R SMRT CA SONOMA ROHNERT PARK GOLF COURSE DR 0 3 1 0 0 GT 79 4YES681 23,020190.341434 498673P SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 28TH ST 0 0 0 0 0 11/19 XB 30 2YES2942 5,000200.341126 661890L SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 22ND St 0 0 0 0 0 07/19 SS 30 4YES2942 2,000210.340034 661830C SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 17TH ST 0 0 0 0 0 11/19 SS 30 2YES2942 4,000220.331899 661825F UP CA STANISLAUS TURLOCK MONTE VISTA RO 1 1 1 0 1 GT 70 6YES201 29,914230.320493 752485Y SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO EVANS ST 0 0 0 0 0 07/19 SS 30 4YES2942 1,000240.310207 661887D SCAX CA LOS ANGELES GLENDALE DORAN AVE 0 0 3 1 1 GT 79 2YES302 6,500250.307614 746804B BNSF CA FRESNO FRESNO SHIELDS AV 1 1 1 1 0 GT 79 4YES341 19,836260.303871 028580A SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 31ST ST 0 1 0 0 0 07/19 SS 30 2YES3042 2,000270.302793 661894N SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 19TH ST 0 0 0 1 0 07/19 SS 30 2YES2942 2,000280.301253 661827U SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 21ST ST 0 0 1 0 0 07/19 SS 30 2YES2942 2,000290.301253 661829H SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO HARRISON AVE 0 0 0 0 0 07/19 SS 30 2YES2942 2,000300.301253 661882U 9 21 23 20 1611.409595TTL: I I I I I I I I I From:Fanghua Xu To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 6:43:52 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from xuanna168@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are working class working hard to support our growing family. We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and we oppose this recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. My husband was laid off, my children are in college we need to support their tuition. I am a self employee. My tenant has not paid rent for 6 months, and I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage to raise the family, I am the only one working in this family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated from unpaid or late rent. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you! Palo Also Resident Anna Xu From:Shiming Ye To:Council, City Subject:against proposed renter protection policy Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 6:40:14 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from shiming_ye@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are working class working hard to support our growing family. We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and we oppose this recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. My husband was laid off, my children are in college we need to support their tuition. I am a self employee. My tenant has not paid rent for 6 months, and I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage to raise the family, I am the only one working in this family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated from unpaid or late rent. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Palo Alto Resident Shiming Ye Sent from my iPhone From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; fred beyerlein;bballpod; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; Council, City;Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville;esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net;grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo;hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; lalws4@gmail.com; leager;Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino;russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: See comments here re shingles vaccine. 1st one didn"t work, it seems!!!!!! Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 4:56:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 3:46 PM Subject: Fwd: See comments here re shingles vaccine. 1st one didn't work, it seems!!!!!!To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 3:24 PMSubject: Fwd: See comments here re shingles vaccine. 1st one didn't work, it seems!!!!!! To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 2:07 AM Subject: Fwd: See comments here re shingles vaccine. 1st one didn't work, it seems!!!!!!To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 2:01 AMSubject: Fwd: See comments here re shingles vaccine. 1st one didn't work, it seems!!!!!! To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 1:54 AMSubject: Fwd: See comments here re shingles vaccine. 1st one didn't work, it seems!!!!!! To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 1:38 AM Subject: See comments here re shingles vaccine. 1st one didn't work, it seems!!!!!!To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sunday, November 7, 2021 To all- I paid and got the shingles vaccine in 2008. I was out of Kaiser for a year because GM dropped all HMOs from its health care options in 2008 (2007 really but maintainedHMOs for Medicare recipients in 2007 for that year only, and Kaiser is an HMO). I rejoined Kaiser in April, 2009 after, on January 1, 2009, GM cancelled all group health insurance forGM salaried retirees in the US on Medicare (me) and raised our pensions by $300 per month to buy our own health insurance. I pay Kaiser $75 per mo. for Kaiser Senior Advantage and itdrops to $70 per month Jan. 1, 2022. GM's magnificent HC coverage was free to GM employees and retirees from when I was hired in 1969 until 1993. At that point they startedcharging us ~$25 a month for health care coverage, which included Rx coverage, and $5 a month for full dental coverage. Dental stayed at $5 per month and health care coverage fromGM got to ~$67 a month by 2008. The reason GM could cancel group HC coverage for retirees on Medicare in 2009 was that in ~2004 George W. Bush got Rx. drug coverage addedto Medicare. Prior to 2004, people on Medicare did not have Rx coverage (!), so GM had to maintain its group coverage for its retirees on Medicare for them to have Rx coverage-including me. Hard to believe that prior to 2004, people on Medicare did not have Rx coverage, but that is my recollection. Expensive drugs can be ruinous. To hold down costs, Medicare had the"donut hole" thing for about 15 years. That has been pretty much phased out now because once you fall into the donut hole for the year, you don't pay much more for drugs than you dobefore you fall into it.. And imagine that before ~1965 we didn't even have Medicare in the US(!). You retired, lost your employer paid HC, if your employer provided it, and many ormost small employers did not provide it, and then you had zero HC until your (maybe early) death. Truman had tried to get Medicare passed and failed. Eisenhower, of course, being aRepublican, wouldn't consider it. ("Let the scum hang"). JFK couldn't get it passed. Lyndon got it passed- about the only decent thing he ever did. But imagine, all during the Trumanand Eisenhower years and the JFK years, and the first couple of LBJ years, Medicare did not exist. Think of that when you watch those old TV shows from the 50's- no Medicare. And noRx drug coverage under Medicare from 1965 to 2004. The Build Back Better bill will allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies for the first time. Finally. Big salvation for Medicare. Medicare has been payingthrough the nose for Rx drugs since they were added to Medicare in ~2004. So eighteen years of a screwing for Medicare, and the taxpayers who pay for it, on Rx drug costs. What do youcall that? Some influence by Big Pharma on Congress? Maybe. How do they get such influence? I've turned it over and over in my mind and I can't figure it out. Now it seems that that first shingles vaccine was not very effective. I havewondered when I see ads on TV now for a shingles vaccine. I think they say something to imply that the one we all got ~2008 may not have been very effective. LH- What they say isthat "Shingrix is the first new shingles vaccine approved in the past 10 years". I wondered there because the first vaccine I got in 2008 was supposed to protect against shingles for life. It was approved in ~2005. I have wondered about those ads now because if the first shingles vaccine was approved in 2005 and I got it in 2008, why do we need a new one approved now,"Shingrix being the first new shingles vaccine approved" since ~2011? It's because the first shingles vaccine didn't work very well! Oh Lordy, get the Shingrix shots. Shingrix ought tosay in its ads that "The first shingles vaccine you got around 2005 has been found to be ineffective. Shingrix is effective". So now the effort will be on with my doctor at Kaiser to get the new Shinglesvaccine. If you ever had Chicken Pox, you have the shingles virus in your body and it can produce shingles decades later. Yikes. That first shingles vaccine only came out around2005. There had been no vaccine against shingles before that one. So I guess humans had been getting shingles as their immune systems declined with age since humans evolved ~350,000years ago. Now we can prevent that. Good timing on being alive now, at least in that regard. See shingles vaccine discussion in the comments to this article: The new shingles vaccine is called Shingrix. "Be sure to get the second dose of Shingrix in 2 to 6 months" onecommenter says. "It may kick your a__ but it's better than getting shingles", he says. Apparently the Shingrix vaccine can lay you low for a day or two. Powerful new X-ray source shows amazing detail inside organs, including lung from a COVID death (dailykos.com) See comments after this article. Here is the Shingrix website. Discover SHINGRIX | SHINGRIX They mention some unpleasant side effects for a couple of days. Shingrix is a product of GSK, GlaxoSmithKline. Here is information about Shingrixissued by GSK on 25 July, 2021. So the drug is just out. Shingrix approved in the US for prevention of shingles in immunocompromised adults | GSK Apparently, Shingrix is for people (who had chicken pox?) and are over 50 or areyounger than 50 (down to age 18) but have compromised immune systems. So it is not for everyone. As you age, you'll need it, or something like it. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:pennyellson12@gmail.comTo:Council, CityCc:Kamhi, PhilipSubject:FW: Possible South PA Grade Separation Solution Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 3:00:55 PMAttachments:image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council, Here is a written version of the comments I made at last week’s XCAP meeting. (A friend called to let me know that my spoken comments in the meeting were muffled somehow.) I hope that the additional south PA ped/bike grade separated crossing that was suggested by the 2013 Rail Corridor Study will be considered. Without it, I don’t see how closure of Charleston and E. Meadow construction can work. Remember that, though north Palo Alto has five existing grade separated crossings, south Palo Alto has none. Further, the construction plans for some options would simultaneously close the only two at-grade crossings south of Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto. Across-rail connectivity in south Palo Alto through the construction period and after construction needs much more work. Thank you for considering my comments. –Penny Ellson From: pennyellson12@gmail.com <pennyellson12@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 6:42 PMTo: city.council@cityofpaloalto.orgSubject: Possible South PA Grade Separation Solution Honorable City Council Members. A gap I see in the XCAP planning is provision of a grade separated bike/ped rail crossing anywhere south of East Meadow that can be used during the East Meadow and Charleston construction period during construction. This will create serious congestion problems because there will be no convenient way for students who live south of East Meadow and east of Alma to get to the high school. The sole planned south Palo Alto bike pedestrian grade separation at Loma Verde would add eight minutes or 1.4 miles to school commutes each way for students who live south of Charleston or one mile for those who live south of East Meadow. This will certainly reduce the number of students who bike to Gunn. Please consider that pre-Covid bike counts at Gunn were 982. Many SRP workers bike commute to work using the East Meadow and Charleston crossings. A detour of this magnitude will affect their mode choices as well. Consider what it would mean for the Arastradero /El Camino intersection or the Arastradero/Foothill intersection if even a third of these trips converted to cars while the city is actively detouring motor vehicle tips to San Antonio and these two intersections through construction. There may be a solution. On the way to researching other things, I recently ran across the 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study. In the study (page 4.05), is a map that identifies existing and possible rail crossing options. (See map below.) Notice that this map identifies a possible grade separated crossing in the general vicinity of the Adobe Creek bed. There are two streets in this area, Ely and Greenmeadow Way, either of which could provide landing for a grade separated crossing on the east side of Alma. The streets on the west side of Alma at these locations provide access to regional bike/ped routes to Los Altos, Mountain View, the Wilkie Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge, SRP, and Gunn HS. This is a grade sep location that will provide real bike/ped access through construction for this part of Palo Alto and greatly improve regional bike /ped connectivity long term. The Gunn HS Walk & Roll map shows connections through the Charleston Meadows or Monroe Park neighborhood could take advantage of existing planned school commute routes to Gunn and SRP. It doesn’t appear that this option was explored in the XCAP process. If it has not been looked at, I think it should be. Thank you for considering my comments. Penny Ellson Virus-free. www.avg.com Figure 4.2: Existing and Possible Rail Crossing Locations ;: I I 1. ,. I I I I I '.\ 'i.' ., J <. •• 10 )1 ,/ Legend e VellicularCrossingonly e Veliicular, Pedestrian & Bicycle Crossing 0 Pedestrian&BicycleCrossing E ExistingCrossing p PossibleCrossing U Grade-separatedUnderpass O Grade-separatedOverpass S Surface/Al-grade Crossing Study Area Boundary c:=J Publicl'3rk School --Creek ■ PotentialfutureBRTStation C CaltrainStatioo (_) 1/2-mileRadiuslransitSemceArea ~-o· 1.2so· ~-I~-----~ L_J EXISTING GRADE-SEPARATED VEHICULAR ONLY CROSSINGS 2 ~;=t=:~:ay EXISTING GRADE-SEPARATED VEHICULAR/ PEDESTRIAN/ BICYCLE CROSSINGS 2 ~==~o:d EXISTING GRADE-SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CROSSINGS Palo Nto Caltrain Station Ullderpass 3 Hoo-er Tunnel CaiforniaAvenueUnderpass EXISTING SURFACE CROSSINGS (ALL MODES) 4 ci!r:; :~r: Meadow Drive Charleston Road EXISTING+ POSSIBLE CROSSINGS (see figure above tor type) 25 ~: :::~: :=;:n::~~:~~::n::~~:n~:~~::A~r:,s~::~e, Eni>arcadero Road, Kingsley Avenoo, Melville Avenue, Kellogg Avenue, Churchill Avenue, Seale Avenoo, California Avenue, Oregon Expressway, Colorado Avenue, Matadero Creek, East Meadow Orive, Charlestoo Road, Adobe Creek, Del Meclo Avenue, San Antonio Road. CIRCULATION & CONNECTIVITY NOTES, 1. Some existing CJossings shown exist but need improvement. The colored dots indicate the prelenedtypeofcrossing. 2. The Task force recommends Iha! all rail crossings, whether existing or new, be i,ade- separaled. 3. llisdesirabletolm'eabalancedapproach along the entire rail corridor fo1 east-west con- nections. Howevl!f, land use (existing homes) aod discontinuous streets create considerable difficultyinidentifyingadditionalcrossingsin lhesouth.furtherstudiesarerecommendedto e1,plo,e additional comeclivity opportooities acrosstherailtinesinsouthPaloAllo. 4.05 From:Carol Li To:Council, City Cc:Carol Li Subject:Against extreme controls on Housing in PA! Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 1:10:03 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cli@compass.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are working class working hard to support our growing family. We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and we oppose this recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. My husband was laid off, my children are in college we need to support their tuition. I am a self employee. My tenant has not paid rent for 6 months, and I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage to raise the family, I am the only one working in this family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated from unpaid or late rent. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Regards, Carol Li Yugang Cui Palo Alto residents From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Nose, Kiely; Paras, Christine; Abendschein, Jonathan Subject:questions re business tax Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 11:36:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the City Council and staff, I am trying to understand which organizations will be subject to taxation unless a business tax based on square footage and, how many of them are there. I think this information is needed both for accurate modeling but also for organizations and residents to know the scope and reach of any proposed tax. Some of these questions will be asked by residents who are polled on their views. Basic question Is this tax levied on the occupant of the space, not the owner if the owner is not the occupant? Exemptions Will all occupants occupying less than 20,000 square feet be exempt? If not, which occupants under 20,000 square feet be taxed? Will some sectors be exempt regardless of the square feet they occupy? retail? restaurants? hotels? medical/hospital occupants? Clarify the mandatory exemptions again, thanks. Vacant space How will space be handled if there is no occupant? On my block there are vacancies thateven pre date the pandemic and as I walk downtown I see more not fewer vacant spaces>Perhaps most will be covered under exempt categories but what is large and vacant? In this regard there may be consolidation of space for some large organizations in the post- pandemic world. How many organizations will be subject to tax Staff has shown how many square feet are in various size categories but how many occupants are there in each size category--not the names but the number of them? Will most of the tax revenue come from 10 organizations? 20? how many will be touched bya square footage tax? Can you give examples? I am not able to easily imagine what 20,000 square feet looks like. Can staff provide 5 or 10 examples of spaces that are well know to residents and how many square feet they include? Thanks Stephen Levy From:Home Land To:Council, City Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:11:27 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from happyjane.liu6@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a resident with two kids.my family strongly against the extremely strict rent control, freedom is the base of the growth of economy and neighborhood and society!Rent control will lead to community worse, no new high quality coming will lead to a dead lake. see what happened in San Francisco !I’m extremely concerned about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Altoresidents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners;The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer;The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants;The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollarswould go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city;and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcementdepartment. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thanks Jane From:tom tomvlasic.com To:Council, City Subject:11-7-21 Email on Rail Crossings Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:11:00 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from tom@tomvlasic.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Mayor and City Council, The subject emial we just sent to you had a "Draft" in the subject line. The email was not a draft and was inteneded to be sent as prepared. Sorry for any confusion. Regards, Tom and Linda Vlasic From:tom tomvlasic.com To:Council, City Cc:Rachel Croft; John Monroe; Anne Kramer; linda VLASIC Subject:Fw: Draft Comments on Rail Crossing Alternatives for Churchill Avenue Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:05:33 AM Attachments:5-14-18 Rail Xing Email to PACC.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from tom@tomvlasic.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Mayor and City Council members, Last Monday you considered and heard from a number of residents about the options for the rail crossing at Churchill Avenue. You have been considering the matter of rail crossings for a number of years and we are sure you are as frustrated as the rest of the residents of Palo Alto's neighborhoods about how long this process is taking. We are not sure where the blame really comes to rest, but the damage the process is doing to the community is significant. And that damage is pulling the community apart not "connecting" it. (And, please also see our attached 5-14-18 email to you that underscores many of the comments that follow, and as Yogi Berra famously said, "déjà vu all over again!!!") We offer our comments on our preferred "closure" option below, but first we respectfully ask for a full disclosure "for the record" of the City's costs to date on the analysis and deliberations over the crossings issue. We also offer some perspective on the matter of "connectivity" that is a bit different from those presented at your last meeting. Costs of the rail crossing process. This is a formal request for a full accounting of all City costs to date on the analysis and deliberations associated with the rail crossing matter, not just for Churchill but for all of the crossing locations in Palo Alto. We are sure your staff has a complete record of the costs and there are likely others beyond those listed below. The residents of the City and the City Council must have a full and clear understand of how much this process has cost the community to date. This will help inform all of us on what continuing the matter indefinitely really means in terms of financial burdens to the community. Please provide all costs not limited to, but including the following: -- All Consultant costs. -- Staff costs for all work associated with the process including that of the City Attorney, e,g., managing the consultant process and consultants, review of consultant products, preparation of reports for all meetings--council, planning commission, XCAP, public sessions, follow-up to meetings, etc. --Administrative costs associated notices and record keeping, etc. for all public meetings. --Costs for considering and responding to citizens requests, including study of the Churchill under crossing option. Connectivity. Those arguing that Churchill closure goes against the goal of east-west connectivity, seem to suggest that driving, typically too fast, through our neighborhoods is positive connectivity. Bike and foot connectivity is far more important than vehicle east west connectivity in terms of uniting the community. We should be doing all we can to get people out of their cars and at one time the City actually supported this goal. Maximizing traffic flow is not directed at getting people out of their cars or slowing car traffic through our neighborhoods. We put the burden on Stanford and other uses and businesses to seek traffic management options that reduce number the of trips and vehicles. Closing Churchill certainly will further push toward mass transit solutions and these become far more critical as Palo Alto continues to intensify development along the rail line and elsewhere throughout the City. As stated above, our preferred and the only really viable option at this point is closure of Churchill. The XCAP analysis and recommendations are sound and based on "tons" of study of the options. The visual, practical and emotional impacts of either the vehicle underpass or viaduct options will destroy any opportunity for community "connectivity." (Remember the Embarcadero Freeway and the fact it was not replaced after the 1989 earthquake.) A well designed bike and pedestrian connection will help calm the connectivity. This works at the underpass adjacent to the PAMF at Homer Avenue and can work just as well at Churchill. Yes, there are traffic issues that need to be resolved, and these have been studied with good mitigations offered, but in the long term, getting people out their cars is far more "sustainable" than maximizing vehicle traffic flow. Closing Churchill will result in inconvenience for us but we would rather see what money there will be available spent for "connectivity" grade separations at southern locations in the City wherer they are needed not on the North side where there are already three such grade separated crossings and, in any case, money also needs to be spent to upgrade the three existing North side grade separations. Connectivity needs to be viewed for the entire City not just the North side!!! The sooner the City makes a decision the sooner it will control the impacts on Palo Alto and its citizens. The longer it takes for the Council to make a decision, there is certainty that the outside factors will control Palo Alto. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Tom and Linda Vlasic Southgate Neighborhood tom tomvlasic.com Mon 5/14/2018 12:18 PM To: Council City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: dshenster@gmail.com; Home <h2op@aol.com>; Jim McFall jim@mcfallarch.com +1 other Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Unfortunately, my wife and I are traveling and can't attend this evening's council meeting relative to the Rail program options. We did, however, want to share our concerns with respect to the options the committee has suggested be studied for the Churchill Avenue crossing. As residents of Southgate since 1972, we have watched the conditions associated with the rail corridor and the Churchill Avenue crossing for a very long time. We have considered the realities associated with the Rail corridor, high speed rail and Cal Train plans. We strongly believe that the only reasonable option for Churchill that should be studied is closure, i.e., CAX as identified in the staff report. We take this position for the following reasons: 1. There are already three grade separated crossings in North PA. These serve the northern community and can be modified or adjusted with minimum community impact to serve increased rail traffic. If any money is to be spent on another grade separation it should be for the South part of the City. This is the only fair alternative. 2. There is limited land for any grade separated crossing at Churchill. The community impacts with taking of land/houses and construction of any grade separated crossing, either above or below as described in the staff report, would destroy the quality of life in the community, including that around Paly. More land is available in the possible crossing areas in the South part of the City and the benefits to improved circulation in that part of the City seem to off set the impacts far more than would be the case for the north part of town. 3. The time frame needed for completion of Cal Trains electrification and having more trains in service to serve and mitigate (i.e., get people out of cars) growth along the corridor means that any realistic options must minimize construction cost and time. Thus, it is not practical to think we can achieve (or study) a large number new grade separated crossings, or for that matter, tunnels, trenches, etc. and have them actually constructed within the required time frame. 4. The City has indicated its preferred policy for traffic management as getting people out of cars. It appears that the measures that have been taken are increasingly effective in frustrating traffic movement (and drivers) in Palo Alto. Closing Churchill would be consistent with this policy and certainly be consistent with forcing drivers to consider other ways to get in, around and through the City. Again, we request that the only option for Churchill that should be considered or studied is the closure option. Studying the others would be a waste of time and money and, overall, impractical. Thank you for consideration of our comments and service to Palo Alto. Best regards, Tom and Linda Vlasic Mariposa Avenue From:Donna Chee To:Council, City Subject:rent control policy issues Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:59:08 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from donna.chee@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto City Council, I am oppose to new extreme rent control policies. Increased relocation payments, rent and eviction control are not needed. City needs to focus on providing more homes, not costly regulations. Landlords who are middle classed are under siege by tenants. I am a part owner (1/5) of an apartmentcomplex in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Donna Chee RE: 346 College Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 There is a Palo Alto City Council Meeting on November 8th, 2021, Monday evening, and oneof the topics is rent control policy. The city council will consider: Possible rent and eviction control Increased relocation paymentsLimiting security depositsRental registryRental InspectionsEviction attorneys for tenant If you have time before the 11/8th meeting, please send an email to City.council@cityofpaloalto.org to reject extreme rent control policies. These policies are not needed. Demand the city to focus on providing more homes, not costly regulations. From:Roberta Ahlquist To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Dave Price; HRW Silicon Valley; Joe Simitian Subject:Renter Proections Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:49:30 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Palo Alto Council: The local Low-income & Homeless Committee of the Women's International League forPeace & Freedom (WLPF) supports the PA Renter's Assn list of protections for nearly 1/2 the population of Plato Alto, who are tenants!. In addition, WILPF seeks support fpr thefollowing: RENT CONTROL/STABILIZATION --as rents continue to go up in Palo Alto. Cities all sound have mandated control over how much owners can increase rents NO OFFICE DEVELOPMENT until the city meets the state requirements for Low-incomehousing for its workers--We have a glut of office space whale city workers cannot fiend affordable housing in the city Also, we oppose destroying housing for pools--NO Swimming Pools to replace any kind ofhousing! You all-- members of our city council-- are responsible for regulating construction for the benefit of all-- renters are as important as landlords-- maybe more important. Would each of you please respond to this and explain what you as a council member have done and will do to rectify the very difficult plight of renter residents of Palo Alto? If you are not going to support rent control and encourage low-income residential development, what do you propose to do about the long standing, difficult-for- everyone lack of affordable housing for Palo Alto's support system? Roberta Ahlquist & Chuck Jagoda for the WILPF Low-Income & Homeless Committee From:Dan Pan To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:24:45 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from dan_pan@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. I’m extremely concerned about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. The costs for building materials, construction worker chargers, utilities, and insurance have skyrocketed. However the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Alto residents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Dan Pan From:Ling Zhuang To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 4:49:18 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from lzhuang@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a small housing provider. I’m extremely concerned about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Despite many difficulties, the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Alto residents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. From:ping wang To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 1:24:15 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from pwang0103@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. I’m extremely concerned about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. The costs for building materials, construction worker chargers, utilities, and insurance have skyrocketed. However the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Alto residents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. Ping Wang 3087 south court Palo Alto, ca 94306 Sent from my iPhone From:meinayoung1 To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 1:17:43 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from meinayoung1@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. Please say "NO" to the proposed Renter ProtectionPolicy recommendations. As econmists concur, rental restrictions are bringing down the housing supply, both existing and future, throughout CA. Who would want risk such great amount of capital, often their lifesavings, on something they have no control over? The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. The costs for building materials, constructionworker chargers, utilities, and insurance have skyrocketed. However, the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling immensely. The recommendations will add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Altoresidents: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the reviewgiven to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city;and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. Meina Young Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S8, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone From:Li To:Council, City Subject:I Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 10:27:55 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rziyo@yahoo.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up withexpenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees.While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. Theproposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics ofPalo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Altorenter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of thecity’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time.I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful orsolicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and thePartnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposalsthat have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach toPalo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by thesepolicies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearinga balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city;The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners;The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to payrent and would cost millions annually to administer;The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given toprospective tenants;The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk;The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go tothe tenant to clear back rent;The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; andProactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcementdepartment. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what definedproblem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters makeover $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help thosefamilies most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, Li Wang From:Aram James To:Sajid Khan; Jay Boyarsky; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Planning Commission; Council,City; wintergery@earthlink.net; Roberta Ahlquist; Raj; chuck jagoda; Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Enberg,Nicholas; Jonsen, Robert; Reifschneider, James; Joe Simitian; Tony Dixon; Rebecca Eisenberg; Greer Stone;cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Ex-prosecutor indicted for misconduct in Ahmaud Arbery death | Fox News. ( Fox News September 3, 2021) Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 10:15:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: Fox News Archive https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-prosecutor-misconduct-ahmaud-arbery Sent from my iPhone From:Billy Nzalampangi To:Council, City Subject:Happy and merry anniversary to the distinguished Madam Laurene Powell Jobs Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 9:53:57 PM Attachments:DESIDERATA pour agrément de Writers Circle RDC auprès de PEN International.pdf Projet Writers Circle RDC.pdf EXPOSE ZOOM CONFERENCE AU 86ème congrès de PEN International 2020.pdf Statuts de Writers Circle RDC.pdf Le « isme » de l’écrivain pour l’Ecrivain en prison.pdf Pourquoi pas l’exode pour les écrivains… en prison.pdf Quoi de plus naturel la poésie et la forêt... pour le 21 mars !.pdf Poésie, poétiquement poétique !.pdf Au plaisir des dix mots 2020-2021 avec B.I.N, le PENiste.pdf Nous, poètes, enfants d"Apollon !.pdf Pour l"honneur de la Femme africaine....pdf Oui, les jeunes peuvent changer le monde.pdf Enfant Africain. L"heure est arrivée !.pdf Allocution de Writers Circle RDC au 87ème congrès de PEN International et à l"occasion du centenaire de PEN.pdf Prosème, prose-poème… à Jobs.pdf Prosème, prose-poème… à Goldman.pdf Des acrostiches sur Jean....pdf Des acrostiches sur Jacques.pdf Des acrostiches sur Tim.pdf Prosème, prose-poème… à Cook.pdf Des acrostiches sur Steve...pdf Des acrostiches sur Laurene.pdf Livret à cinq pages... Steve Jobs, Brillant enfant de San Francisco, distingué homme surdoué de Palo Alto.pdf IN-DIX-HUIT. L"inédit d"une communication militaire en 2018, extrait de l"Essai-nouvelle.pdf Soutien du Collectif des Congolais Demandeurs d’Immigration aux États-Unis d’Amérique dans la lutte contre le Covid-19.pdf Liste des ONGs (rd)congolaises enregistrées en 2020 à l"environnement et developpement durable.pdf [Some people who received this message don't often get email from billynzalampangi@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ This message is sent honorably and respectfully, by your warmestintervention, to the attention of: Distinguished Madam Laurene Powell JobsFounder and President of Emerson Collectives/c. Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 USA or Distinguished Madam Laurene Powell JobsFounder and President of Emerson CollectiveCo-Founder and Chair of the Board of Directors of College Tracks/c. Emerson Collectiv555 Bryant St., Suite 259Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA Madame President, Distinguished Madam Laurene, Madame President, Distinguished Ms. Laurene, History is rarely as alive as it was in those days: November 6 marks your 58th birthday or your 58th birthday (prosaically, your "fiftieth+ eight" or your "sixty - two", ie November 6, 1963 - November 6,2023) , in conjunction with several events, notably "the InternationalDay for the Prevention of the Exploitation of the Environment in Timeof War and Armed Conflict". Everything proves it, because I take theliberty of praying to the Lord God for you today - your birthday untilNovember 6, 2023 (on the occasion of your 60th birthday), and I offeryou, for the occasion, as gifts : acrostics on "Laurene" (read and seeattached documents) and a prosem, prose and poem, to "Jobs" in homageto the late Sir Steve Jobs " (on his 66th birthday and the 10 yearssince his disappearance). Allow me to fulfill a pleasant duty, that of wishing you "HappyBirthday", and to present to you [better late than never] ourbrilliant congratulations on your actions and charitable (orcharitable) activities, to which we add our wishes for peace, goodhealth and longevity. On this Day of your birthday under the pleasant auspices of the“International Year of Peace and Confidence” (according to the UN) and“International Year of the Creative Economy for SustainableDevelopment” (according to UNESCO) - 2021, I take this opportunity toask for your support in our few projects and your "Emerson Collective"and "College Track" organizations as sponsor-partners. There areseveral reasons for this, I hold you in very high regard. I take the honor of introducing myself: I am Billy Nzalampangi Ngituka(born November 26, 1981), Christian (evangelist), PENist(Poet-Essayist-Nouvellist), Initiator of the Collective of CongoleseImmigration Applicants to the USA (" Co.Co.DI "in acronym), co-founder/ secretary general of Writers circle RDC (structure launched on 2020)and holder of a Diploma (Bac + 5, Congolese master's level) inInformation and Communication Sciences (option / orientationCommunication of Organizations, first promotion) of the University ofKinshasa for the academic year 2007-2008, followed by a registrationwith access to several seminars of DEA in communication and a longprofessional career (moreover ten years) as a volunteer assistantresearcher and associate at the Medi@ction Center, a laboratoryspecializing in research and training in media education in aparticipatory and strategic communication perspective), attached tothe Catholic University of the Congo and at the University ofKinshasa. Writers Circle DRC brings together researchers and writers with the aim of promoting freedom of expression and the promotion of literature. With my two friends, Messrs Dieudonné-Modeste KITUKU and Joseph MULUBA, PENistes, we were motivated and determined to join ourcolleagues and / or international peers to obtain approval to worklegally in our country, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).Any Congolese researcher or writer subscribing to the purposes andobjectives set out in the PEN International Charter [in the Congolesecontext] can be admitted as a member of Writers Circle DRC, regardlessof their age, province of origin and religion. Your support isprecious to us. It is by this consistency that I would like to inform you that March18, a very important date, which brings us together: Your marriage wascelebrated on March 18, 1991, and March 18, 2009 was the day of mydefense of License memory (Bac + 5). Beyond this communication, I ask for your abnegation to kindly provideyour assistance in the following activities: (1) for my registration (in progress) in the Master's program inResearch-type Communication (first university choice or inResearch-type environment (second university choice) at the Universityof Sherbrooke (in Canada). My registration is registered under thenumber student number: 21222428. On this, the payment of $ 92.00 inCanadian currency as a requirement for the opening and processing feesof my file is mandatory. Failure to provide this payment, my file willnot be evaluated. inviting to contact the registrar's office (2ndcycle admissions service) of the University of Sherbrooke (before theend of this month of November) during the winter term to do mymaster's / master's degree in the perspective of a doctoral thesis,while following all the possible steps. My wish is to bring togetherthe two universities, the University of Sherbrooke and that ofKinshasa, founded in 1954, through days of reflection and action in2044 at the occasion of their 70th anniversary. (2) Our Evangelist Center Church "La Trinité(http://www.ce-latrinite.com)" celebrates its 30th anniversary, from November 30 to December 5, 2021. I suggest to Laura and ChrisChristensen (co-founders of the Exo Eclats group) to benefit from ashort stay to animate and celebrate December 3, 4 and 5. They canarrive in Kinshasa (DRC) between December 1 and 2, and their return isscheduled for the evening of Monday, December 6. There is something tocelebrate together. To make their stay compatible with the variousprocedures, subsidies are needed to cover their accommodation,accommodation, the purchase of round-trip plane tickets(Paris-Kinshasa-Paris) and other subsidiary costs. Due to the politico-socio-economic situation in our country (DRC) andlack of financial means, I am experiencing a lot of difficulties inmaking the aforementioned projects feasible. I would be very gratefulif you could send us, if possible... a subsidy (or a sum depending onyour share) via the Embassy of the United States of America (in theDRC) or through Western Union in order to overcome us and settle thecosts and debts that overwhelm us. Thank you for being able to bring the voice and gesture of a very generous woman to the world. Indeed, you bring your support to those who call on you. In the unprecedented period we are currently living through, I offer you my deepest support. If our daily life is upset, our families, our loved ones are sometimes affected, solidarity must take on its fullmeaning. May the rest of 2021 and the future be all you want, yourfamily, and your loved ones. In celebration with you, a happy and happy birthday Billy Nzalampangi NgitukaSecretary General of "Writers Circle RDC"Research and Development Manager of "CASED Foundation"Board member of "Collective of Congolese Immigration Applicants to the USA"Kinshasa / DRCPhone. + 243 812 633 255 or + 243 851 150 896 + 243 898 511 315 (My partner's number - Laurette Muabi Mbioka) + 243 992 866 287 (My mother's number - Madame Clémentine NzuziSona Yala) Current residential address: Villa / Civil House 5, General Bumba CampSalongo / LembaKinshasa / DRC Former residential address: 359 AJ, Avenue LéopardsSalongo / LembaKinshasa / DRC ---------- French's message ---------- Ce message est envoyé honorablement et respectueusement, par votrechaleureuse entremise, à l'attention de : Distinguée madame Laurene Powell JobsFondatrice et présidente d'Emerson CollectivePrésidente du conseil d'administration de College Tracks/c. Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 USA ou Distinguée madame Laurene Powell JobsFondatrice et présidente d'Emerson CollectivePrésidente du conseil d'administration de College Tracks/c. Emerson Collectiv555 Bryant St., Suite 259Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA Madame la Présidente,Distinguée madame Laurene, L'histoire est rarement aussi vivante qu’en ces jours : le 6 novembremarque vos 58 ans ou votre 58ème anniversaire (prosaïquement, votre "cinquantenaire + huit " ou votre "soixantenaire - deux ", soit 6novembre 1963 – 6 novembre 2023), en concomitance avec plusieursévénements, notamment " la Journée internationale pour la préventionde l'exploitation de l'environnement en temps de guerre et de conflitarmé". Tout le prouve, car je prends la liberté de prier l’ÉternelDieu pour vous aujourd'hui - jour de votre anniversaire jusqu'au 6novembre 2023 (à l'occasion de votre 60ème anniversaire), et je vousoffre, pour l'occasion, comme cadeaux : des acrostiches sur "Laurene " (lire et voir les documents ci-joints) et un prosème, proseet poème, à " Jobs " en hommage au feu Sir Steve Jobs" (à l'occasionde ses 66 ans et les 10 ans de sa disparition). Permets-moi de m'acquitter d'un agréable devoir, celui de voussouhaiter « Bon anniversaire », et vous présenter [mieux vaut tard quejamais] nos brillantes félicitations pour vos actions et activitéscaritatives (ou charitables), auxquelles nous ajoutons nos souhaits depaix, de bonne santé et de longévité. En ce Jour de votre anniversaire sous les agréables auspices de l'«Année internationale de la Paix et de la Confiance » (selon l'ONU) et« Année internationale de l’économie créative au service dudéveloppement durable » (selon l'Unesco) - 2021, je saisis cetteoccasion de solliciter votre accompagnement dans nos quelques projetset vos organisations "Emerson Collective" et " College Track" commesponsors-partenaires. Plusieurs raisons à cela, je vous tiens en trèshaute estime. Je mesure sur l'honneur de me présenter : je suis Billy NzalampangiNgituka (né le 26 novembre 1981), chrétien (évangéliste), PENiste(Poète-Essayiste-Nouvelliste), Initiateur du Collectif des CongolaisDemandeurs d’Immigration aux USA ("Co.Co.DI" en sigle), cofondateur /secrétaire général de Writers circle RDC ( structure lancée en 2020)et détenteur d’un Diplôme (Bac+5, niveau congolais de master) enSciences de l’Information et de la Communication (option/orientation Communication des Organisations, première promotion) de l’Université de Kinshasa pour l’année académique 2007-2008, suivi d’une inscription avec accès à plusieurs séminaires de DEA en communication et d’unelongue carrière professionnelle (de plus de dix ans) commeAssistant-chercheur bénévole et associé au Centre Medi@action,laboratoire spécialisé dans la recherche et la formation en éducationaux médias dans une perspective de communication participative etstratégique), rattaché à l'Université catholique du Congo et àl'Université de Kinshasa. Writers Circle RDC rassemble les chercheurs et écrivains dans le butde promouvoir la liberté d'expression et la promotion de lalittérature. Avec mes deux amis, Messieurs Dieudonné-Modeste KITUKU etJoseph MULUBA, PENistes, nous nous sommes motivés et déterminés derejoindre nos collègues et/ou pairs de l’international pour obteniragrément afin d’œuvrer légalement dans notre pays, la RépubliqueDémocratique du Congo (RDC). Peut être admis comme membre de WritersCircle RDC, tout chercheur ou écrivain congolais souscrivant aux finset objectifs énoncés dans la Charte du PEN International [dans lecontexte congolais], quels que soient son âge, sa province d’origineet sa religion. Votre soutien nous est précieux. C'est par cette constance que je tiens à vous informer que le 18 mars,une date très importante, qui nous rassemble : Votre mariage étaitcélébré le 18 mars 1991, et le 18 mars 2009 était le jour de madéfense de mémoire de Licence (Bac + 5). Au-delà de cette communication, je vous sollicite votre abnégation debien vouloir apporter votre assistance dans les activités suivantes : (1) pour mon inscription (en cours) au programme de maîtrise enCommunication type recherche (premier choix universitaire ou enEnvironnement type recherche (deuxième choix universitaire) àl'Université de Sherbrooke (au Canada). Mon inscription estenregistrée sous le numéro matricule étudiant : 21222428. Sur ce, lepaiement des 92.00 $ en devises canadiennes comme exigence pour lesfrais d'ouverture et de traitement de mon dossier est obligatoire. Àdéfaut de fournir ce paiement, mon dossier ne sera pas évalué. Tout envous invitant de contacter le bureau de la registraire (serviced'admissions de 2ème cycle ) de l'Université de Sherbrooke (avant lafin de ce mois de novembre) au trimestre d’hiver pour faire mamaîtrise / master dans la perspective d’une thèse de doctorat, tout ensuivant toutes les étapes possibles. Mon souhait est de rapprocher lesdeux universités, Université de Sherbrooke et celle de Kinshasa,fondées en 1954, par des journées de réflexion et d'action en 2024 àl'occasion de leur 70ème anniversaire. (2) Notre église Centre évangéliste "La Trinité(http://www.ce-latrinite.com)" fête ses 30 ans, du 30 novembre au 5 décembre 2021. Je suggère à Laura et Chris Christensen (cofondateursdu groupe Exo Eclats) de bénéficier d'un court séjour pour animer etcélébrer les 3, 4 et 5 décembre. Ils peuvent arriver à Kinshasa (enRDC) entre le 1 et le 2 décembre, et leur retour est prévu à la soiréedu lundi 6 décembre. Il y a de quoi célébrer ensemble. Pour rendreleur séjour compatible aux différentes démarches, il faut de subsides couvrant leur logement, hébergement, l'achat des billets d'avion Aller-Retour (Paris-Kinshasa-Paris) et d'autres frais subsidiaires. Suite à la situation politico-socio-économique dans notre pays (RDC) et faute de moyens financiers, je connait beaucoup de difficultés pour rendre réalisables les projets susmentionnés. Je vous serai trèsreconnaissant de bien vouloir nous envoyer, si possible... un subside(ou une somme selon votre part) via l'ambassade des États-Unisd'Amérique (en RDC) ou par l'entremise de Western Union afin de noussurmonter et solder les frais et dettes qui nous accablent. Je vousremercie pour avoir pu porter, dans le monde, la voix et le gested'une femme très généreuse. En effet, vous apportez votre soutien àceux qui vous font appel. Dans la période sans précédent que nous vivons actuellement, je vousadresse mon plus profond soutien. Si notre quotidien est bouleversé,nos familles, nos proches sont parfois touchés, la solidarité doitselon nous prendre tout son sens. Que le reste de l’année 2021 etl’avenir vous apportent tout ce que vous voulez, à vous, à votrefamille et à tous ceux qui vous sont chers. En célébration avec vous, un heureux et joyeux anniversaire Billy Nzalampangi NgitukaSecrétaire général de "Writers Circle RDC"Responsable Recherche et Développement de "CASED Foundation"Membre de direction de "Collectif des Congolais Demandeursd’Immigration aux USA"Kinshasa / RDCTél. + 243 812 633 255 ou + 243 851 150 896 + 243 898 511 315 (Numéro de ma compagne - Laurette Muabi Mbioka) + 243 992 866 287 (Numéro de ma mère - Madame Clémentine Nzuzi Sona Yala) Actuelle adresse résidentielle : Villa / Maison civile 5, Camp Général BumbaSalongo / LembaKinshasa / RDC Ancienne adresse résidentielle : 359 AJ, Avenue LéopardsSalongo / LembaKinshasa / RDC From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: Michelle Wu Is Elected Mayor of Boston - The New York Times Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 9:24:06 PM Attachments:Michelle Wu.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2021 Subject: Re: Michelle Wu Is Elected Mayor of BostonFr: Allan Seid https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/us/elections/michelle-wu-boston-mayor.html FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATE: November 6, 2021 CONTACT: info@cacanational.org Chinese American Citizens Alliance Congratulates Boston Mayor-Elect Michelle Wu Boston, MA — “The shot heard round the world" that signaled the American Revolution 246 years ago in what was then the Province of Massachusetts Bay echoed again on Tuesday, November 2, 2021. Michelle Wu (吳弭), daughter of Taiwanese immigrants, becomes the first woman, first person of color and first Asian American elected as the 56th mayor of Boston, breaking a 199-year streak of white, male elected city leaders. The Chinese American Citizens Alliance (C.A.C.A.) congratulates Ms. Wu on her win in the Boston Mayoral Election and celebrates this historic milestone for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) in civic leadership. Wu was born on the South Side of Chicago, Illinois and graduated from Barrington High School in 2003, where she was valedictorian and was selected as a U.S. Presidential Scholar from Illinois. Wu graduated from Harvard University with a BA in Economics in 2007 and Harvard Law School in 2012. Wu has been a member of the Boston City Council since January 2014, having been first elected as a Councilor-at-Large in November 2013 and re-elected three times. Wu was the first Asian American woman to serve ws Release on the council. She served as council president from January 2016 to January 2018, the first woman of color and first Asian American to hold the role. Wu is one of the 50 original members of the re-chartered C.A.C.A. Boston Lodge on December 13, 2014. The Boston Lodge was founded on April 3, 1927, but dissolved after World War II. Wu was the recipient of the U.S. Senator George Frisbie Hoar Award by C.A.C.A. Boston Lodge in 2016. Boston served as the host city to the C.A.C.A. 55th Biennial National Convention in 2019. "This is truly a historic event all Chinese Americans will celebrate," said C.A.C.A. National President Melanie Chan. With 20 chapters nationwide, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance is the oldest, continuous civil rights and advocacy organization for Americans of Chinese ancestry established in 1895. From:Larry Alton To:Council, City Subject:Oppose extreme controls on rental housing in Palo Alto-Any landlord fees of these recommended policies will result in higher rents Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 9:00:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The costs of these recommended policies will be passed on to renters and further restrict the availability of reasonably priced rentals. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by these policies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with landlords prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: • The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; • The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; • The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; • The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; • The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; • The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; • The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and • Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, Larry Alton From:Angie Evans To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer; Cormack, Alison;Tanaka, Greg Subject:Renter Protections on Agenda - and a copy of the CAA Action Alert Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 7:08:27 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from angiebevans@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Councilmembers, I wanted to share the action alert that the CAA sent to their network. I am sharing it because itis misleading and has probably caused a number of emails to come your way. A few years ago I attended a nearby City Council meeting where the attendees were stoked by a CAA alert.After speaking with the 22 landlord attendees, only 2 remained at the meeting to speak. It's not because I'm some great lobbyist. They left because they realized that the action alert they'dread was misleading. They often get great landlords to speak up who aren't actually against the policies they are fighting. As you know, CAA is an organization that was formed in order toprevent renter protections and as public officials, I hope you will consider your role in advocating for groups who lack power in the community. There is virtually no protection thatthe CAA would sign off on. This is demonstrated by their support of policies like Tenant Relocation Assistance and Redtag Ordinances in 2018 and not in 2019 in Redwood City. The CAA also claimed that these protections were too difficult among the hardships faced bylandlords during the pandemic, but again the data doesn't support that claim. JP Morgan did a study of how landlords are doing and it appears that they are OKAY. Here's a link to thedata. Many renters however were able to pay their rents without rental assistance at a cost to their credit. They've borrowed from friends, family, banks, maxxed out their credit cards, etc.Housing stability - and homeownership - is much further away for many of us who are longtime renters. History will view us by how we've treated the least among us. I hope you can demonstrateyour leadership on this issue and expand protections for the 46% of Palo Altans who rent. We need an urgency ordinance expanding Tenant Relocation to cover all types of evictions andhousing types, a fully implement a rent registry with every housing and landlord type included, a COPA policy drafted with Housing Element related milestones (ie. identifyingpotential buildings and funding streams), and I hope you can consider an urgency ordinance to close the 1482 loopholes. I would also ask that you avoid means testing any of these programs.It's easy to fall into a trap of only covering the most financially vulnerable in programs like this. It ends up being more difficult and expensive to implement though. Ask any City staffhow hard it is to ensure that low-income tenants know their rights under AB330. It's a great policy that is difficult to implement because of means testing. When we cover everyone thereare clear rules for landlords, tenants, and developers. Thanks for your commitment to this issue. I am happy to talk on the phone and clarify any of the points I've made, if that's helpful. My number is 314-556-5330. Best, Angie ---------------CAA Action Alert------------------ Subject: Palo Alto to consider rent registry, harsher rent control Write to council today, speak at Monday's meeting On Monday, Nov. 8, the Palo Alto City Council will discuss a variety of proposals to regulate the rental housing industry. These proposals are unnecessary and would only make it more challenging to provide quality rental housing in Palo Alto. The package of policies would cost the city millions of dollars each year -- costs the city will likely pass on to property owners through new fees. The City Council needs to hear from property owners like you. Tell them not to consider these proposals, particularly when housing providers have not yet recovered from the financial effects of the pandemic. The council also needs to know that city staff failed to reach out to property owners prior to drafting their report, which would have benefited from hearing your perspective. On Monday, staff will urge council to: 1. Create a rental registry 2. Increase relocation fees 3. Expand just cause to more units 4. Lower the rent cap 5. Lower the security deposit cap 6. Limit the use of criminal background checks 7. Provide tenants with the right to legal representation 8. Establish a tenant opportunity to purchase 9. Impose proactive rental inspections Rental housing providers must take this opportunity and voice their opposition now. It’s essential that rental owners convey to the council that these proposals are not necessary for Palo Alto. What you can do It is critical that you take two key actions: 1. Send a letter to the Palo Alto City Council (sample letter and email address below) 2. Participate in the Nov. 8 City Council meeting and voice your opposition. Council meeting information When: 9:30 p.m. (estimated start time), Monday, Nov. 8. Zoom link: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238 Sample letter Subject line: Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Email: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by these policies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: • The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; • The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; • The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; • The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; • The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; • The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; • The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and • Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, © 2020 California Apartment Association All rights reserved. 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1430, Sacramento, CA 95814 https://caanet.org/ | Unsubscribe From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board; CHOpinion@googlegroup.com Subject:Fwd: Chinese academics fear racial witch-hunt caused by “China Initiative” – AsAmNews Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 7:02:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com>Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 2:03 PM Subject: Chinese academics fear racial witch-hunt caused by “China Initiative” – AsAmNews SADLY, ECHOES FROM THE PAST STILL GOING STRONG TODAY ! Allan https://asamnews.com/2021/11/05/chinese-academics-fear-racial-witch-hunt-caused-by-china-initiative/ Chinese academics fear racial witch-hunt caused by “China Initiative” November 5, 2021 Photo by Diane Serik via Unsplash.comm | https://unsplash.com/photos/YNZW7KW0uqs A new report reveals ongoing feelings of persecution among Chinese scientists despite widespread acknowledgement of Chinese academics’ contributions to research in the U.S. The study aimed to highlight the impact of the China Initiative, a 2018 U.S. Department of Justice program passed under the Trump administration. It was conducted in collaboration between the non- profit Committee of 100 and the University of Arizona. “Overall, scientists of Chinese descent and non-Chinese descent both recognize the value of scientists of Chinese descent and support collaboration with China,” Committee of 100 reports, “96.8% of scientists of Chinese descent and 93.6% of scientists of non-Chinese descent believe that scientists of Chinese descent make important contributions to research and teaching programs in the U.S.” Yet, the China Initiative’s goals of protecting national security by identifying trade and economic espionage leaves scientists of Chinese descent in fear, according to Dr. Jenny J. Lee in an NPR piece. Lee is a professor at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona. “They are concerned that any connection with China – this may mean collaborating on a research project, visiting China, applying for a grant or working and collecting data, analyzing data – any extent of that would open themselves up for potential investigation by the FBI,” Lee said, according to NPR. The survey, which was sent to scientists, including professors, postdoctoral fellows and graduate students, at 83 highly ranked universities in the U.S., found that 42.2 percent of Chinese scientists feel racially profiled by the U.S. government, compared to 8.6 percent of non-Chinese scientists. The study also found that more than a third of Chinese scientists face hurdles in obtaining federal funding as opposed to 14.2% of non- Chinese scientists. “This is actually undermining the U.S.’s ability to be globally competitive,” Lee told Inside Higher Ed. The Department of Justice has brought 16 cases of economic espionage or trade theft and 12 of grant fraud related to China in the last three years, NPR reports. Only 8 cases so far have resulted in convictions or pleas. Anming Hu, a Tennessee professor accused of grant fraud, was eventually acquitted. “There is this fear in the community that economic espionage, that this national security threat, is just being used as a pretext,” Gisela Kusakawa, an Asian Americans Advancing Justice attorney, said. AsAmNews has Asian America in its heart. We’re an all-volunteer effort of dedicated staff and interns. Check out our new Instagram account. Go to our Twitter feed and Facebook page for more content. Please consider interning, joining our staff, or submitting a story, or making a contribution. From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:support for increased renter protections Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 5:00:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I support items 1-8 in the staff memo regarding renter protections. I believe #8 is worthy of exploration though financing may be difficult. Stephen Levy From:George Thomas To:Council, City Subject:November 8th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #12Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 4:36:24 PMAttachments:Screen Shot 2021-11-05 at 4.01.54 PM.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from vbthomas@pacbell.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. November 6, 2021 Dear Council Members, We have been long-term residents of an RM-40 zoned community (i.e., Palo Alto Central) for over 35 years. The purchase of a condo at that timewas the only affordable choice for us if we wanted to live in Palo Alto (which we did). The appeal of RM-40 affordability has not changed over theyears and it is clearly the type of denser housing needed to address the current housing shortage. However, your staff continues to push through objective design standards that clearly discriminate against the RM-40 zone in terms ofrequirements, such as height, daylight, privacy, etc. Even though RM-40 has historically been left out of equal zoning rights, we expected theprocess to update the design standards would be a "golden opportunity" to bring those standards in compliance with your Equity Mission Statement.And, elimination of second class standards for RM-40 zoned communities would increase their appeal as a great place to live affordably in PaloAlto. If the Council is sincere about promoting affordable housing and eliminating inequities, then it should send these standards back to staff forrevisions requesting equity across all zoning types. Regards,George & Vivian Thomas161 California Ave Apt K204Palo Alto CA 94306 Equity Mission Statement: The City of Palo Alto is committed to creating a respectful, fair, and professional workplace and city. We will identify prejudices, eliminate inequities, welcome many perspectives, and use a collaborative approach to create an environment that works for everyone. The City's commitment to achieve equity in Palo Alto is the shared responsibility of our residents, organizations, governments, and other institutions. From:Ken Joye To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject:maintenance of pedestrian/bicycle bridges Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 3:42:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, City Council, City Manager Shikada, and City Attorney Stump, The Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) asks you to urgentlymake plans to resurface the aging, rough wooden Bol Park and Wilkie pedestrian/bicycle bridges. The wooden decks are so uneven and rough that they are painfully uncomfortable toride on and create risk that bicyclists might lose control, fall, and be injured. In addition, these bridges become very slippery when they are wet from dew or rain, making them even morehazardous and forcing some bicyclists to dismount and walk. One of the Bol Park bridges has recently been inspected by a Public Works official who found a wooden beam on the surfaceto be cracked, presenting a structural problem and potential liability that should be investigated. The worn, unsafe bridge surfaces are essential and integral parts of our off-road ped/bikeinfrastructure and are heavily used for regional and local commutes, including school bike commutes. In 2020, Wilkie Bridge carried on average 615 trips/day (see attached report). Wesuggest Council Members experience the surfaces for yourselves by bicycling or pushing a wheeled device such as a stroller. Please consider what the city response would be if aroadway surface were equally rough. The rough bridge surfaces are a current safety problem caused by long-term inattention to basic maintenance. Now it appears there may be new low-cost resurfacing solutions, soperhaps it could be affordably done in the short-term. Please direct Public Works staff to coordinate with PABAC on identifying solutions to these problems. Bridge surface maintenance already is mandated by the current Bicycle & PedestrianTransportation Plan and Comp Plan Policy T-1.20 “Regularly maintain off-roadway bicycle and pedestrian paths, including sweeping, weedabatement and surface maintenance.” It simply has been deferred for too many years, creating a safety problem that now requires urgent attention. We believe this need warrants use of Public Works emergency repair/maintenance funds.Public Works has resources to repair potholes in roadways when they appear and are reported, and it has the charter to maintain roadway surfaces. It has the responsibility to do the same foressential bicycle infrastructure. Currently, there are signs on the Wilkie Way bridge warning bicyclists to walk their bikes when the path is wet. It is embarrassing for Palo Alto, with ourGold-level Bicycle Friendly certification and our commitment to bicycling, to have a critical part of our bicycle network with signs saying that it is dangerous for bicyclists. We ask you toprioritize this essential bridge maintenance in the near term. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Ken Joye2021 Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee Chair See links to photos, maps and bike count report for your additional information: 1. PowerPoint https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xl0ONpMvuRODv4XR7xRWXv1cW8vbiptE/view?usp=sharing with: Bike route maps showing locations of the bridges in context of the existing and planned citywide bike/ped routes network, providing regional foot-powered connectivity and off-road school commutes. Photos of bridge conditions. 2. Wilkie Bridge trips count report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8bi-QDuee-6BKAB6DXuWmqvQ6OyefxH/view?usp=sharing • • From:Matthieu Bonnard To:Council, City Subject:Boot strapping enforcement of gas-powered leaf blowers Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 3:26:56 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from mpbnyc@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council I recently read in the Daily Post that the City Council directed City manager to look into hiring another code enforcement officer, especially for ban of gas-powered leaf blowers. Without understanding the admin rules of such enforcement, it seems quite ridiculous to use limited tax resources to hire an officer for that. In a Silicon Valley bootstrapping way, I would do as follows: 1. Task existing PA enforcement officers with enforcing the gas-powered leaf blower ban on a best-effort basis. In other words, as enforcement officers patrol the city, they could enforce the ban whenever they see an offense 2. Do not fine the gardeners (they are just agents of the owners), but instead fine the owner of the house they take care of 3. Fine could be either a $ amount or proof that owner has purchased an electric blower for the gardener 4. All leaf blowing on weekends should be banned too. They truly are a nuisance. Thank you, Matthieu Bonnard From:Leannah Hunt To:Council, City Subject:Mon. Nov. 8th Agenda- Rental Properties Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 2:33:38 PM Attachments:PA city council-rentals.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from lhunt@sereno.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see email below Leannah Hunt SRES,CIPS,GRI, RPAC Hall of Fame REALTOR® t.650.400.2718 w.LeannahAndLaurel.com a.350 Cambridge Ave Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94306 DRE 01009791 LEANNAH & LAUREL sere no- November 5, 2021 To-Mayor Dubois and Members of the Palo Alto City Council From- Leannah Hunt, Palo Alto Realtor, Sereno Inc.-Resident of Palo Alto since 1969. Re: Staff Proposals regarding Palo Alto Rental properties I have been a Residential Realtor in Palo Alto for over 32 years currently with Sereno Company. I am writing to you regarding the proposal coming to the Council this coming Monday concerning a variety of issues affecting property owners and their rental properties. The proposals to extend Rent Control and tenant protections will be very costly to enforce and a burden to small “ Mom and Pop” landlords particularly. Current state laws, Covid-19 protections and Palo Alto’s current ordinances already protect tenants. Further restrictions od Property Rights of small property owners will cause them to get out of the rental market and sell to developers and others. The rental market has suffered a great deal during these past couple of years due to the number of individuals working remotely and demand and supply has diminished the rental prices across the board. Do not implement these proposals which will diminish the rental market even further. The Tenant Relocation Assistance Program is not advised at this time since it would further diminish owner’s interest to continue to rent their properties when faced with exorbitant potential costs. Furthermore ,security deposits customarily only vary slightly from monthly rentals costs so as not to be confused as last month’s rental payments. Realtors and their clients also object to omitting background checks of credit scores and criminal records since property owners feel that past history does often predict future actions. It is important to note that vacancy rates have exploded in our town. A group which has over 195 rental units in the California Ave. area reports that past history shows a normal vacancy rate of two percent and currently it is at 22%. Another major organization which has hundreds of rental properties in Palo Alto reportedly has a current vacancy rate of around 60%. These firms are having to now do a great deal more advertising and budgeting for media coverage. They have noted that the number of current vacancies has generated bargaining on the part of tenants who now request 2-3 months “free rent” to secure a lease. Their phones aren’t ringing though they have reduced rents and offered enticements. My understanding is that San Francisco rents are back to 2018 rates. Owners here have already reduced rent to income ratios in order to find tenants. The market affects the prices owners charge for their rentals and market forces adjust according to supply and demand. In view of these staff proposals I did some research on rental history within our MLS. Please note that currently Palo Alto now in November has 41 current rental listings in our Multiple Listing Service. In comparison last year in Nov. there were 33, in Nov. 0f 2019 there were 7, in Nov of 2018 6 and in Nov. 2017 7. Clearly the Pandemic has affected our market dramatically. Realtors are advocates for housing of all types and especially affordable housing but your proposed new measures will be excessive and onerous on the part of landlords and especially the older people who depend upon their rental income to provide for themselves. Please do not vote to implement these proposals which are disastrous to the Palo Alto rental market. From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; Human Relations Commission; JeffMoore; Jonsen, Robert; chuck jagoda; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; Sajid Khan; Jay Boyarsky;Jeff Rosen; Planning Commission; Raj; Greer Stone; Rebecca Eisenberg; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; JoeSimitian; Tony Dixon; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Roberta Ahlquist; Cecilia Taylor Subject:Man burst into flames after Taser used on him, police say | KRON4 Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 2:19:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: A very very disturbing case. And one more reason to Ban Tasers. The Palo Alto City Council should at minimum place the Taser issue on calendar as an action item to review the growing body of evidence that Tasers should never be used on unarmed individuals. The statistics are clear Tasers are used in unarmed individuals 80% -90% of the time. Police training is clear that a gun not a Taser should be used on a suspect who is threatening the police with gun or other deadly weapon and has the actual ability to inflict deadly force on an officer. Aram https://www.kron4.com/news/national/man-burst-into-flames-after-taser-used-on-him-police-say/ Sent from my iPhone From:mark weiss To:Council, City Cc:Tom DuBois; Alison Cormack; ladoris@judgecordell.com; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:Measure D measured Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 12:07:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ This epitomizes Palo Alto recent history: we refuse to tax Tesla but take every opportunity to bash workers. At thisrate we’ll have self-driving cars and self-burning houses and forests.Mark Weiss Sent from my iPhone From:barcoco@laposte.net To:Council, City Subject:Cibox Interactive Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 11:35:01 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from barcoco@laposte.net. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Bonjour à vous du pays de l'Oncle Sam !! Created in 1995, Cibox is a French technology company specialized in consumer electronics products. Over the years, Cibox has acquired a great deal of experience in designing technological products that meet the expectations of consumers and distributors. Today, the offer is based on a wide range of innovative products dedicated to electric micro-mobility (scooters, electric bikes, accessories). In order to promote its innovative solutions dedicated to electric micro-mobility, Cibox builds its activity around : yeep.me: the lifestyle mobility brand for everyday use scooty: the consumer mobility brand for occasional or leisure mobility me SHARE (me² = electric mobility in companies): a rental service dedicated to companies for employees and customers. The company also offers multimedia electronic products for the general public and tailor-made support solutions by carrying out special projects entrusted to it by major brands for their private labels. Cibox's offer is based on three axes: quality, price and user experience. It optimizes this triptych by ensuring control of its value chain by associating with the best global manufacturing partners in Europe and Asia, and by offering exemplary after-sales service. Thanks to the expertise of its teams, Cibox has a solid technological know-how that it applies to all of its business lines and that extends from the conception to the design of products at the intersection of different markets. Thanks to its large network of partners, most of the company's sales are made to specialized and generalist distributors in France and abroad. From http://www.ciboxcorp.com/ and traduce in american english Is it possible to send this French company to the side of GAFAM by investing in Cibox? From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: Asian Americans Win City Council Positions Throughout the Country – AsAmNews Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:32:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hurrah ! Looking up. More AAPIs, women and minorities should run in 2022 at all levels of government.School boards on upward ! Allan https://asamnews.com/2021/11/03/asian-americans-win-city-council-positions- throughout-the-country/ Asian Americans Win City Council Positions Throughout the Country November 3, 2021 ..:-t -< _a ---f ,..m .. c::, ·-~~ ~~ ~.,.,, s ~~ .. .,. <::) Asian Americans are gaining representation in city councils across the country. The 2021 elections proved to be a triumph for many immigrant communities. In addition to the historic wins of Michelle Wu in Boston and Aftab Pureval in Cincinnati, Abdullah Hammoud became the City of Dearborn’s first Arab American and Muslim mayor. During his victory speech on Tuesday night, Hammoud said, “For those of you who were ever made to feel that their names were unwelcome and to our parents and to our elders and to others who are humiliated for their broken English and yet still persist today is proof that you are as American as anyone else.” The NYC council also welcomed 5 new Asian Americans, a record that mirrors the city more accurately, NBC reports. The cohort included two Korean Americans, Julie Won and Linda Lee, as well as a Cambodian American, Sandra Ung. The other councilmembers included the first South American, Shekar Krishnan, and the first Bangladeshi-Muslim American, Shahana Hanif. “We deserve a city that protects its most vulnerable residents, a city that provides fair education, a city that invests in local and community-driven climate solutions, and a city where our immigrant neighbors feel welcome, heard, and protected,” Hanif said in a statement released on Tuesday night. “Even if the election is done, this task demands all of us to keep turning up.” These victories were achieved by young, progressive housing organizers, public advocates, and civil rights lawyers—most of whom are women and children of working-class immigrants. Howard Shih, a research and policy director for the Asian American Federation, told NBC, “This unprecedented level of representation in local politics can have a tremendous impact on the lives of underprivileged Asian New Yorkers.” Another major victory also happened in Duluth, Minnesota. Azrin Awal, a 25-year-old immigrant from Bangladesh, became the first Muslim elected to the city. Awal’s grassroots campaign focused on inclusion, affordable housing, and climate issues. The campaign surpassed its fundraising goal of $20,000 and raised more than $27,000. Awal said her grassroots campaign raised one of the highest amounts in Duluth history. “It’s not just a monumental moment for me but every single person on my team,” Awal told the Sahan Journal. “With sharing our stories and being present in the community—that’s how far we’ve taken the needle. We’ve moved it to allow people to become more open and understanding.” AsAmNews has Asian America in its heart. We’re an all-volunteer effort of dedicated staff and interns. Check out our new Instagram account. Go to our Twitter feed and Facebook page for more content. Please consider interning, joining our staff, or submitting a story, or making a contribution. From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: Michelle Wu Is Elected Mayor of Boston - The New York Times Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:23:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hurrah ! Another important victory for women, minorities and AAPI's. Allan NYT 11/03/21 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/us/elections/michelle-wu-boston- mayor.html Michelle Wu is elected mayor of Boston. Nov. 2, 2021, 10:59 p.m. ETNov. 2, 2021 To the courageous candidates who joined me in this historic race: Councillor Sabi George, who fought hard throughout this entire campaign, thank you for your service. Councillor Andrea Campbell, John Barrows, Representative John Santiago, thank you for elevating so many voices in our neighborhoods. And to the many community leaders, elected officials, labor unions. Climate groups. Democratic ward committees. Every organization who supported us along the way, thank you so much for all that you do for the city and for powering our movement. And to the whole Wu train. To the whole Wu Train, especially this incredible staff, who have put in so much day after day, hour by hour, up until the last second to represent all of our communities, to make sure we were all part of shaping this future. For 414 days, you built an effort from the grass roots up. We built neighborhood teams into small families. We reached into immigrant communities and communities across the city in every language. We moved every generation into this work. Wu Train, you canvassed, you texted, you called, you knocked on doors. And you showed, yet again, in Boston that anything is possible when we do it together. Thank you for placing your trust in me to serve as the next Mayor of Boston. From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; fred beyerlein;bballpod; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; davidpomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net;grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; IrvWeissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; LeodiesBuchanan; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino;russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com;vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Most of $66 billion rail $ in Infra-struc bill goes to NE States due to Schumer. Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 3:38:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 3:21 AM Subject: Fwd: Most of $66 billion rail $ in Infra-struc bill goes to NE States due to Schumer.To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 3:14 AMSubject: Most of $66 billion rail $ in Infra-struc bill goes to NE States due to Schumer. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Friday, Nov. 5, 2021 late. To all- Good article re "Any $ in the big infra. bill passed tonight for Calif. HSR?". This article says the lion's share of the $66 billion for rail will go to the NE States dueto blackmail by Schumer. California Scours Infrastructure Bill for Bullet Train Funds (governing.com) Interesting that Newsom could commit big money to Cal HSR from the big surplus Calif. has. He has not done that to date. He should. The American people are on a knife edge as to whether to keep their currentgovernment or not. The lying scoundrels in Washington, D.C, have not picked up on that. "Taxation to support the whole world" could become our rallying cry. $66 billion forpassenger and freight rail on a huge continent like this is an insult to the American people. $2 billion per day to provide a free military defense for all of Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwanand a lot more is where our tax money goes, and it is an outrage. $735 billion per year to defend the whole world, and then a one-time expenditure of $66 billion for rail projects in this huge country, most of it going to the NE States due to Schumer, is just treason. I sense that the American people want to bring forth upon this continent a governmentthat will look out for their interests as the top priority. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; David Balakian; dennisbalakian; huidentalsanmateo; Mayor; MarkStandriff; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Council, City; leager; Cathy Lewis; boardmembers; jerry ruopoli; JoelStiner; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com Subject:Fwd: Infrastucture bill passes House. Nov. 5, 2021. CNBC writes so poorly, can"t tell what Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 11:46:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:35 PM Subject: Infrastucture bill passes House. Nov. 5, 2021. CNBC writes so poorly, can't tell whatTo: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Friday, Nov. 5, 2021 To all- The House passed the $1 trillion infrastructure bill tonight. CNBC writes so poorly onecannot tell how much goes for what. See it here: House passes bipartisan infrastructure bill, sends it to Biden (cnbc.com) What does seem likely is that it includes $110 billion for roads, bridges and o. projects,$66 billion for passenger and freight rail, and $39 billion for public transit. That $66 billion for rail might produce a few billion for Calif. HSR. We need $8billion to connect Merced to Gilroy to San Jose. That is 12% of all the rail money, so we won't get all $8 billion. Jim Costa said around January that we'd get money for HSR this year. TheCalifornia HSR system is by FAR the furthest along in the US, and I think if only for that reason, we will get some substantial money from this bill. Biden calls himself a "rail guy" buthe can't nullify the rail-haters in Congress. I'll bet that $66 billion is what is left after some rail hating Republicans made their input. It doesn't sound like much. The auto lobby, thehighway lobby and the airline lobby all had briefcases of money doing their talking, I am sure. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Paul Taylor To:Council, City Subject:Community Land Trusts, Then and Now | The Sanders Institute Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 10:33:03 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from tessapaul@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hello, I urge you to explore the feasibility of community land trust in order to dramatically increase the amount of extremely low income housing in Palo Alto. The beauty of this model is the housing remains as such in perpetuity. https://www.sandersinstitute.org/blog/community-land-trusts-then-and-now?emci=d50b94b6-823d-ec11-9820- c896653b26c8&emdi=d90b94b6-823d-ec11-9820-c896653b26c8&ceid=5423125 Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. I hope to hear back from each of you regarding your interest in exploring this feasibility of this approach. Paul Taylor 3185 Waverley Retired President/CEO Momentum for Health Palo Alto resident since 1983 From:Aram James To:Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; chuck jagoda; Human Relations Commission; wintergery@earthlink.net;Council, City; Raj; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Planning Commission; Jay Boyarsky; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen,Robert; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Reifschneider, James; Roberta Ahlquist; Greer Stone; RebeccaEisenberg; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Cecilia Taylor; Tony Dixon; alisa mallari tu; VaraRamakrishnan Subject:Racism in jury selection in the Ahmaud Arbery case( you decide) Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 10:02:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: Only one Black juror allowed to remain on the jury in a county were one of four citizens are African American. Is this routine justice in the courts of America? You be the judge. 24 peremptory challenges for the defense only 12 for the prosecution. Is this a stacked deck for the acquittal of 3 white men….who executed Ahmaud Arbery for being black in a predominantly white neighborhood? White Supremacy equals our criminal justice system-from Santa Clara County to courtrooms of Glynn County Georgia. What’s your opinion of justice in American? Speak up! Don’t bite your tongue! Aram https://www.insider.com/why-ahmaud-arbery-case-has-mostly-white-jury-2021-11?amp Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Council, City; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Jeff Moore;Raj; wintergery@earthlink.net; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian;cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; VaraRamakrishnan; Jay Boyarsky; Greer Stone; Rebecca Eisenberg; Reifschneider, James Subject:Rapper T.I. develops 143 unit of affordable housing in Atlanta Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 9:12:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/t-shows-off-143-unit-231928556.html Sent from my iPhone From:Yahoo Mail.®To:HonkySubject:Dan Hanley GO VIRAL POSTS ABOUT 9/11 TRUTH 9/11 REMEMBER NEVER FORGETDate:Friday, November 5, 2021 8:24:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. facebook Dan Hanley tagged you and 70 others in a post: "This morning, the secretary to Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan called me to arrange a meeting in response to the letter below that I had written...to becontinued. Please SHARE! August 16, 2021 House 277 Street 63 Sector E-11/3 Islamabad, Pakistan 44000 The Honorable Imran Khan Pakistan Prime Minister Prime Minister’s Secretariat Red Zone IslamabadCapital Territory, Pakistan 44010 The Honorable Shah Mehmood Qureshi Pakistan Foreign Minister Ministry of Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs Building Constitution Avenue Sector G-5 Islamabad, ICT, Pakistan44051 SUBJ: REMOTE CONTROL OF 9/11 AIRCRAFT Dear Honorable Gentlemen, I am an American citizen married to a Pakistani who currently resides in Sector E-11/3 in Islamabad where I have lived forthe past eleven years and am a 9/11 federal whistleblower who presently serves as director and international public spokesperson for a global grassroots effort called 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers whose websiteis at 911pilots.org and YouTube channel at 911pilots. The purpose of our organization is to show that there were no Muslim hijackers at the controls of the 9/11 aircraft but that the aircraft wereelectronically hijacked through employment of a system called the uninterruptible autopilot that enables a remote source to take complete control of the aircraft autopilot and flight management computerand guide it to its target destination. Once engaged, the pilots cannot disconnect this system. Please have members of your staff closely review the pages of our website for additional information. In August2020, I filed a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) whistleblower report via their hotline regarding the above assertions and, over the course of the past twelve months, have been stonewalled, deceivedand lied to by this US government agency who has claimed to have conducted a serious and exhaustive investigation into our allegations. A request for all records of this investigation was made via theFreedom of Information Act, which revealed that no such investigation ever took place. 9/11 was the greatest crime ever committed on American soil in its history, a crime that has never been criminallyinvestigated. The 9/11 Commission did not constitute a criminal investigation. It is appalling to members of our organization, given the wealth of evidence and testimony provided to the FAA, that they wouldtake our allegations so lightly while disregarding critical evidence such as expert witness pilot testimony. We believe that we possess critical actionable intelligence information that may prove most valuableto the Pakistan government to demonstrate that 9/11 was indeed an inside job and we would like to share it with the appropriate Pakistan agencies. It is a shame that we have to petition a foreigngovernment to possibly conduct a criminal investigation into our allegations but the US government has failed to do so. As you both well know, with over 70,000 Pakistani martyrs due to terrorist activity andthe loss of over $150-billion, the country has suffered the greatest loss of life due to its forced participation in the so-called US war on terror the past 20 years based on the lies of 9/11. Pakistanis deserve toknow the truth. Please be advised that I am in close contact with Dr. Mujahid Kamran, PhD, former Vice Chancellor and current professor emeritus at the University of Punjab, who authored the book, “9/11and the New World Order”. I am in complete agreement with all the information promulgated in this book. Request is hereby made that I be afforded the opportunity to brief members of your staff as well asthose of Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) and others regarding the above issues. I am available 24/7 and may be reached at 0300-555-0644 or captaindanhanley@gmail.com. If I do not receive a phone, letteror email response from your offices, I will call your secretaries and try to arrange an appointment to meet with a member of your staff or with each of you personally. Thank you for taking the time to readthis letter. Very respectfully, Captain Dan Hanley (retired) Director – 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers Encl: Letter dated March 17, 2021 to DOT Pete Buttigieg Letter dated June 22, 2021 to DOT Pete ButtigiegLetter dated August 16, 2011 to DOT Pete Buttigieg Cc: Eric J. Soskin – DOT Inspector General Scott Harding – DOT Inspector General Chief Compliance Officer Pete Buttigieg – Secretary of TransportationSteven Dickson – FAA Administrator Jeff Duven – FAA Director Aviation Safety". Dan wrote: "This morning, the secretary to Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan called me to arrange a meeting in response to the letter below that I had written...to be continued. Please SHARE! August 16,2021 House 277 Street 63 Sector E-11/3 Islamabad, Pakistan 44000 The Honorable Imran Khan Pakistan Prime Minister Prime Minister’s Secretariat Red Zone Islamabad Capital Territory, Pakistan 44010 TheHonorable Shah Mehmood Qureshi Pakistan Foreign Minister Ministry of Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs Building Constitution Avenue Sector G-5 Islamabad, ICT, Pakistan 44051 SUBJ: REMOTE CONTROL OF9/11 AIRCRAFT Dear Honorable Gentlemen, I am an American citizen married to a Pakistani who currently resides in Sector E-11/3 in Islamabad where I have lived for the past eleven years and am a 9/11federal whistleblower who presently serves as director and international public spokesperson for a global grassroots effort called 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers whose website is at http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2F911pilots.org%2F&h=AT0L8fbo2sjQ01ltvdv2Tj5K5OpCtUsxlId18OmrZkaErTOUJ0O7o7z2b3l1Ytjxmb_tktn125cBIP8S9ns1TyXM4TUwZ50xhkscKMwScQtH0EwX1GwSmAjDSHkrJp7WKnuZyk-gQaM4cX_dvy2rJ4Zc and YouTube channel at 911pilots. The purpose of our organization is to show that there were no Muslim hijackers at the controls of the 9/11 aircraft but that the aircraft wereelectronically hijacked through employment of a system called the uninterruptible autopilot that enables a remote source to take complete control of the aircraft autopilot and flight management computerand guide it to its target destination. Once engaged, the pilots cannot disconnect this system. Please have members of your staff closely review the pages of our website for additional information. In August2020, I filed a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) whistleblower report via their hotline regarding the above assertions and, over the course of the past twelve months, have been stonewalled, deceivedand lied to by this US government agency who has claimed to have conducted a serious and exhaustive investigation into our allegations. A request for all records of this investigation was made via theFreedom of Information Act, which revealed that no such investigation ever took place. 9/11 was the greatest crime ever committed on American soil in its history, a crime that has never been criminallyinvestigated. The 9/11 Commission did not constitute a criminal investigation. It is appalling to members of our organization, given the wealth of evidence and testimony provided to the FAA, that they wouldtake our allegations so lightly while disregarding critical evidence such as expert witness pilot testimony. We believe that we possess critical actionable intelligence information that may prove most valuableto the Pakistan government to demonstrate that 9/11 was indeed an inside job and we would like to share it with the appropriate Pakistan agencies. It is a shame that we have to petition a foreigngovernment to possibly conduct a criminal investigation into our allegations but the US government has failed to do so. As you both well know, with over 70,000 Pakistani martyrs due to terrorist activity andthe loss of over $150-billion, the country has suffered the greatest loss of life due to its forced participation in the so-called US war on terror the past 20 years based on the lies of 9/11. Pakistanis deserve toknow the truth. Please be advised that I am in close contact with Dr. Mujahid Kamran, PhD, former Vice Chancellor and current professor emeritus at the University of Punjab, who authored the book, “9/11and the New World Order”. I am in complete agreement with all the information promulgated in this book. Request is hereby made that I be afforded the opportunity to brief members of your staff as well asthose of Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) and others regarding the above issues. I am available 24/7 and may be reached at 0300-555-0644 or captaindanhanley@gmail.com. If I do not receive a phone, letteror email response from your offices, I will call your secretaries and try to arrange an appointment to meet with a member of your staff or with each of you personally. Thank you for taking the time to readthis letter. Very respectfully, Captain Dan Hanley (retired) Director – 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers Encl: Letter dated March 17, 2021 to DOT Pete Buttigieg Letter dated June 22, 2021 to DOT Pete ButtigiegLetter dated August 16, 2011 to DOT Pete Buttigieg Cc: Eric J. Soskin – DOT Inspector General Scott Harding – DOT Inspector General Chief Compliance Officer Pete Buttigieg – Secretary of TransportationSteven Dickson – FAA Administrator Jeff Duven – FAA Director Aviation Safety" Learn more about tagging on Facebook. See post This message was sent to honkystar@yahoo.com. If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in thefuture, please unsubscribe.Facebook, Inc., Attention: Community Support, 1 Facebook Way, Menlo Park, CA 94025 From:pol1@rosenblums.us To:Council, City Cc:"Mark Grossman"; "Mel Liu" Subject:Meeting of November 8, 2021, Agenda item 15 Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 7:27:10 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from pol1@rosenblums.us. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Councilmembers: With regard to city investments, I suggest that you add a condition to the investment criteria that no funds should be invested in the state of Texas because its government insists on passing laws which violate people’s rights to vote and to have abortions. There are plenty of other places to invest our money that do not support evil governments. I suggest that you divest the investments that the city already has there. Stephen Rosenblum Santa Rita Ave From:Ernie & Emily To:Council, City Cc:Cindy Katz Subject:Rent registry, rent controls under consideration Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 4:24:37 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from quiettimes1@earthlink.net. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: We have invested in residential property in Palo Alto for some time. We have risked our entire investment, at timeshaving to pour money into the property when we had 20% or more vacancy and nearly losing the property by notbeing able to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintenance. Both myself and my wife have had to work hardduring these times, doing all the refurbishing - painting, plumbing, repairs, clean up - working until late at nightseven days a week. The result of our investing is that we have provided housing for people who cannot afford to buya house and would otherwise have to share housing with family or friends or live in whatever low scale housing theycould find, perhaps in a dangerous, crime infested area. So we, along with other mom and pop investors, haveliterally provided a needed and worthwhile public service. We, as the private sector, have taken risks where publicservice housing has mostly failed. There are numerous examples in cities where the public housing has deterioratedand been abandoned and torn down, some of it of very large proportions, because the managing authorities,representing the public interest, have not been able to deal with what becomes an overwhelming responsibility andan economic disaster. Public housing has been a failure. Private investors are the only ones who can handle rentalhousing. Otherwise, there would be a large amount of rental housing run by elected officials, such as yourselves. So why should we be treated as a public entity, taken over by public officialdom? This is what is happening. We arebeing saddled by laws and regulations that restrict, more and more, our market driven competitive operations as ifwe were public housing under your control. I can think of no other private enterprise sector that has to deal withharsh controls that limit what they can do to compete in what in America is the essence of a thriving market driveneconomy. If you want to control rents, why not also control supermarket prices? We are also the public. We have succeeded against the odds in downturns in the economy by working very hard. Wenow have title to property with a big mortgage on it and expenses that must be paid. Yes, we are rental propertyowners and collect rent, otherwise we would not be providing affordable housing to the public. We do this as achoice. What other persons would be willing to save up, invest, take the risks of buying rental property, then working sevendays a week, all hours, to make their investment worthwhile? Many could do it. But the many do not want to takethe hard steps we have taken to become rental property owners. We should not be singled out in the panoply of hard-working investors in the world of risks in market drivenbusiness and investment entities, particularly small, mom and pop investors. Please consider your actions in the lightof equity for those of us who have gone the distance and those who have not, for which we are providing homes. I submit to you the considerations and comments of my fellow investors in a letter that is more to the point withwhat you are considering at this time. Consider this a part of what I am expressing in this letter. It encompasses mythoughts and adds to what I have said above. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financial assistance isavailable, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. The proposal fails toconsider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does notdemonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housingassistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmedthat the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’srental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and the Partnership for theBay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targetedthe rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers,REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by these policies in advance of these recommendationsgoing to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearing a balancedperspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city;The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom- and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent andwould cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospectivetenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenantto clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city - also, it would be ataking in contravention of the proper and legal use of eminent domain procedures; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem thecity of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 peryear, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need ofhousing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely,Ignacio Mendez From:Josh Davis To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 4:19:42 PM Attachments:PA City Council_Extreme Rent Control.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from josh@daviscorealtors.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, please see my letter attached opposing the extreme controls on housing that are up for debate. Regards,Josh Davis -- Josh DavisPresident Davis & Co. Realtors From:Jeanne Fleming To:Atkinson, Rebecca Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; "Tina Chow"; "Todd Collins"; "William Ross"; Clerk, City; AhSing, Sheldon; Sauls, Garrett Subject:FW: How many cell towers are there in Palo Alto? Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 4:10:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Rebecca, Thank you for the heads up to Tina, Todd, Bill and me regarding the “study session” on November 15th, and for letting us know that you are once more the person at City Hall we should contact first if we need cell tower information. On the latter point, I would appreciate it if you would answer the questions I asked your colleague Garrett Sauls two weeks ago, namely: 1) how many macro towers have been installed or are pending installation in Palo Alto, and 2) how many smallcell node cell towers have been installed or are pending installation here. (My email to Garrett is appended below.) Thanks and best, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, PhDJFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 3:21 PM To: 'Sauls, Garrett' <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org; 'Architectural Review Board' <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Tina Chow' <chow_tina@yahoo.com>; 'Todd Collins' <todd@toddcollins.org>; 'William Ross' <wross@lawross.com>; 'Clerk, City' <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: How many cell towers are there in Palo Alto? Hi Garrett, I would appreciate it if you would tell me: 1) how many macro towers have been installed or are pending installation in Palo Alto, and 2) how many small cell node celltowers have been installed or are pending installation here. Thank you for your help. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, PhDJFleming@Metricus.net650-325-5151 From:Allan Seid To:DENNIS LEE; Channing House Bulletin Board; CHOpinion@goolegroups.com Subject:Fwd: Two states considering mandating teaching of AAPI history – AsAmNews Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 3:30:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. HURRAH ! Bills introduced in Ohio and Florida to teach AAPI history in public schools. Illinois already requires the teaching of Asian American history in public schools and California mandates students to take an ethnic studies course before graduating. From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com>Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:02 PM Subject: Two states considering mandating teaching of AAPI history – AsAmNews https://asamnews.com/2021/11/05/two-states-considering-mandating-teaching-of- aapi-history/ Two states considering mandating teaching of AAPI history November 5, 2021 NY anti-Asian hate rally Photo by Esther Yang Several bills introduced in both Florida and Ohio could lead to the teaching of Asian American and Pacific Islander history in public schools. A bill introduced by Ohio State Senator Tina Maharath, a Laotian American, and Democratic Minority leader, Senator Kenny Yuko, would require the teaching of Asian American history in Ohio and the Midwest for grades Kindergarten through 12. At the same time, two bills introduced by Democrats in Florida would require public schools there to teach about immigration, citizenship, civil rights, identity, culture, and contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. “It is a growing community that has often been ignored and neglected, and we want to change that,” said Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-Orlando) who sponsored one of the two bills. The efforts follow the signing of a bill in Illinois requiring the teaching of Asian American history in public schools and another bill in California mandating students take an ethnic studies course before graduating. Nationwide, a movement has been growing to implement the teaching of the contributions and history of Asian Americans in this country to counter the growing anti-Asian hate that erupted during the pandemic. “Ignorance about who we are has been fatal, as we’ve seen with the rise in anti-Asian hatred and violence during the pandemic,” said Karen Umemoto, director of Asian American Studies at UCLA to AsAmNews. “If we don’t even have a basic understanding of one another, how can we create an inclusive, democratic society where we can all belong and work together?” AsAmNews has Asian America in its heart. We’re an all-volunteer effort of dedicated staff and interns. Check out our new Instagram account. Go to our Twitter feed and Facebook page for more content. Please consider interning, joining our staff, or submitting a story, or making a contribution. From:Harold Davis To:Council, City Subject:Extreme Rent Control_PA City Council.pdf Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 3:28:16 PM Attachments:Extreme Rent Control_PA City Council.pdf [Some people who received this message don't often get email from harold@daviscorealtors.com.Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ See attached Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Moore; chuck jagoda; Planning Commission; Jonsen, Robert;Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Jay Boyarsky; Reifschneider, James;Tony Dixon; Cecilia Taylor Subject:S.F. police sergeant arrested in Rite-Aid robbery Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 3:01:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-police-sergeant-arrested-in-Rite-Aid-robbery-16594357.php Sent from my iPhone From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Aram James Cc:Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Human Relations Commission; Binder, Andrew; Jeff Moore; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Jeff Rosen; Sajid Khan; Raj; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Planning Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Jonsen, Robert; Joe Simitian; Shikada, Ed; Tony Dixon; Cecilia Taylor; Greer Stone; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Re: D.A. Boudin charges S.F. cop with voluntary manslaughter in 2017 shooting of Sean Moore Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 2:11:03 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from paloaltofreepress@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Yeah I've only seen this and I've tweeted about it I sent you a copy of it Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 5, 2021, at 2:07 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:>> FYI:> https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/amp/DA-Boudin-charges-S-F-cop-with-homicide-in-2017-16585937.php> >> Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Human Relations Commission; Binder, Andrew; Jeff Moore; Council, City;Winter Dellenbach; Jeff Rosen; Sajid Khan; Raj; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; Reifschneider, James; Perron,Zachary; Planning Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Jonsen, Robert; Joe Simitian; Shikada, Ed; Tony Dixon;Cecilia Taylor; Greer Stone; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:D.A. Boudin charges S.F. cop with voluntary manslaughter in 2017 shooting of Sean Moore Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 1:07:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/amp/DA-Boudin-charges-S-F-cop-with-homicide-in-2017-16585937.php Sent from my iPhone From:@asrcigarTo:Council, CitySubject:Networking and $25 HookahDate:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:51:09 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email fromnoreply@campaign.eventbrite.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Enjoy the vibe We’re launching a new happy hour and we’d love to see you there. Join us for Access Smoke Room Presents: The Red GODdess Experience November 5 2021 at 6:00 PM. Come join DMVs sexiest happy hour at The Republic Garden. Food, hookah, and drink specials from 6-10pm. Cigars and Hookah available! Follow @asrcigar on IG Email asrcigar@gmail.com to reserve table specials. Register soon because space is limited. We hope you’re able to join us! Friday, November 5, 2021 6:00 PM ASR presents: The Red GODdess Experience: Happy Hour + Networking + Food Register Republic Garden ASR Group, LLC 8402 Georgia Ave , Silver Spring , Md 20910 US Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy From:maricar horton To:Council, City Subject:Protect single family homes Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:38:42 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from maricarhorton@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, As a REALTOR® based in Palo Alto, I can assure you that the proposed expansion of rent control and tenant protections will be costly to enforce and burdensome on small mom-and-pop landlords. Existing state law, ongoing COVID-19 protections, and Palo Alto's current ordinance already protect tenants. Further restricting the property rights of small property owners will only incentivize them to get out of the rental market and sell to large developers. Please think twice before expanding expensive and burdensome regulations that further take away our property rights. Sincerely, Maricar Horton Palo Alto REALTOR® Sent from my iPhone From:susan chamberlain To:DuBois, Tom; Council, City Subject:Please Support the Rent Registry Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:06:49 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from suschamberlain@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council: 350 Silicon Valley Palo Alto Team would like to endorse the Rent Registry. Not only will if offer important renter protections and help get access to more affordable housing, but it will help us meet our carbon reduction goals. Given the large number of renters in our community, it's impossible to meet our electrification goals without clear ways to engage ALL property owners. By fully implementing the rental survey program, the City would enable a system that can incentivize landlords to choose more environmentally sustainable updates at key moments for landlords. Please cover all housing types in the program to ensure that every landlord has access to the program. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Susan Chamberlain 350 Silicon Valley Palo Alto Team From:Jeremy Erman To:board@pausd.org; Council, City; City Mgr; Don Austin Subject:Possible violation of Cubberley lease Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 10:13:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear PAUSD School Board and Palo Alto City Council, I was surprised to read on Palo Alto Online that the school district plans to put portables in the Cubberley Community Center parking lot to house students for two years while rebuildingelementary schools. Which parking lot is the district planning on putting portables on? Under the lease agreement with the City of Palo Alto, parking lots at Cubberley Community Centerare "Common Areas" which all users of Cubberley share. If the school district plans to unilaterally take possession of parts of the parking lots and deny others the right to use them,that would seem to be a violation of the 5-year lease agreement with the City of Palo Alto which states that use of the common areas is "non-exclusive", i.e., no one party can restrictusage of those areas to itself or deny others the right to use them. The only part of the connected property to which this doesn't apply is Greendell School. "The portion of the Property including, but not limited to, parking, walkways, restrooms, andother portions of the Property which are non-exclusive are collectively referred to herein as the “Common Areas”. Tenant shall have the non-exclusive right during the Term to use theCommon Areas along with others having the right to use the Common Areas." https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/id-11460.pdf Regardless of legal questions, it seems clear that both the City of Palo Alto and now PAUSDare intent on using Cubberley Community Center as a punching bag to satisfy their immediate needs while shutting out or ignoring public concerns. This has been our community center fordecades, and neither the City nor the School District seems to care about that when they see a use for Cubberley that satisfies their immediate needs but excludes the larger community thatuses the community center. That is really too bad. Have a nice day. Jeremy Erman From:Tran, JoannaTo:Council, CityCc:Executive Leadership Team; ORG - Clerk"s Office Subject:Council Consent Agenda Questions for November 8: Item 7 Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 10:04:54 AMAttachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage008.pngimage009.pngimage004.png Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff response to questions from Councilmember Tanaka regarding the Monday, November 8 CouncilMeeting consent agenda items: Item 7, Approval of a Funding Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for City of Palo Alto On-Demand Transit Service to Provide $2M in Funding and Requiring $500,000 in City Matching Funds Over Two Years SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the City's Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust the Affordable Housing Commercial Impact Fee (FIRST READING: October 18, 2021 PASSED: 5-2, Cormack, Tanaka no) Councilmember questions and Staff responses are below: Item 7, Approval of a Funding Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for City of Palo Alto On-Demand Transit Service to Provide $2M in Funding and Requiring $500,000 in City Matching Funds Over Two Years 1. How to ensure citizens are made aware of this service and actually use it as opposed to other transportation methods? Answer: The City will apply lessons learned from other agencies and cities on the necessity for robust marketing and outreach. The awarded service provider will be required to conduct a citywide launch campaign before service deployment instead of simultaneously with deployment. This first outreach step emphasizes bringing awareness and comfort to potential riders through education and encouragement. Additional outreach will be performed throughout the project lifespan and will focus on adjusting specific parameters to improve service operations (e.g. operating hours, passenger wait time) based on community feedback. In addition, as an incentive to try the service, the awarded contractor will offer free rides for one month at sign-up. 2. Is there an actual need for an on-demand transportation service right now in the City of Palo Alto? How can we see that? Answer: Stemming from discussions with on-demand transit providers and other cities and agencies in California that are operating on-demand services, the proposed on-demand service area and projected ridership is expected to support 500 daily rides, operating approximately 253 days a year in alignment with the City’s previous two shuttle service schedules, which have been discontinued. The basis of the projected ridership is supported by two ridership estimates: (1) In projecting ridership from those who are traveling mainly within the city, including our vulnerable/transit dependent populations, we used the City’s prior two shuttle services’ combined daily ridership of 418 and 364 in calendar years 2018 and 2019 respectively and, (2) In projecting ridership from commuters, we used Caltrain’s two stops in the city, with combined daily ridership of 9,457 and 9,018 in calendar years 2018 and 2019 respectively (Source Below). Notably, although Caltrain experienced a severe drop in average weekday ridership from 65,000 to approximately 3,200 during the pandemic, the Palo Alto Caltrain station is the highest ridership station in September 2020, with an average weekday ridership of 620 (Source Below). As such, the City is confident that the proposed on-demand service is capable of supporting 500 daily rides. However, as this a grant to pilot a new service model, an evaluation of usage will be necessary in order to determine how successful the program is, and if continuation beyond pilot years is to be considered. Source: Caltrain Ridership Reports Caltrain COVID Recovery Planning Business Plan 3. On-demand service is often used for large cities with a low population density since they have more dispersed commute patterns that do not work well with the set-schedule buses or trains. But considering that Palo Alto is rather populated and has existing local buses, how can we tell that this service is necessary? Answer: Seniors and students spread across the city are the most vulnerable/transit-dependent populations. Before the pandemic, these populations who are without access to a private vehicle, who choose not to drive or cannot drive, relied on public transit including the City’s two shuttle services and Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) bus services. According to the City’s shuttles’ on-board surveys, public transit is essential to performing their daily activities, such as attending school, buying groceries, and visiting family who lives in a different neighborhood in the city. In late 2019, VTA trimmed services in the city. In early 2020, the city suspended the two shuttle services, further withdrawing accessibility and mobility from populations that most need it. A main goal of the proposed on-demand service is to restore and expand mobility options for these vulnerable/transit dependent populations. The table below summarizes the number of people in each vulnerable/transit dependent population. Vulnerable/Transit Dependent Populations Estimates City of Palo Alto Total Population 2014-2018 5-Year Average: 67,017 Description Percentage No. of People Individuals with Disabilities 7%4,697 Individuals with Low-Income 5.9%3,954 Household without a Vehicle 6.8%4,557 Youth (5-18)18.9%12,666 TOTAL 25,875 •~CITY OF ~PALO ALTO Council Consent Agenda Responses It’s also worth noting that on-demand service is being utilized in other cities with populations similar to Palo Alto, including Cupertino and Milpitas. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the City's Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust the Affordable Housing Commercial Impact Fee (FIRST READING: October 18, 2021 PASSED: 5-2, Cormack, Tanaka no) 1. Realistically, will this amendment make a significant impact on the prices on residential housing? Will housing become significantly more affordable? 2. Is the price increase proposed by the amendment enough to halt significant nonresidential housing growth into Palo Alto? 3. In the status quo, what causes the high price of housing in Palo Alto? 4. Is it caused by the large amounts of nonresidential housing? Is it a result of few houses being built, increasing the prices of existing homes with high demand? What is the real cause, and is this amendment the best way to address the issue? 5. Will an increase in fees for nonresidential housing including retail/hotel/other further benefit the effort to achieve affordable housing? If so, wouldn’t an amendment increasing fees for all aspects of nonresidential housing be more beneficial? In response to all the questions above, please note that this item was dropped from the agenda as the second reading is unnecessary. Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Aram James To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; ParkRec Commission; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission;Council, City; Jeff Moore; wintergery@earthlink.net; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist;Greer Stone; Raj; Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Reifschneider, James; Jonsen, Robert; JayBoyarsky; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:NYTimes: Talking About ‘Attica,’ the Newest Documentary on the Prison Uprising Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 9:31:29 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Talking About ‘Attica,’ the Newest Documentary on the Prison Uprising https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/01/movies/attica-documentary-prison-uprising.html? referringSource=articleShare Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission;Council, City; Jeff Moore; wintergery@earthlink.net; chuck jagoda; Jay Boyarsky; Raj; Roberta Ahlquist; Binder,Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Jonsen, Robert; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Rebecca Eisenberg; Enberg, Nicholas;cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Do ex-South Carolina death row staff support death penalty? | The State Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 9:27:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article254201328.html Sent from my iPhone From:Nadr Essabhoy To:Council, City Subject:tenant protections Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 7:57:46 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from nadr.essabhoy@compass.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. As a REALTOR® and landlord based in Palo Alto, I can assure you that the proposed expansion of rent control and tenant protections will be costly to enforce and burdensome on small mom-and-pop landlords. Existing state law, ongoing COVID-19 protections, and Palo Alto's current ordinance already protect tenants. Further restricting the property rights of small property owners will only incentivize them to get out of the rental market and sell to large developers. Please think twice before expanding expensive and burdensome regulations that further take away our property rights. Sincerely, Nadr Essabhoy Palo Alto REALTOR® and Palo Alto Landlord Broker Associate Mobile: 650.248.5898DRE#: 01085354578 University AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 I have not, and will not, verify or investigate the information supplied by third parties NADR ESSABHOY From:Allan Seid To:DENNIS LEE Subject:Fwd: Longtime Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan Hit, Killed By Motorist During Morning Walk – CBS San Francisco Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 7:31:29 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. A GREAT CHAMPION WHO KEPT THE FAITH FIGHTING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE !From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 7:25 AMSubject: Longtime Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan Hit, Killed By Motorist During Morning Walk – CBS San Francisc https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/11/04/wilma-chan-alameda-county- supervisor-hit-killed-by-vehicle/ Longtime Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan Hit, Killed By Motorist During Morning Walk OAKLAND (CBS SF) – Longtime Alameda County supervisor and former Assembly Majority Leader Wilma Chan died after being struck by a motorist during a morning walk in Alameda on Wednesday. According to Chan’s office, the supervisor had been walking her dog earlier in the day when she was struck by the vehicle and suffered a serious head injury. Chan was rushed to Highland Hospital in Oakland, where medical staff were unable to revive her. READ MORE: LA Mom Says She, Daughter Were Racially Profiled on Flight From San Jose to Colorado “During her 30-year-career in public service, Supervisor Chan had been a staunch advocate for children, families and the elderly, affordable housing, and health care for the uninsured,” her office said in a statement. Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan Alameda Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft shared the following statement on Facebook. “On behalf of the Alameda City Council and the City of Alameda, we extend our deepest sympathy to the family, friends, and colleagues of Supervisor Wilma Chan who was tragically killed this morning after being struck by a car as she walked her dog. Supervisor Chan, an Alameda resident, was a longtime dedicated public servant who served the residents of Alameda for more than two decades.” On Wednesday night, friends and colleagues gathered at the spot in Alameda where Chan was fatally struck. “She loved working for the most disenfranchised,” said Tyler Dragoni. Demonica Robinson, an Oakland Unified teacher, said Chan fought to save early childhood learning centers from closing in her neighborhood, and worked closely with the 72 year old. “It hurts my heart, it really does to lose someone so dedicated to helping families and children and school districts,” Robinson told KPIX 5. Carl Chan of the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce has been a friend and colleague of the supervisor for more than three decades. He told KPIX 5 that they were working to help struggling Oakland Chinatown businesses this week. “We need to remember her as a unifier for the county,” he said. “She is a true hero and dedicated public servant, serving all of us.” Chan was the first Asian American to be elected to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, first serving from 1995-2000. She was elected to the California State Assembly in 2000 and became the first woman and first Asian American to be Majority Leader. Chan returned to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in 2011 serving District 3, which covers Alameda, San Leandro, parts of Oakland and the unincorporated communities of San Lorenzo, Hayward Acres and Ashland. She was chair of the board’s Health Committee, ALL IN Steering Committee and the Unincorporated Services Committee. News of Chan’s passing prompted many leaders in the East Bay and in Sacramento to express their condolences. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said “Her decades of service to the community, championing health care, affordable housing and support for families, has touched the lives of many. State Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) said, “This is a true loss for all of the Bay Area. Wilma Chan was an absolute trailblazer and a decades-long champion for those in need.” READ MORE: Dave Chappelle Fans Flock To San Francisco's Chase Center Amid Netflix Controversy “She spent her entire career in public service fighting to better the lives of low-income families, children, and seniors. And she was passionate about expanding health care and protecting Californians, especially families of color, from environmental toxins,” Skinner went on to say. East Bay Assemblymember Buffy Wicks said “Supervisor Chan was such a fierce advocate for her community. She broke so many barriers during her distinguished career as a public servant.” Assemblymember Mia Bonta, whose district also covers part of the East Bay, described Chan as “someone who has stood up for our communities for decades. “Her values, her strength are a model for us all,” Bonta said on Twitter. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft of Alameda, where Chan lived, offered her condolences. “Supervisor Chan was a tireless advocate for seniors, children, and families, promoting programs that advance children’s health, and help lift people out of poverty, and so much more. Her compassion, strong sense of community, and devotion to the people she served will be profoundly missed,” Ashcraft said in a statement. Mayor Jesse Arreguin of Berkeley remembered Chan as a “tireless champion for progressive causes and health equity and access.” Rashi Kesarwani, who also serves on the Berkeley City Council, described Chan as a “trailblazing Asian American elected official.” Nikki Fortunato Bas, the president of the Oakland City Council, tweeted, “She was a champion for working families, affordable housing, quality healthcare; a mentor to AAPI women. She will be missed + her legacy will continue.” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf shared her memories of Chan in a series of tweets. “As an Oakland Unified School Board Director, a state Assembly Member for Oakland and Alameda, and a County Supervisor representing Oakland and our Chinatown, San Antonio, and Fruitvale districts, Wilma fought for a better future for every resident, for every family,” Schaaf said Wednesday night. “I feel honored to have worked with her on so many critical initiatives over the years that included addressing the vast racial health disparities during the pandemic, funding more affordable housing and services for the homeless, and providing more resources for education.” Condolences were also offered among law enforcement. Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley said in a statement, “Supervisor Chan was a north star for so many important issues that served the vulnerable in our community.” Sheriff Greg Ahern said, “She was a strong supporter of our community policing programs to reduce incarceration, poverty, addiction and homelessness. Her leadership and support of these programs will continue to change lives and are part of her lasting legacy of community service.” The Oakland A’s baseball team also offered their condolences. “This is a tremendous and tragic loss for our community,” the team tweeted. Chan is survived by her two children and two grandchildren. Kenny Choi contributed to this report. From:DAVID BENA To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Rental Housing Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 6:52:26 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from davidbena@sbcglobal.net.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I am a Palo Alto resident that provides fair and quality housing for Palo Alto residents. There have been periods of time over the years when it was difficult to manage but nothing like the past 18 months. Units stayed vacant for 6 to 8 months and required a reduction in rent from 5 to10 % to get them rented; which were extended to other units. During that time my mortgage holder allowed a reduction of the payment, the amount to be paid at a laterdate. Also, at the time both my wife and I were working so we were able to make adjustments to be able to keep the property. Wewere not able to figure out how to apply for the financial assistance that was made available, it was justtoo complicated. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on November 8 appears to me to bewritten by people who have very little Idea of the issues landlords face. They will be particularly hard onmom and pop owners. These proposals if passed with make it very difficult on myself and my family and I believe is unnecessary. Noone came to me to ask for my input. The State of California and County already have rent control ordinances. I am not sure what the City ofPalo Alto sees as a problem beyond what is being addressed by the current rent control ordinance. I cansee that some of these new proposals will make it difficult for tenants as well as landlords. I urge you to reject the recommendation before you, Sincerely, David and MaryEllen Bena.4124 Dake Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Siri & Alexa Business Registration To:Council, City Subject:Alexa Can"t Find Your Business Number ((650) 329-2436) Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 1:58:45 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email fromnoreply@ses.voicesearchactivation.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. REGISTER YOUR BUSINESS Click Here to Register Dear Business Owner, The Business Associated with (650)329-2436 is not Currently Registered for Searches on VoiceDevices Like Siri, Alexa, Google Home & Dozens More.Registering is Simple & Easy. Directory Client Voice Data Status 0 amazon alexa Ready, but has inconsistent data Over 50% Of All Local Business Searches Are Done UsingVoice Devices Like Alexa, Siri, Google Home & Dozens ofOthers. Your Business Needs to be Registered & Verified with YourServices and Keywords or You Will Not Show Up In SearchResults. You Can Set This Up Easily By Clicking the Registration LinkBelow. Click Here to Register Siri Not Ready REGISTER YOUR BUSINESS IN-ONE CLICK - 0 Copyright © 2021 APN.Anaheim, CA 92807 Unsubscribe From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; fred beyerlein;bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; beachrides; boardmembers; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; dennisbalakian;Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu;francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu;huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk;lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; merazroofinginc@att.net;newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen;tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net; Steve Wayte Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Nov. 4, 2021 Boosters do work. Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 1:43:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 1:03 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Nov. 4, 2021 Boosters do work.To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 12:37 AMSubject: Dr. John Campbell Nov. 4, 2021 Boosters do work. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Thursday, Nov. 4, 2021 To all- Here is Dr. John Campbell in the UK discussing which countries are giving boosters, andhow much they bring up immunity. As of today, about 5% of the US population has received a booster. The Oxford Astrazeneca vaccine, as the primary two doses, has seen its efficacywane a lot more than has the Pfizer vaccine as the primary two doses by now. (Oxford Astrazeneca has still not been approved for use in the US. Use was big-time in the UK). Hegives the efficacy percents after some months for the two vaccines. Dr. Campbell is surprised and disappointed at that serious waning of protection by both of them, at least in terms ofantibodies. He does not discuss the waning of protection with the Moderna vaccine, which I received as the primary doses on Jan. 15 and Feb. 13, 2021. Maybe that has not beendetermined yet. This serious waning of protection after 6 or 8 months is the reason for the boosters. It should scare the complacent because they are fully vaccinated into getting a booster. REALLY interesting at ~10 minutes here. He shows how many FOLD- not percent- how many fold one's protection improves after a booster at various days after getting thebooster. Twelve days after receiving the booster, one's protection is six times better than it is for someone who only got the two primary shots. And at 16 days, you have 10 times theprotection of someone who only got the two primary shots. At 21 days after the booster, you have 20 times the protection of someone who only got the first two doses. SO, having gottenthe Moderna booster on Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2021 at Kaiser, I will have a 20 fold increase in my protection against symptomatic or severe disease by Nov. 23, 2021. And, as he points out, thefully vaccinated, like me, already have very good protection against severe disease. 19 days from today I will be in great shape wrt Covid 19. These boosters can bring one's level ofprotection back up to 95% when it has fallen substantially by 6 or 8 months after the second of the two primary shots. Booster do work - YouTube Important still to know that it takes 2 or 3 weeks for immunity to build up with thesevaccines, including with the boosters. Three weeks to fully build up in the case of the booster, so maintain mask wearing, social distancing, etc. during that time. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Lau, Julie To:Council, City Subject:letter to Palo Alto City Council re expanded rental control Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:52:38 AM Attachments:Letter to Palo Alto City Council, Nov. 2021.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from jlau@cbnorcal.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sincerely, Julie LauColdwell Banker BRE#01052924 *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does nothave authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. To: Palo Alto City Council Date: 11-5-2021 Dear City Council members: As a REALTOR® based in Palo Alto, I can assure you that the proposed expansion of rent control and tenant protections will be costly to enforce and burdensome on small mom-and-pop landlords. Existing state law, ongoing COVID-19 protections, and Palo Alto's current ordinance already protect tenants. Further restricting the property rights of small property owners will only incentivize them to get out of the rental market and sell to large developers. Please think twice before expanding expensive and burdensome regulations that further take away our property rights. Sincerely, Julie Lau Coldwell Banker Realty DRE#01052924 Palo Alto REALTOR® From:Loran Harding To:Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff;esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; huidentalsanmateo; margaret-sasaki@live.com; fredbeyerlein; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; leager; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com;nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry Subject:Fwd: Calif. AG forms STRIKEFORCE screw cities and citizens on housing. Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 11:01:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 10:54 PM Subject: Calif. AG forms STRIKEFORCE screw cities and citizens on housing.To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Thurs. Nov. 4, 2021 Doug- Did you see this? The bastard Newsom will be kicked out a year from now, not soon enough for me, but his bastard AG has formed a strike force to help ruin our neighborhoods.He ought to go back to the Philippines and run for President. New California task force focused on housing laws – Daily Democrat L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Ken Horowitz To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Clerk, City Subject:Agenda item #13 11/8/21 Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 9:55:15 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from horowitzken@fhda.edu. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello All During the Council's discussion on agenda item #13 "update and recommend further refinement of potential revenue generating ballot measures", I am suggesting a general tax for the privilege of engaging in the business of making an initial distribution within the City of a sugar sweetened beverage, syrup, or powder. The City shall impose a sugary drinks distributor tax which shall be a general excise tax, on the Distributor making the initial distribution of a sugar sweetened beverage, syrup, or powder in the City. This tax will model similar taxes in the cities of Berkeley, Albany, Oakland, and San Francisco. To assist the Council, I am suggesting that Mertz and Associates do the polling in conjunction with their polling of a potential business tax. I have attached a document on "Best Practices in Designing Local Taxes on Sugary Drinks" Thank you for your consideration Sincerely Dr. Kenneth Horowitz 525 Homer Ave Palo Alto, CA Subject: Designing Sugary Drink Taxes | ChangeLab Solutions https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.changelabsolutions.org/product/designing-sugary-drink-taxes__;!!A-B3JKCz!XzXxKpkrjJlthNKeRpD_t5iROCohw15KKQBxOgh8P2gYukhBblCWc8_oEWnV7JTMjiY$ Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Human Relations Commission; Binder, Andrew; Jeff Moore; chuck jagoda;Winter Dellenbach; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Reifschneider, James; Stump, Molly; Jonsen, Robert;Planning Commission; Council, City; Cecilia Taylor; Betsy Nash; Greer Stone; Rebecca Eisenberg; RobertaAhlquist; Shikada, Ed; Joe Simitian; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Margert York LAPD trailblazer dies at 80 -compelling NYT’s obituary nov 4, 2021 Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 9:43:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/us/margaret-york-dead.amp.html Sent from my iPhone From:Beverly BROCKWAY To:Council, City Subject:Additional rent control and regulations Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 8:03:28 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from grannyb6@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPad From:Aram James To:Tanaka, Greg; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; wintergery@earthlink.net; Raj;Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Roberta Ahlquist; Jay Boyarsky; Rebecca Eisenberg; Tannock, Julie; Shikada,Ed; Stump, Molly; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; CA18AEima@mail.house.gov; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; JoeSimitian; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew Cc:Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright Subject:Los Gatos, Redwood City Men Charged in Separate Hate Crime Assaults | San Jose Inside Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 7:41:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Nov 4, 2021 Hi Council Member Greg Tanaka: Please read the below article regarding two different individuals recently charged with misdemeanor hate crimes bythe Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen. As you will note, in both cases, the alleged hate crimes included both hate speech in addition to allegations ofbattery and assault.In one case the defendant attempted to spit on the alleged victim (assault) combined with alleged hate speech ( whydon’t you go back to your own country). In the other case, the defendant is alleged to have struck the alleged victim ( battery) combined with -(alleged hatespeech). Council member Tanaka: I hope the above examples will convince you that your effort to have Palo Alto pass anordinance criminalizing alleged stand-alone-hate-speech-is both unnecessary and violative of our constitution,specificity the 1st Amendment of our Bill of Rights. Best regards, aram james https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/los-gatos-redwood-city-men-charged-in-separate-hate-crime-assaults/ Sent from my iPhone From:herb To:Council, City; Milton, Lesley Subject:November 8, 2021 Council Meeting, Item #AA1: Selection of Applicants to Interview for Boards and Commissions Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 6:40:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94301 November 4, 2021 Palo Alto City Council and City Clerk Lesley Milton250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 NOVEMBER 8, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM AA1SELECTION OF APPLICANTS TO INTERVIEW FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Dear City Council and Ms. Milton: Please revise the applications that appear online to complywith Government Code Section 6254.21 by (1) posting to theCity's website the applicant's home address, phone numbers, andemail address for each applicant who has given permission topost the applicant's application intact, and (2) posting to theCity's website the alternate contact information for eachapplicant who has requested that the applicant's home address,phone numbers, and email address be redacted. Instead of posting the required information, all onlineapplication contact information has been redacted, except forthe street address (but not the City) for applicant Mark Weiss. Thank you for promptly restoring the information that has beenredacted so that the public and the press has the informationavailable on a timely basis. Sincerely, Herb Borock From:fran turano To:Council, City Subject:No to added rent control Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 6:31:22 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from franturano2100@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financialassistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by manyhousing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rentalhousing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that havebeen working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by these policies in advance of these recommendations going to thecity commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the variousrecommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom- • • and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, Marie Turano • • • • • • From:Jeanne Cox LeVett To:Council, City Subject:Just Like Many Other Cities in California, Your Extreme Controls on Housing Are Another Step in Driving Out Solid Working Landlord Citizens...We Will Sell Our Holdings and Leave...Just Like Everyone Else...Then See What Kindof State California Turns Into Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 5:11:33 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jeanne@levettproperties.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Subject: Just Like Many Other Cities in California, Your Extreme Controls on Housing Are Another Step in Driving Out Solid Working Landlord Citizens...We Will Sell Our Holdings and Leave...Just Like Everyone Else...Then See What Kind of State California Turns Into Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’sbeen challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who trulyneed housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’thappen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rentalhousing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by these policies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and- pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is noguarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, Regards, Jeanne President P.O Box 6286 Carmel CA 93921 (Monte Verde, Three Southeast of Ocean) Phone: (831) 624-4115 502 Waverley St. Palo Alto CA 94301 • • • • • • • • LEVETT PR P RTIE Phone: (650) 321-0440 From:Mary Buxton To:Council, City Subject:Subject line: Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing - Nov. 8 City Council meeting Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 4:54:49 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mary.buxton@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Los Gatos residents. I am writing because I am alarmed at the potential for a trend that could be established by the proposed Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8. These proposals are unnecessary and would only make it more challenging to provide quality rental housing in our area. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. Yet, it is my understanding that the Palo Alto city staff failed to reach out to property owners prior to drafting their report. Hearing the perspective of the property owners would have been fair and added perspective. On Monday, staff will urge council to: 1. Create a rental registry 2. Increase relocation fees 3. Expand just cause to more units 4. Lower the rent cap 5. Lower the security deposit cap 6. Limit the use of criminal background checks7. Provide tenants with the right to legal representation 8. Establish a tenant opportunity to purchase 9. Impose proactive rental inspections The costs for implementing this package of policies would likely be passed on toproperty owners through new fees. Please vote against these proposals. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary Buxton Fr o m : Ya h o o M a i l . ® To : Ho n k y Su b j e c t : PL E A S E G O V I R A L L O L J U S T I N : R a n d P a u l T e l l s F a u c i H e C h a n g e d W e b s i t e T o " C o v e r Y o u r A s s " O n G a i n - O f - Fu n c t i o n R e s e a r c h P L E A S E G O V I R A L L O L Da t e : Th u r s d a y , N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 2 1 4 : 4 9 : 1 1 P M CA U T I O N : T h i s e m a i l o r i g i n a t e d f r o m o u t s i d e o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . B e c a u t i o u s of o p e n i n g a t t a c h m e n t s a n d c l i c k i n g o n l i n k s . PI C K O N E ? L M A O Th e r e f o r e , N O O N E c a n M A N D A T E a n y o n e ? VA C C I N A T E L M A O W H O G O V E R N S Y O U ? LM A O JU S T I N : R a n d P a u l T e l l s F a u c i H e C h a n g e d W e b s i t e T o ' C o v e r Yo u r A s s ' O n G a i n - O f - F u n c t i o n R e s e a r c h JU S T I N : R a n d P a u l T e l l s F a u c i H e C h a n g e d We b s i t e T o ' C o v e r Y o u r A s s ' O n . . . 8 https://rumble.com/voolll-governor-smashes-tyranny-vaxx- mandates-finance-attacks-obliterated.html AND I'M ALL IN TO THIS NEXT READ (ESPECIALLY THE LAST LINE) AND I have been DISILLUSIONED for a very long time LOL AND my dissolution since 9/11 was for a time (NOW ONTO FOREVER) I ain't no COOL HAND BUTT lol What we have here is FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE October 28, 2021 No Federal or State Governments, Including All Corporations, And All Small Business, Have Any’ Moral and Or Legal Right~! To Force Any Form of Mandates, That Violate the Bill of Rights, And or Negatively Effects and or impacts the US Citizens Individual Rights or For That Matter Anyone's God Given’ Civil Rights. These Violations Forced by The Biden Administration, Are Illegal and Violate the Contract, That Was Agreed Upon at The Signing of The US Constitution, And Bill Of Rights. If these violations Are Not Reversed by the Biden Administration, A Present-Day Convention of The States, Must Be Called and Voted on By the Individual States, to Remove/Restrict the Overreach of The Present Federal Government, And Biden Administration. If An Agreement Cannot Be Reached, As the US Constitution Was Written, Then the Contract Is Broken and The Dissolution of The United States May Then Proceed. Written By: George Arthur Veghte From:Peter Brewer To:Council, City Subject:Enough "tenant protection" !!! Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 4:26:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Enough "tenant protection" ordinances!!! These only serve to artificially redistribute wealth indiscriminately. Let a free economy find its own balance. Governmental interference with a free economy is almost never a good idea. Disincentivizing landlords will only acerbate the housing crisis and the plight of renters. Don’t shrink the rental pool by ill-conceived tenant protection ordinances. Landlords vote too. Peter N. Brewer, Esq. Brewer Offord & Pedersen LLP 2225 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 327-2900 ext’n 11 www.BrewerFirm.com BayAreaRealEstateLawyers.comReal Estate Law – From the Ground Up® From:Maryannenicolas To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme controls on housing Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 3:57:44 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from maryannenicolas@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8are alarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s rentersmake more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail toinclude any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came fromPolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted bythese policies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you wouldbenefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and- pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not • • • help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, MaryAnne Nicolas Sent from my iPad • • • • • From:Ken Horowitz To:Council, City Subject:Policy Profiles - Healthy Food America Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 3:52:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hello Council FYI Thank you for reading Ken Horowitz 525 Homer Ave Palo Alto, CA https://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/policy_profiles Sent from my iPhone From:James Chang To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 3:39:57 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jcusa168@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 arealarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s rentersmake more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail toinclude any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came fromPolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted bythese policies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you wouldbenefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and- pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would • • • not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, James Chang • • • • • From:Seema Lindskog To:Council, City Subject:I oppose extreme controls on housing Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 3:38:16 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from seema3366@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up withexpenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees.While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. Theproposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics ofPalo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Altorenter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of thecity’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time.I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful orsolicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and thePartnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposalsthat have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach toPalo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by thesepolicies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearinga balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and • • • • • • • Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help thosefamilies most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Thank you for your hard work and everything you do for the city. Regards, Seema Lindskog ___________________________________________________________________ "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi From:David Gray To:Council, City Subject:Please don"t let this happen to our city Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 2:20:01 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from d.gray@ggsir.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, As a REALTOR® based in Palo Alto, I can assure you that the proposed expansion of rent control and tenant protections will be costly to enforce and burdensome on small mom-and-pop landlords. Existing state law, ongoing COVID-19 protections, and Palo Alto's current ordinance already protect tenants. Further restricting the property rights of small property owners will only incentivize them to get out of the rental market and sell to large developers. Please think twice before expanding expensive and burdensome regulations that further take away our property rights. Sincerely, David David Gray Realtor Golden Gate Sotheby's International Realty d.gray@ggsir.com 650-773-1271BRE Lic # 01363266 I have not verified any information from third party senders. From:Ken Horowitz To:Council, City Cc:Alison Cormack Subject:ARTICLE 8: SUGARY DRINKS DISTRIBUTOR TAX ORDINANCE Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 1:58:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Hello CouncilSF tax ordinance on the mechanism to collect a SSB taxThank youKen Horowitz525 Homer AvePalo Alto, CA https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_business/0-0-0-1549 Sent from my iPhone From:Sanjeet Thadani To:Council, City Subject:No more Rent control Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 1:57:42 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sanjeet_thadani@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, As a REALTOR® based in Palo Alto, I can assure you that the proposed expansion of rent control and tenant protections will be costly to enforce and burdensome on small mom-and-pop landlords. Existing state law, ongoing COVID-19 protections, and Palo Alto's current ordinance already protect tenants. Further restricting the property rights of small property owners will only incentivize them to get out of the rental market and sell to large developers. Please think twice before expanding expensive and burdensome regulations that further take away our property rights. Sincerely, Sanjeet Sanjeet Thadani Keller Williams 505 Hamilton Ave #100 Palo Alto Ca 94301 BRE# 01938671 650-704-6506 From:Ken Horowitz To:Council, City Subject:Taxing sugary drinks - Healthy Food America Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 1:44:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hello Council FYI Ken Horowitz 525 Homer Ave Palo Alto, CA https://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/taxing_sugary_drinks Sent from my iPhone From:Deborah Caplan To:City Attorney Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Public Records Act request Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 1:24:31 PM Attachments:image001.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from dcaplan@olsonremcho.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. Stump: As you know, I filed a Public Records Act request with the City on July 26, 2021. After various miscommunications from the City, I finally received some responsive documents on September 24, 2021 and a larger number on October 20, 2021. The City’s response to date has been woefully inadequate. In fact, it is so inadequate that it raises questions in my mind as to whether the City is attempting to comply with the law in good faith or whether it is deliberately trying to withhold certain documents from public review. As you know, I requested all electronic communications to or from city council members with each other, with city staff, or with third parties involving matters on the agendas for the city council meetings held June 14, 2021, June 21, 2021, or June 22, 2021. I specifically requested any emails, texts, or any chat or instant messages of any kind, such as SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, AIM, Signal, Telegram, Twitter DM, Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts/Talk, Microsoft Teams, iMessage, and FaceTime sent between June 7 and July 26, 2021 (the date of the request), including communications using both government devices or personal devices, if the subject of the communication was related to a matter of public business appearing on any of those agenda items. A review of the documents provided indicates the following: 1) Many, many documents relating to the requested meeting agendas appear to be missing.For example, I have specific knowledge of many communications between City Councilmembers and third parties that were not produced. I am not certain how the searches wereconducted in response to my request but it was clearly inadequate as it has not producedeven the most obvious communications between Council members using theircityofpaloalto.org email accounts and third parties.2) I also have knowledge about many email communications between City staff and thirdparties, as well as among City staff and between City staff and Council members, about theidentified agenda items, yet the response reflects virtually no records reflecting staffcommunications. 3) With one limited exception, the documents produced include no communications involvingprivate email addresses or private devices, even though I also have specific knowledge ofmany instances in which City Council members were communicating with third parties aboutthe requested agenda items using private email addresses (typically gmail accounts). Again,it appears that either Council members were not told to produce emails involving theirprivate email addresses (as specifically requested), or those communications are beingunlawfully withheld. 4) My request specifically included records of communications other than emails, including texts, group chats, instant messaging, etc. Once more, I have knowledge of, for example,communications taking place with and among Council members about agenda items,including such communications taking place during City Council meetings. If it was notapparent from my request, I am concerned with what appears to be the common andincreasing use by Palo Alto public officials of these non-public forms of communication todiscuss matters of public concern in a way that frustrates the open meeting requirements. To that end, all communications regarding the identified meeting agendas are required to beproduced, including those conducted by text, group chat, etc. 5) If an exemption is claimed, the document must nonetheless be identified. Although theCity’s response included a boilerplate list of potential exemptions, in my October 1, 2021email to the City, I requested that, with respect to any claimed exemption, as much of theredacted document as possible be provided so that the time and recipients of thecommunication could be examined in order to determine the legitimacy of the claimedexemption. To date, no exempt documents have been individually identified and no suchdocumentation has been produced. I have only requested communications relating to agenda items for three specific meetings, but I do expect the City to provide these communications, including those communications employing non- traditional forms of social media. This request needs to be clearly and accurately conveyed to City Council members and other City staff in order for them to identify and produce all responsive documents. Claimed exemptions should be clearly identified as well. The City is well beyond any reasonable period in which to comply. Please advise when all responsive documents will be forthcoming. Sincerely, Deborah B. Caplan 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 400 | Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 442-2952 | dcaplan@olsonremcho.com olsonremcho.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. Olson I Remcho From:mickey suen To:Council, City Subject:City of Palo Alto is totally noise free from Gas Leaf Blowers Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 10:59:27 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from micsuen@rocketmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto Zero Tolerance for gas leaf blowers with 100% Compliance. Wouldn’t that be some headline. It has been really nice not to have the gas blowers disturbingthe peace during the shelter in place for a few weeks. How wonderful it is to get all thegardeners back to work, but unfortunately that comes with their gas leaf blowers. On myblock, there are six houses on each side of the street and of these 12 homes, 9 use hiredgardeners. All use gas blowers! When three of them arrive at the same time, I feel like I amin a war zone. Seems all the gardeners and homeowners have no regard for the law. So this is NOT an article on complaining about gas blower since there have been many. The headline reads “100% Compliance” ok, 99.9% because there will always be someone whodemands to be different. So how do we achieve 100% Compliance. It is costly for the City to add more enforcers andthe police are overworked and frankly have more important things to do with their time. This is a step by step plan on how we as a city can reach 100% compliance within 6months. In this process, reduce and maybe even eliminate this job for the police department,generate new revenue for the city and create new jobs that cost the City nothing. I present thisto the City of Palo Alto as a free idea. 1. Send out one notice with the utility bill stating the law on Gas Leaf Blowers with thestatement that this is the education part of the ordnance and the only warning that eachhome will receive.2. Setup a city website which can receive reports of violations with a place to input addressof violation and 3 pictures of the violation. These pictures should have a time and datestamp. Following pictures are required, one of the gardener doing the blowing, one ofthe gardener’s truck with license plate or company name on the truck, and one of thehomeowner’s street address. The person making the report name and address for thereward.3. The city will fine both the homeowner and the gardener (X) dollars for the firstviolation, (2X) dollars for the second violation etc. Half of the fine will be kept by the City and half will be sent as a reward to the reporter. No more need to have a policeofficer spend their valuable time running down violators and we have just created new jobs for independent reporters. This will be a win win solution for everybody except the law breakers and in the process, create extra revenue for the city and create new jobs.Sent from my iPad Some people who received this message don't often get email from kristenandersen@me.com. Learn why this is important From:Kristen AndersenTo:Shikada, EdCc:Council, CitySubject:Re: PetsInNeedDate:Thursday, November 4, 2021 8:42:43 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from kristenandersen@me.com. Learn why this is important Mr. Shikada, Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. Could you please have someone from your office send me a copy of Th current Asilomar/Maddies Fund Report for the Palo Alto shelter. Thank you,Kristen Andersen On Nov 4, 2021, at 7:43 AM, Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Dear Ms. Anderson, I am acknowledging receipt of your email, and will discuss with staff appropriate follow-up. Thank you for bringing this concern to our attention. Sincerely,--Ed <image003.png>Ed ShikadaCity Manager(650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> From: Kristen Andersen <kristenandersen@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 3:11 PMTo: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: PetsInNeed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers and Mr. Shikada, I am writing to you after seeing the very concerning article by Sue Dremann in the Palo Alto Weekly regarding inhumane treatment that resulted in the death of seven pups at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. Below is a letter I drafted to the Council last January but did not send due toconcern that it could negatively impact the relationship between local rescue organizations and PetsInNeed. PetsInNeed Failing to Provide Services and AccountabilityTen months have passed since I wrote this letter. While PetsInNeed has started performing some of the services they were contracted to perform, they are still only open for public spay and neuter one day per week. So, what have they been doing? The last Asilomar / Maddies FundReport published on its website was for the period 02/19/2019 to 10/31/2019. Has the City of Palo Alto received a more current version that details what they have been up to over the past two years? I heard that PetsInNeed was bringing many animals in from the central valley whilerefusing to provide services to the residents of Palo Alto who pay for this shelter and this article confirms that. As I predicted, the feral cat population has grown in Crescent Park. PetsInNeed finally agreed to spay and neuter the adult cats that we could trap in February 2021, howeverwhen we caught the mother of the six kittens I fostered, we could not get an appointment for several days and she escaped. She had another litter of 5 later in the Spring. Two have died already. In the past several weeks Animal Control has captured 6 cats and kittens on DanaAvenue. There are more, but now residents will be reluctant to trap and surrender to PetsInNeed because there is a loss of public trust. Not An Isolated IncidentIf you investigate, I think you will discover this is not an isolated incident. I have heard other stories on inhumane treatment, such as transfering a feral to another organization in San Jose for release - a community the cat wasn’t familiar with and would not know where to find food andwater. Apparently transferring animals with unfavorable outcomes is a way to make your reporting look better. PetsInNeed Culture of Coverups Why were Shelter workers leaking out these stories of inhumane treatment instead of going to leadership prior to the puppy incident? After reading Ms. Dremann’s article I reached out to multiple sources with contacts at the shelter. One of them provided me with a copy of the letterthat PetsInNeed staff wrote to its Board in August (Attached). The letter talks about Executive Director Al Mollica being “combative and dismissive” and how he is not transparent, provides incomplete information to staff and elected to keep the incident internal and not take anydisciplinary actions. This behavior is consistent with my own personal experience where Mr. Kalman denied that his staff told me they would likely euthanize kittens. Now that Ms. Dremann’s article has come out, PetsInNeed has published a statement on their website that they aregoing to conduct a “thorough investigation into this incident.” How could we possibly trust PetsInNeed to investigate themselves? Especially when the staff that reported the incident are experiencing retaliation. If PetsInNeed leadership was really concerned about the welfare andsafety of the animals they would have investigated months ago and taken actions. I urge the Council to replace PetsInNeed with a reputable and trustworthy provider who will perform the services they are contracted to provide to the residents of our community. Best,Kristen Andersen LETTER DRAFTED IN JANUARY 2021 BUT NOT SENTDear Councilmembers, In February 2019 PetsInNeed took over operation of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. On the city’s website it states that its responsibilities include animal adoption; dog licensing; lost and found reports; spay & neuter clinic; vaccine clinics; animal surrender; humane trap rentals;volunteering; and community programs. It is my understanding that many of these services are not being provided to our community despite the fact that our community has funded PetsInNeed to provide these services. For example, in the two years that they have had the contractPetsInNeed has not done a single public Spay & Neuter Clinic or Vaccine Clinic. I am writing to you to ask you to audit their practice and hold PetsInNeed accountable for fulfilling the terms of their contract. I am a resident of Crescent Park. We have a growing feral cat population that I am trying to address. On December 16, 2020 at 12:49 pm I contacted PetsInNeed to seek assistance with trapping 6 kittens and several adult cats. Despite their stated mission to “advance the no-killmovement, reduce pet homelessness, and find every dog and cat a loving home,” the representative on the phone told me during our 11 minute conversation that their office wasn’t currently open to the public due to Covid, that they currently didn’t have a veterinarian, and that feralkittens older than 8 weeks would likely be too old to be socialized and therefor not adoptable and would probably be euthanized if Animal Control was able to capture them. Since I was very concerned about the kittens getting euthanized, I immediately reached out to HumanimalConnection, a no-kill cat rescue organization who I had adopted cats from in the past. Humanimal put me in contact with the Palo Alto Humane Society who has been helping me capture, spay and neuter, and vaccinate the kittens and will be helping me find them loving homes. Theseare all services that PetsInNeed should be providing to our community per their contract, but instead we have been forced to go out of the county to receive these services. When Palo Alto Humane Society reported my conversation with the Palo Alto shelter representative toPetsInNeed President Rob Kalman, he denied that any of his employees would say feral kittens older than eight weeks would be euthanized and dismissed me as “not credible” even though he doesn’t know me or even know my name. PetsInNeed is using the remodel and Covid as rationale for why they aren’t providing services to the public, while shelters in neighboring communities have been safely providing these services to their constituents. Furthermore, it is my understanding that while not providing servicesto the Palo Alto public, PetsInNeed is bringing in animals from shelters outside of the area and providing services to these animals. While I would support assisting other communities, we need to meet the needs of our own community first. Our residents are paying for the operation ofthe Palo Alto shelter. The inability to spay and neuter our feral population now will result in more kittens this spring and exponential growth of feral cats in our Palo Alto neighborhoods. This is inhumane. Please demand that they start fulfilling the terms of their contract now. Thank you for giving this your time and attention. Kristen Andersen From:Aram James To:Tom DuBois; Council, City; Planning Commission; Human Relations Commission; wintergery@earthlink.net; chuckjagoda; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Shikada, Ed; Betsy Nash; Cecilia Taylor; city.council@menlopark.org; Council,City Subject:State AG gives housing law some muscle Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 7:58:42 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Follow the link below to view the article. State AG gives housing law some muscle https://mercurynews-ca.newsmemory.com/?publink=33f60824e_1345fc4 Sent from my iPhone From:dexter.girton@yahoo.com To:Council, CitySubject:Recent Traffic Jams on Embarcadero Road Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 7:48:21 AMAttachments:image001.pngimage002.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from dexter.girton@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the City Council, Please consider the following: AND Embarcadero Road at High Street, Recent Traffic Jams, Sept. -Nov. 2021 Almost a daily occurrence -Mornings & Many Evenings. -------<-" I Nov. 1, 8:57 am Oct. 18, 8:52 am Closing Churchill Ave. will make this situation a whole lot worse by adding 7,000 more cars, busses and trucks/day. Oct. 9, 6:00 am Sept 28, 8:50 am Thank you! Dexter Girton 1141 High Street (at Embarcadero Road) Embarcadero Road Already Has Too Much Traffic You can expect it to get worse as pre-pandemic levels return. -----,<."" I Nov. 1, 8:57 am Oct. 18, 8:52 am Closing Churchill Ave. = Disaster for our Professorville Neighborhood With cars, busses and trucks redirected to our residential streets, to get to Embarcadero Rd. Eliminate Closing Churchill Ave. Save Its Level of Service! Oct. 9, 6:00 am Sept 28, 8:50 am Some people who received this message don't often get email from kristenandersen@me.com. Learn why this is important From:Shikada, Ed To:Kristen Andersen Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: PetsInNeed Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 7:43:17 AM Attachments:image002.pngimage003.png Dear Ms. Anderson, I am acknowledging receipt of your email, and will discuss with staff appropriate follow-up. Thank you for bringing this concern to our attention. Sincerely, --Ed Ed Shikada City Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Kristen Andersen <kristenandersen@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 3:11 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: PetsInNeed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers and Mr. Shikada, I am writing to you after seeing the very concerning article by Sue Dremann in the Palo Alto Weekly regarding inhumane treatment that resulted in the death of seven pups at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. Below is a letter I drafted to the Council last January but did not send due to concern that it could negatively impact the relationship between local rescue organizations and PetsInNeed. PetsInNeed Failing to Provide Services and Accountability Ten months have passed since I wrote this letter. While PetsInNeed has started performing some of the services they were contracted to perform, they are still only open for public spay and neuter one day per week. So, what have they been doing? The last Asilomar / CI TY OF PALO A TO Please dick here to provide feedback on our City's services Maddies Fund Report published on its website was for the period 02/19/2019 to 10/31/2019. Has the City of Palo Alto received a more current version that details what they have been up to over the past two years? I heard that PetsInNeed was bringing many animals in from the central valley while refusing to provide services to the residents of PaloAlto who pay for this shelter and this article confirms that. As I predicted, the feral cat population has grown in Crescent Park. PetsInNeed finally agreed to spay and neuter theadult cats that we could trap in February 2021, however when we caught the mother of the six kittens I fostered, we could not get an appointment for several days and she escaped.She had another litter of 5 later in the Spring. Two have died already. In the past several weeks Animal Control has captured 6 cats and kittens on Dana Avenue. There are more,but now residents will be reluctant to trap and surrender to PetsInNeed because there is a loss of public trust. Not An Isolated Incident If you investigate, I think you will discover this is not an isolated incident. I have heard other stories on inhumane treatment, such as transfering a feral to another organization in San Jose for release - a community the cat wasn’t familiar with and would not know where to find food and water. Apparently transferring animals with unfavorable outcomes is a way to make your reporting look better. PetsInNeed Culture of Coverups Why were Shelter workers leaking out these stories of inhumane treatment instead of going to leadership prior to the puppy incident? After reading Ms. Dremann’s article I reached out to multiple sources with contacts at the shelter. One of them provided me with a copy of the letter that PetsInNeed staff wrote to its Board in August (Attached). The letter talks about Executive Director Al Mollica being “combative and dismissive” and how he is not transparent, provides incomplete information to staff and elected to keep the incident internal and not take any disciplinary actions. This behavior is consistent with my own personal experience where Mr. Kalman denied that his staff told me they would likely euthanize kittens. Now that Ms. Dremann’s article has come out, PetsInNeed has published a statement on their website that they are going to conduct a “thorough investigation into this incident.” How could we possibly trust PetsInNeed to investigate themselves? Especially when the staff that reported the incident are experiencing retaliation. If PetsInNeed leadership was really concerned about the welfare and safety of the animals they would have investigated months ago and taken actions. I urge the Council to replace PetsInNeed with a reputable and trustworthy provider who will perform the services they are contracted to provide to the residents of our community. Best, Kristen Andersen LETTER DRAFTED IN JANUARY 2021 BUT NOT SENT Dear Councilmembers, In February 2019 PetsInNeed took over operation of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. On the city’s website it states that its responsibilities include animal adoption; dog licensing; lost and found reports; spay & neuter clinic; vaccine clinics; animal surrender; humane trap rentals; volunteering; and community programs. It is my understanding that many of these services are not being provided to our community despite the fact that our community has funded PetsInNeed to provide these services. For example, in the two years that they have had the contract PetsInNeed has not done a single public Spay & Neuter Clinic or Vaccine Clinic. I am writing to you to ask you to audit their practice and hold PetsInNeedaccountable for fulfilling the terms of their contract. I am a resident of Crescent Park. We have a growing feral cat population that I am trying to address. On December 16, 2020 at 12:49 pm I contacted PetsInNeed to seek assistance with trapping 6 kittens and several adult cats. Despite their stated mission to “advance the no-kill movement, reduce pet homelessness, and find every dog and cat a loving home,” the representative on the phone told me during our 11 minute conversation that their office wasn’t currently open to the public due to Covid, that they currently didn’t have a veterinarian, and that feral kittens older than 8 weeks would likely be too old to be socialized and therefor not adoptable and would probably be euthanized if Animal Control was able to capture them. Since I was very concerned about the kittens getting euthanized, I immediately reached out to Humanimal Connection, a no-kill cat rescue organization who I had adopted cats from in the past. Humanimal put me in contact with the Palo Alto Humane Society who has been helping me capture, spay and neuter, and vaccinate the kittens and will be helping me find them loving homes. These are all services that PetsInNeed should be providing to our community per their contract, but instead we have been forced to go out of the county to receive these services. When Palo Alto Humane Society reported my conversation with the Palo Alto shelter representative to PetsInNeed President Rob Kalman, he denied that any of his employees would say feral kittens older than eight weeks would be euthanized and dismissed me as “not credible” even though he doesn’t know me or even know my name. PetsInNeed is using the remodel and Covid as rationale for why they aren’t providing services to the public, while shelters in neighboring communities have been safely providing these services to their constituents. Furthermore, it is my understanding that while not providing services to the Palo Alto public, PetsInNeed is bringing in animals from shelters outside of the area and providing services to these animals. While I would support assisting other communities, we need to meet the needs of our own community first. Our residents are paying for the operation of the Palo Alto shelter. The inability to spay and neuter our feral population now will result in more kittens this spring and exponential growth of feral cats in our Palo Alto neighborhoods. This is inhumane. Please demand that they start fulfilling the terms of their contract now. Thank you for giving this your time and attention. Kristen Andersen From:Yahoo Mail.® To:Honky Subject:MUST GO VIRAL Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 12:02:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. STARTING RIGHT HERE Y'ALL? SHARING ON ALL VENUES (GOING VIRAL We need to be like Americans gone WILD :) <3 Mike Yeadon, ex-Pfizer scientist sent this out Thursday. We are approaching Stage 5 - Phase 5: Establish chaos and Martial law. (November 2021-March 2022) and most people still think we are going back to normal!? Phase 1: Simulate a threat and create fear. (December 2019-March 2020) - Mount a pandemic in China. - Kill tens of thousands of elderly people. - Increase the number of cases and deaths - Position vaccination as the only solution from the beginning. - Focus all attention on Covid-19. Result, (almost) general panic Phase 2: Sow the tares and division. (March 2020-December 2020) - Impose multiple unnecessary, liberticidal and unconstitutional coercive measures. - Paralyze trade and the economy. - Observe the submission of a majority and the resistance of a rebellious minority. - Stigmatize the rebels and create a horizontal division. - Censoring dissident leaders. - Punish disobedience. - Generalize PCR tests. - Create confusion between cases, infected, sick, hospitalized and dead. - Disqualify all effective treatments. - Hope for a rescue vaccine. Result, (almost) general panic. Phase 3: Bring a treacherous and deadly solution. (December 2020-June 2021) - Offer a free vaccine for everyone. - Promise protection and return to normality. - Establish a herd immunization target. - Simulate a partial recovery of the economy. - Hide statistics of side effects and deaths from injections. - Passing off the side effects of the injections as "natural" effects of the virus and the disease. - Recover the notion of a variant as a natural mutation of the virus. - Justify the maintenance of coercive measures by not applying the herd immunity threshold. - Punish health professionals for the illegal exercise of care and healing. - Result, doubts and feelings of betrayal among the vaxx, discouragement among opponents. Phase 4: Install Apartheid and the QR code. (June 2021-October 2021) - Voluntarily plan for shortages. - Impose the vaccination pass (QR code) to reward the vaccinated, punish the resistant. - Create an Apartheid of the privileged against the others. - Take away the right to work or study from non-vaxx. - Withdraw basic services to the non-vaxx. - Impose PCR payment tests on non-vaxx. Result, First stage of digital control, impoverishment of opponents Phase 5: Establish chaos and Martial law. (November 2021-March 2022) - Exploit the shortage of goods and food. - Cause the paralysis of the real economy and the closure of factories and shops. - Let unemployment explode. - Apply a third dose to the vaxx (boosters). - Take up the murder of the living old men. - Impose compulsory vaccination for all. - Amplify the myth of variants, the efficacy of the vaccine and the immunity of the herd. - Demonize the anti-vaxx and hold them responsible for the dead. - Arrest opposition leaders. - Impose digital identity on everyone (QR code): Birth certificate, identity document, passport, driving license, health insurance card ... - Establish martial law to defeat the opposition. Result, Second stage of digital control. Imprisonment or removal of opponents. Phase 6: Cancel the debts and dematerialize the money. (March 2022-September 2022) - Trigger the economic, financial and stock market collapse, the bankruptcy of the banks. - To rescue the losses of the banks in the accounts of their clients. - Activate the «Great Reset». - De-materialize money. - Cancel debts and loans. - Impose the digital portfolio. (Digital Wallet) - Seize properties and land. - Ban all global medicines. - Confirm the obligation to vaccinate semi-annually or annually. - Impose food rationing and a diet based on the Codex Alimentarius. - Extend the measures to emerging countries. Result, Third stage of digital control. Extension of the NWO to the whole planet. It's what's HAPPENING and SOME of US? KNEW a LONG time ago CODEX ELIMENTERIUS? Rima Laibow REMEMBER NEVER FORGET Codex Alimentarius - Dr.Rima Laibow x-weo age.01ogs, at.gr That was THEN THIS IS NOW ALL NEED LISTEN TO Dr. David Martin AND NOT the CRIMINALS that BOUGHT and PAID FOR "FACTCHECKERS" on CIA Facebook and FAKE NEWS LOL https://www.facebook.com/damian.spaulding.7/videos/464130491693869 Codex Alimentarius - Dr.Rima LaibowCJ From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Human Relations Commission; Jonsen,Robert; Council, City; Jeff Moore; Planning Commission; Winter Dellenbach; chuck jagoda; Sajid Khan; JeffRosen; Jay Boyarsky; Greer Stone; Roberta Ahlquist; Raj; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Joe Simitian; RebeccaEisenberg; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Shikada, Ed; Cecilia Taylor Subject:How America got to Charlottesville-Holocaust expert to testify Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 11:13:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/us/politics/charlottesville-trial-holocaust.amp.html Sent from my iPhone From:PATRICIA KOT To:Council, City Subject:Stanford University name change Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 10:07:05 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from pkot@aol.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Seems that Leland Stanford was quite racist toward Chinese immigrants and his name should not be used on such a prestigious university. Many offensive and racist names are being changed in recent times. Please add Stanford University and hospital to the list of immediate name changes as it’s currently racist. Something like Silicon Valley University would be much less offensive. Pat K. Cupertino. Sent from my iPad From:Kristen Andersen To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:PetsInNeed Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 3:12:46 PM Attachments:Letter to the Board of Directors 10-3-21.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from kristenandersen@me.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers and Mr. Shikada, I am writing to you after seeing the very concerning article by Sue Dremann in the Palo Alto Weekly regarding inhumane treatment that resulted in the death of seven pups at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. Below is a letter I drafted to the Council last January but did not send due to concern that it could negatively impact the relationship between local rescue organizations and PetsInNeed. PetsInNeed Failing to Provide Services and Accountability Ten months have passed since I wrote this letter. While PetsInNeed has started performing some of the services they were contracted to perform, they are still only open for public spay and neuter one day per week. So, what have they been doing? The last Asilomar / Maddies Fund Report published on its website was for the period 02/19/2019 to 10/31/2019. Has the City of Palo Alto received a more current version that details what they have been up to over the past two years? I heard that PetsInNeed was bringing many animals in from the central valley while refusing to provide services to the residents of Palo Alto who pay for this shelter and this article confirms that. As I predicted, the feral cat population has grown in Crescent Park. PetsInNeed finally agreed to spay and neuter the adult cats that we could trap in February 2021, however when we caught the mother of the six kittens I fostered, we could not get an appointment for several days and she escaped. She had another litter of 5 later in the Spring. Two have died already. In the past several weeks Animal Control has captured 6 cats and kittens on Dana Avenue. There are more, but now residents will be reluctant to trap and surrender to PetsInNeed because there is a loss of public trust. Not An Isolated Incident If you investigate, I think you will discover this is not an isolated incident. I have heard other stories on inhumane treatment, such as transfering a feral to another organization in San Jose for release - a community the cat wasn’t familiar with and would not know where to find food and water. Apparently transferring animals with unfavorable outcomes is a way to make your reporting look better. PetsInNeed Culture of Coverups Why were Shelter workers leaking out these stories of inhumane treatment instead of going to leadership prior to the puppy incident? After reading Ms. Dremann’s article I reached out to multiple sources with contacts at the shelter. One of them provided me with a copy of the letter that PetsInNeed staff wrote to its Board in August (Attached). The letter talks about Executive Director Al Mollica being “combative and dismissive” and how he is not transparent, provides incomplete information to staff and elected to keep the incident internal and not take any disciplinary actions. This behavior is consistent with my own personal experience where Mr. Kalman denied that his staff told me they would likely euthanize kittens. Now that Ms. Dremann’s article has come out, PetsInNeed has published a statement on their website that they are going to conduct a “thorough investigation into this incident.” How could we possibly trust PetsInNeed to investigate themselves? Especially when the staff that reported the incident are experiencing retaliation. If PetsInNeed leadership was really concerned about the welfare and safety of the animals they would have investigated months ago and taken actions. I urge the Council to replace PetsInNeed with a reputable and trustworthy provider who will perform the services they are contracted to provide to the residents of our community. Best, Kristen Andersen LETTER DRAFTED IN JANUARY 2021 BUT NOT SENT Dear Councilmembers, In February 2019 PetsInNeed took over operation of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. On the city’s website it states that its responsibilities include animal adoption; dog licensing; lost and found reports; spay & neuter clinic; vaccine clinics; animal surrender; humane trap rentals; volunteering; and community programs. It is my understanding that many of these services are not being provided to our community despite the fact that our community has funded PetsInNeed to provide these services. For example, in the two years that they have had the contract PetsInNeed has not done a single public Spay & Neuter Clinic or Vaccine Clinic. I am writing to you to ask you to audit their practice and hold PetsInNeed accountable for fulfilling the terms of their contract. I am a resident of Crescent Park. We have a growing feral cat population that I am trying to address. On December 16, 2020 at 12:49 pm I contacted PetsInNeed to seek assistance with trapping 6 kittens and several adult cats. Despite their stated mission to “advance the no-kill movement, reduce pet homelessness, and find every dog and cat a loving home,” the representative on the phone told me during our 11 minute conversation that their office wasn’t currently open to the public due to Covid, that they currently didn’t have a veterinarian, and that feral kittens older than 8 weeks would likely be too old to be socialized and therefor not adoptable and would probably be euthanized if Animal Control was able to capture them. Since I was very concerned about the kittens getting euthanized, I immediately reached out to Humanimal Connection, a no-kill cat rescue organization who I had adopted cats from in the past. Humanimal put me in contact with the Palo Alto Humane Society who has been helping me capture, spay and neuter, and vaccinate the kittens and will be helping me find them loving homes. These are all services that PetsInNeed should be providing to our community per their contract, but instead we have been forced to go out of the county to receive these services. When Palo Alto Humane Society reported my conversation with the Palo Alto shelter representative to PetsInNeed President Rob Kalman, he denied that any of his employees would say feral kittens older than eight weeks would be euthanized and dismissed me as “not credible” even though he doesn’t know me or even know my name. PetsInNeed is using the remodel and Covid as rationale for why they aren’t providing services to the public, while shelters in neighboring communities have been safely providing these services to their constituents. Furthermore, it is my understanding that while not providing services to the Palo Alto public, PetsInNeed is bringing in animals from shelters outside of the area and providing services to these animals. While I would support assisting other communities, we need to meet the needs of our own community first. Our residents are paying for the operation of the Palo Alto shelter. The inability to spay and neuter our feral population now will result in more kittens this spring and exponential growth of feral cats in our Palo Alto neighborhoods. This is inhumane. Please demand that they start fulfilling the terms of their contract now. Thank you for giving this your time and attention. Kristen Andersen October 3, 2021 To Whom It May Concern, A group of Pets In Need staff would like to share this letter, written to the Board of Directors, outlining the death of 7 puppies during a negligent transport run from Selma, Madera, and surrounding areas. This letter was not written with the intention being insubordinate or dictating firings but to shed light on an event that was covered up by the Executive Director of Pets In Need. It is politely requested that this letter is read through to fully understand exactly what happened to the 7 puppies. … August 9, 2021 To President Rob Kalman and the Pets In Need Board of Directors, As you have been informed, on the afternoon of Monday, August 2nd, three Pets In Need staff members embarked on a rescue run to the Central Valley. The goal of this was to bring back 28 animals to the Palo Alto and Redwood City shelters, yet tragically seven puppies died enroute. We are writing to report in good faith the whole story from our experience and expertise, which shows a series of simple, obvious, and preventable mistakes led to the death of these puppies. The transport team, along with medical, shelter, and kennel managers meet in a weekly “intake meeting” to plan how many animals each shelter can accommodate. The shelter operations managers contact partner shelters to get a rough estimate of which animals they will be intaking. The final decision on many animals is up to Maggie Evans, the behavior manager, as she evaluates the animal’s behavior and determines whether or not Pets In Need can meet that animal’s needs. After this, the rescue run is planned around the estimate of the number of animals being transported – for this run, 20 animals were approved. Pets In Need uses two vans to transport animals from partner shelters to Palo Alto and Redwood City. Van A is smaller, accommodating approximately 15 crates in a wooden shelving unit with minimal air conditioning that is only effective in the front of the vehicle. Van B is much larger with a 25-crate capacity, including room for extra-large crates, and dedicated climate control in both the front and cargo areas of the vehicle. Van A has poor air circulation and does not cool the cargo area effectively, which is a critical shortcoming when traveling to and from the Central Valley, where temperatures routinely reach or exceed the mid-90’s. Driving time from the Central Valley back to the Bay Area can range anywhere from four to six hours depending on traffic, number of stops, etc. Animals must be kept comfortable, cool, and hydrated during transport. The staff performing the rescue run still chose to utilize Van A while fully aware of its ventilation issues and took no measures to ensure the safety of the animals onboard the van that afternoon. The decision regarding which van to take appears to have been made based on accommodating the number of human passengers going on the rescue run and their comfort, rather than the well- being of the transported animals. The following staff attended this rescue run: Patty Santana (Redwood City shelter operations manager), Maggie Evans (behavior manager), and Ingrid Hartmann (HR manager). It is highly unusual for a third person to attend a rescue run, let alone HR staff. With the extreme temperatures of the Central Valley and the large number of animals to be transported, the transport team should have taken the larger van on a rescue run of this nature. Instead, the Van A was chosen because it contains two rows of seats, unlike Van B, which can accommodate only the driver and one passenger. This was the first of many avoidable mistakes made throughout the day. The seven animals that died were 10-week-old large breed puppies weighing between 10 and 15 lbs. When the transport team first encountered the puppies, they were covered in vomit and diarrhea after having been transported from a previous location. It was noted that the puppies did not look to be in good health, but the transport team decided to take them anyway without contacting the Palo Alto Medical Director. This violates the intake policy that all medical cases must be approved by the attending Medical Director/Veterinarian at the location where the animals are to be housed. The van was already close to maximum capacity, with all 14 secured crates full, some crates housing two to three animals and one small crate placed in a passenger seat. This left a single medium-sized crate (30” L x 18” W x 22.5” H) in which the transport team packed all seven puppies. Crates of this size have a maximum weight capacity of 40 lbs., but this crate held over 70 lbs. It provided no room for the puppies to lie down or even turn around without stepping on each other. This kennel was placed on the floor of the van, directly behind Ms. Hartmann’s seat, not in a designated kennel space. The crate was shrouded in a towel to “protect the other animals from potential disease,” completely blocking what little airflow that was able to reach the back of the van and leaving the puppies with minimal ventilation. During the four-plus-hour drive, none of the 28 animals were ever given water or allowed time out of their kennels, which violates the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. The staff noted that the seven puppies had vomited and experienced diarrhea, yet nothing was done about this during the trip. These seven puppies died from neglect during transport: they were stiff to the touch but still hot, indicating they suffered fatal hyperthermia, also known as heat stroke. All 21 of the surviving animals were dehydrated and exhibiting signs of heat stroke as well. The Humane Society of the United States defines animal neglect as “situations … in which the animal's caretaker or owner fails to provide food, water, shelter or veterinary care sufficient for survival.” These seven puppies died horrible, painful, slow deaths. There was no air, no room to move, and no way to escape. They had to witness their siblings suffer and die before they themselves finally succumbed. And even worse, none of this had to happen and could easily have been prevented by utilizing the van with adequate space and climate control required to keep animals comfortable, declining to overload the van with too many animals, refusing to take animals that were in visibly poor health and may be contagious, and providing water during the long drive. In the aftermath, an Animal Control officer witnessed the bodies and opened a police report to investigate this incident. A Palo Alto Police officer was on site at the Palo Alto location and interviewed all parties involved. The active case will be documenting and processing the bodies of the seven puppies to determine an official cause of death, if possible. The response from Pets In Need’s leadership is appalling. The Executive Director, Al Mollica, has made it clear that there will not be consequences for the neglect that took place during this run, and there will be no accountability or designating of responsibility. He is aware animals have died previously in transit and discussed this with staff individually, but he is telling staff in emails and large meetings that it has never happened before. He has openly stated that this cannot be blamed on anyone, that he is furious that the police have become involved, and it was not the place of Animal Control to get involved in the first place. Instead of Executive Director Mollica holding staff accountable for this completely preventable incident, he has been combative and dismissive of the entire event. He wants to deal with this tragedy internally, even though it involved a severe case of incompetence and neglect. The information he is dispensing to the rest of the staff is full of half-truths: he told the police officer the “new” Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters would be implemented (it has been a Pets In Need protocol for years), he is only sharing minimal and incomplete information, and he is redirecting the conversation by suggesting worms or vaccine reactions as a cause of death instead of acknowledging the likely heat stroke all of the animals suffered through and seven died from. For the staff who witnessed this event, it is painful to have misinformation spread throughout the organization. The lack of effective leadership and clear accountability by the Executive Director creates the opportunity for something this abhorrent to happen again. We respectfully request the following three actions: (1) that all safety protocols be updated by appropriately trained professionals; (2) the transport team members be held accountable; and (3) the Executive Director be held accountable for failing to uphold the standards of Pets in Need in response to this situation. We believe the Board of Directors can ensure this situation is treated with the respect and gravity it deserves. As shelter workers, we strongly believe that it is our duty to advocate for those who do not have a voice. These seven puppies had no way to express their pain and suffering, but the transport team saw clear signs of distress through the vomiting, diarrhea, and overcrowding of the puppies into a small crate with no air flow. They died slowly surrounded by their equally agonized siblings. We care about Pets In Need and believe in the mission to save the lives of animals in need and shelter them until they reach their forever homes. This was a blatant disregard for sentient life and the antithesis of what Pets In Need or animal rescue and advocacy is about. … Since writing this letter, the staff that supported this letter have experienced retaliation by threat of having promotions, raises, and overtime blocked, by increased upper management surveillance, and by being given the “silent treatment” by our executives. The staff stand strongly by this letter and the pursuit of justice for 7 young puppies that did not deserve to die in such an agonizing way. In addition to promising cooperation with the police, District Attorney, and any other investigative entity, we have conducted research and found the following California penal codes that were violated during this transport: 597. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c) of this section or Section 599c, every person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of a crime punishable pursuant to subdivision (d). (b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a) or (c), every person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal, or causes or procures any animal to be so overdriven, overloaded, driven when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter, or to be cruelly beaten, mutilated, or cruelly killed; and whoever, having the charge or custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects any animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal, or fails to provide the animal with proper food, drink, or shelter or protection from the weather, or who drives, rides, or otherwise uses the animal when unfit for labor, is, for each offense, guilty of a crime punishable pursuant to subdivision (d). (d) A violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is punishable as a felony by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. 597.1 (a) (1) Every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. 597a. Whoever carries or causes to be carried in or upon any vehicle or otherwise any domestic animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering, or cruelty of any kind, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and whenever any such person is taken into custody therefor by any officer, such officer must take charge of such vehicle and its contents, together with the horse or team attached to such vehicle, and deposit the same in some place of custody; and any necessary expense incurred for taking care of and keeping the same, is a lien thereon, to be paid before the same can be lawfully recovered; and if such expense, or any part thereof, remains unpaid, it may be recovered, by the person incurring the same, of the owner of such domestic animal, in an action therefor. (Added by Stats. 1905, Ch. 519.) 597e. Any person who impounds, or causes to be impounded in any animal shelter, any domestic animal, shall supply it during confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water, and in default thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor. In case any domestic animal is at any time so impounded and continues to be without necessary food and water for more than 12 consecutive hours, it is lawful for any person, from time to time, as may be deemed necessary, to enter into and upon any animal shelter in which the animal is confined, and supply it with necessary food and water so long as it remains so confined. That person is not liable for the entry and may collect the reasonable cost of the food and water from the owner of the animal, and the animal is subject to enforcement of a money judgment for the reasonable cost of food and water. (Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 7, Sec. 21. (AB 1553) Effective January 1, 2020.) 597f. (a) Every owner, driver, or possessor of any animal, who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot, of any city, city and county, or judicial district, without proper care and attention, shall, on conviction, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. And it shall be the duty of any peace officer, officer of the humane society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency, to take possession of the animal so abandoned or neglected and care for the animal until it is redeemed by the owner or claimant, and the cost of caring for the animal shall be a lien on the animal until the charges are paid. Every sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animal, except a dog or cat, which shall be abandoned in any city, city and county, or judicial district, may, if after due search no owner can be found therefore, be humanely euthanized by the officer; and it shall be the duty of all peace officers, an officer of that society, or officer of an animal shelter or animal regulation department of a public agency to cause the animal to be humanely euthanized on information of that abandonment. The officer may likewise take charge of any animal, including a dog or cat, that by reason of lameness, sickness, feebleness, or neglect, is unfit for the labor it is performing, or that in any other manner is being cruelly treated; and, if the animal is not then in the custody of its owner, the officer shall give notice thereof to the owner, if known, and may provide suitable care for the animal until it is deemed to be in a suitable condition to be delivered to the owner, and any necessary expenses which may be incurred for taking care of and keeping the animal shall be a lien thereon, to be paid before the animal can be lawfully recovered. From:Suzanne Keehn To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Planning Commission; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan Subject:PHYSICIANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 12:40:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. First Do NO Harm. Before you voted on Smart Meters, I would have thought you would do your research as a Council, as what you decide effects all of the residents. I have known for years the harm Smart Metersdo, and other 'modern' Wireless Technology. There has been much research by doctors and scientists about the effects on our bodies. When I 'googled' Health and Smart Meters, this was one of many sites. I hope you'll read it and make a new decision if possible, makingthings less expensive and more efficient is not a reason to keep harmful technology. Physicians for Safe Technology Home About Us Advisory Board David Blask, Ph.d., M.D. Victoria Dunckley, M.D. Scott Eberle, M.D. Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD Roxana Marachi, Ph.D. Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D. Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D. Cindy Russell, M.D. Cindy Sage, M.A. John West, M.D. Advocacy Executive Summary: Wireless Technology and Public Health Mission Vision Goals Spanish Translations- Radiacion Electromagnetica Scientific Literature 5G Telecommunications Science Behavior, Memory & Learning Biological and DNA Mechanisms Cellular Mechanisms: Calcium Channels and Other Cellular Mechanisms: Oxidation DNA and RNA Effects Human DNA Effects of RF EMR Mitochondrial Effects and RFR Non-Thermal Effects Brain and Nervous System Blood Brain Barrier Nervous System Effects Neurodegeneration Head and Neck Tumors Brain Tumors Cancer Cardiac Effects Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects Electrosensitivity Environment and Wildlife Effects Eye, Sleep and Skin Effects Hematologic Effects Immune and Endocrine System Military and Government Reports NTP Study on Cell Phones and Cancer 2018 Prenatal Effects Reproductive Health and Infertility Sleep, Melatonin and Light at Night Wi-Fi Radiation Effects Review of Topics 5G “Mobile” Communications Addiction to Technology Baby Safe Cell Phones and Cancer NTP Study Spin vs Fact Cell Towers and City Ordinances Conversion Chart, Glossary RFR and Exposure Guidelines Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits, Human Exposures EMR/EMF Glossary: Understanding Electromagnetic Radiation Driverless, Hybrid and Electric CarsElectrosensitivity Electrosensitivity Overview Part 1 Electrosensitivity: Review of Research Part 2 A Clinical Approach to Electrosensitivity Part 3 Electrosensitivity Questionnaire Electrosensitivity Stories Health Effects Videos Industry Influence in Science Internet of Things Physicians Speak Privacy and Security of the Internet and 5G Psychosocial Issues Safety Tips for Wireless Devices “Smart” Meters Wearable Wireless Devices Wi-Fi in Schools Policies, Resolutions, and Testimony Broadband Expansion News Legal Issues and Cell Towers Letters Expert Letters SB649 New Legislation Massachusetts New Legislation Reducing Wireless Harm New Legislation Small Cell Towers Policies Resolutions and Appeals Telecommunications Act of 1996 Testimony and Court Cases Links & Resources Contact Us All Blog News and Events Smart Meter Radiation Health Effects Strange Symptoms “Many of them said they had never heard of electrical sensitivities before,were developing strange symptoms they never had before, could not usecomputers, wi-fi or cell phones any more without painful symptoms (even though previously they had been using them heavily with wi-fi in offices and on in homes 24/7). Weeks or months after their symptoms beganthey first discovered a smart meter on their home. Upon inquiry, theyfound out it had been installed at the time or just before their symptoms initiated… All this was surprising to me because this device was initiating ES (electrosensitivity) in previously normal, healthy persons who hadtolerated wi-fi and cell phones for years with no problems.” Richard H. Conrad, Ph.D., John Hopkins trained biochemist, Pre-Filed Testimony to the Maine Public Utilities Commission regarding Smart MeterOpt out Program, Feb 1, 2013 and the Maine Smart Meter Survey heconducted (begins page 65). Updated 06/4/21Headlines W.E. Energies meter likely culpable in house fire Utility “smart” meter linked to fire causing $100,000 in damages. Waukesha, WI. No Carrier.Oct 8, 2020. https://nocarrier.interlinked.us/?vol=1&issue=1 AT&T shelving DSL may leave hundreds of thousands hanging by a phone line. Oct 3, 2020. USA Today. Rob Pegoraro. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2020/10/03/att-dsl-internet-digital-subscriber-line-outdated/5880219002/ Inside the fight between my small Iowa hometown and a $12 billion utility over smart meters and the radiation that some residents call ‘poison’. Business insider. May 31, 2020. Benji Jones.https://www.businessinsider.com/a-small-towns-battle-against-smart- meters-and-a-utility-2020-5 Bay Area Safety Power Outage Sparks a Fire and Electrical Hazard Report by Local Resident Sent to Officials: Information on hazards ofsmart meters and other electrical transformers (October 2019).Fire and electrical hazards report Michigan Senator Colbeck sponsors International Wireless Forum. December 4, 2018 Senator Colbeck held the first of it’s kind forum onWireless Technology with a variety of speakers. To link to Smart Meter discussion go here. To view entire speaker series go here PG and E Removes Smart Meters from homes with Solar. To see how Smart Meters can be removed from homes with Solar installations andreplaced with the prior analogue meter and attach to landline go here. Eric Windheim moderates this demonstration. Palo Alto Power surge raises questions about SmartMeters: East Palo Alto electricity surge burnt out digital meters. Palo Alto Weekly. Sept 6,2011. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2011/09/04/power-surge-raises-questions-about-smartmeters “Smart” Meters for a “Smart” Grid Utilities in all states have been replacing decades old but still perfectly functioning analogue meters with so-called Smart Meters on peoples homes for the purpose of wirelessly reading electricity use by sendingradio frequency signals to neighboring houses which then are sent to localnodes and then to the local utility. This creates a continuous “Smart Grid” blanket of electromagnetic radiation in neighborhoods for the purpose of efficient wireless transfer of household data on energy use to the mainutility carrier for billing and data analysis. The human meter readers areno longer needed to read the meters directly. Although convenient and cheaper for utilities there have been a host of problems reported from privacy and security to serious health effects and fires. Many residentshave organized nationwide to educate others about these risks and passlegislation to allow residents to Opt Out of Smart Meters. Convenience or Hazard? Smart Meter placement seems to be a wonderful convenience, however, these meters use 2.4 GHz microwave (and 900 MHz) radiation for communications which is what our microwave ovens, Wi-Fi routers and other wireless devices use. The Smart Meters are also on 24/7. Althoughconsultants average the electromagnetic radiation emitted, they do not take into account research showing that pulsed radio frequency radiation is harmful even at lower power. It is the spikes of pulsed energy and not the average power density that causes the harm to cellular structures. Inaddition the long term cumulative exposures have been found to be harmful and are not taken into consideration in the rollout of these devices . Smart Meters can pulse up to 190,000 times a day. The 2.4 GHz wireless technology frequencies pulse at 2.4 billion cycles per second. We evolvedin the earth’s natural low magnetic field resonance of 7.83 Hz (7.83 cycles per second) and are now exposed in almost every environment- home, work, school and businesses-to continuous mix of manmade microwave frequencies. Smart Meters and “Dirty Electricity” Smart Meters placed on homes appear to have a particularly devastatingeffect on health as this pulsed non-ionizing radiation is transmitted through household wiring, creating widespread local fields of what is termed dirty electricity (Dirty electricity EMF Analysis) Although aiming to connect wirelessly to our appliances and Internet of Things Appliances thatare now being sold, this disharmonic mix of frequencies from both wired and wireless sources can affect our biological functioning. This is despite the fact that these levels are well below the ICNIRP Guidelines that are considered “safe”. Sienkiewicz et al notes that with regards to research inthis field, “there is a crucial difference between epidemiology studies andlaboratory work in terms of signals investigated: most people are exposed to a complex mixture of frequencies and signals at varying intensities, whereas the majority of animal studies have been performed using asingle frequency or intensity.” Are Exposures to Multiple Frequencies theKey to Future Radiofrequency Research? For an engaging, concise and helpful explanation see also ElectricalPollution in Your Home. Alison Main. Nov 2017. Research on Smart Meters Although there is a growing body of peer reviewed evidence that wirelessnon-ionizing microwave electromagnetic radiation is harmful to all living organisms at high and low exposures and to all organ systems there is virtually no research on Smart Meters themselves. Dr. Lamech, however,examined a government survey in Victoria, Australia looking at symptomsdevelopment after smart meters were installed. One would expect adverse symptoms similar to electrosensitvity and this was confirmed by Frederica Lamech (2014). She writes, “In 2006, the government in the state of Victoria, Australia, mandated the rollout of smart meters in Victoria, which effectively removed a whole population’s ability to avoid exposure to human-madehigh-frequency nonionizing radiation. This issue appears to constitute an unprecedented public health challenge for Victoria. By August 2013, 142 people had reported adverse health effects from wireless smart meters by submitting information on an Australian public Web site using its healthand legal registers.” After removing any ineligible participants without confirmed address, she took a survey of symptoms reported after the smart meters were placed.She found host of adverse physical health symptoms. These symptoms had a negative effect on these peoples lives in terms of normal functioning. Notably only 8% of the 92 final group reported they had electrosensitivity prior to the installation of smart meters, which Dr.Lamech states, “… points to the possibility that smart meters may have unique characteristics that lower people’s threshold for symptom development.” The most common reported symptoms were: insomnia headaches tinnitus fatigue cognitive disturbances dysesthesias (abnormal sensation) dizziness Dr. Lamech Research Self-reporting of symptom development from exposure to radiofrequency fields of wireless smart meters in victoria, australia: a caseseries. (2014) Lamech F. Altern There Health Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;20(6):28-39. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25478801 Research on EMR Exposure from Smart Meter: Within ICNIRP guidelines All measurements done in the lab were well below ICNIRP reference level for the general public. The issue that has been brought up by electrical engineers in that the radiofrequency radiation that ravels from the SmartMeter also apparently travels through the wiring of the house setting upan electromagnetic field in all of the electrical wiring. This could account for the symptoms felt by many when Smart Meters are placed. Exposure to electromagnetic fields from smart utility meters in GB; partI) laboratory measurements. (2017) Peyman A et al. Bioelectromagnetics. 2017 Mar 21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28324620 Assessment of exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields fromsmart utility meters in GB; part II) numerical assessment of induced SAR within the human body. (2018) Quresho MRA et al. Bioelectromagnetics. 2018 Apr;39(3):200-216. Testimonials Dr. De-Kun Li Provides Testimony to the FCC on Smart Meter Harm. Dr. De-Kun Li Testimonial Letter to FCC regarding electromagnetic radiation. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311506.pdf Dr. De-Kun Li Testimony FCC– Docket2011-00262https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520940945.pdf 2012 Maine Smart Meter Survey Reveals Health Impacts Richard Conrad, PhD, a John Hopkins biochemist, performed a healthsymptom survey of residents in Maine after installation of smart meters in 2012, in response to reports of neurologic symptoms in residents after the smart meters were placed . A constellation of symptoms of electrosensitivity that were reported as severe included fatigue, insomnia, difficulty concentrating, headaches, agitation, ringing in the ears, pressure in the head, tingling burning skin, heart racing, arrhythmia, memory problems. Here is testimony from one individual. “Before smart meters, I had worked in an office full of computers and wi-fi and had no electrical sensitivities. I had not even heard of electrical sensitivities, and had no concerns about smart meters. Both my wife and myself began to develop mysterious symptoms that we never had before,and then more than a week after the symptoms began, we discovered that smart meters had been installed before we first developed the symptoms. Because of smart meter exposure I am now extremely electrically sensitive and can no longer safely live in our San Francisco home. I went from beinga perfectly healthy 35 year old to being electrically sensitive in a matter of weeks. The limitations of this condition are extraordinary. I do not know how much longer I will be able to work at my financial services firm. Nor do I know how much longer I will be able to live in a city or town with acell phone tower. Once a person becomes sensitized to microwaveradiation, life becomes completely different, and difficult. I have constant headaches, unless I am in nature. My ears ring if I am within miles of a cell tower. I have fatigue if I am around wi-fi for too long. Using a cellphone for calls or internet functions has become impossible. I used all ofthe above technology just 15 short months ago with no problems. I had no idea such technology could be harmful. Now my wife and I search for a safe place to live and I look back fondly on the days I could use acomputer without symptoms. I know that many, many others are goingthrough similar situations-all since installation of smart meters. Something must be done.” An Inconvenient Truth: Richard H. Conrad, Ph.D. Pre- Filed Testimony toMaine PUC on smart Meters Dr. Conrad, who received a Biochemistry degree from John Hopkins University and completed post graduate work at the Institute of MolecularBiophysics of Florida State University and in the Department of Biochemistry of Cornell University, gave clear and compelling expert testimony to the Maine Public Utilities Commission in 2013 regarding Smart Meters. He describes the key issues with development ofelectrosensitivity symptoms after the installation of Smart Meters, reporting on his own Smart meter survey. He dispels the myths of electrosensitivity and provides scientific evidence that electrosensitivity in NOT a nocebo effect. Dr. Conrad notes, “If a government agency or a corporation was forcing the deployment of technology on citizens that was known in advance to cause disability or significant harm to one out of every 100 citizens, wouldthis amount of harm be “acceptable” or would it be cause to halt such deployment? What would the probability of harm have to be to be prevent deployment? The actual acceptable limit chosen would probably be proportional to the perceived degree of necessity of the particulartechnology. Most technology is not as necessary as we think it is. There is always a safer design. The precautionary principle is the only ethical way to proceed.” AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: “Smart meters are sensitizing hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people all over the world to become Electrically HyperSensitive, regardlessof the stubborn adherence of industry and the FCC to thermal “safety” standards. Their response to non-thermal evidence is to ignore, disregard, deny, and above all, disbelieve. They neither conduct nor support unbiased non-thermal effects research.” Dr. Conrad- Maine Public utilitiesCommission Testimony on Smart Meters. 2013.Health Effects Reported with Smart Meters Once these Smart Meters began to be installed in different states, reportsof adverse health effects similar to electrosensitivity surfaced. Thesesymptoms include fatigue, insomnia, poor concentration and heart palpitations. These are especially noted when Smart Meters are installed near where peoples heads are in the bedroom. When the Smart Meterswere removed many people reported their symptoms resolved. Somepeople have to leave there homes due to immediate severe adverse symptoms. Because of the widespread health effects that were observed, in addition to reports of inaccurate inflated billing and privacy issues, atleast 24 states have a Smart Meter Opt Out Law of one degree or another. Smart Meter Opt Out Laws in 24 States Massachusetts is one of the most recent states to consider a similar Bill- S1684 Smart Meter Opt Out Massachusetts.Andrew Marino Testimony to Pennsylvania Utilities Commission Andrew Marino, a seasoned researcher on the biologic effects of electromagnetic fields, has both a PhD in biophysics as well as JD andstresses the need for burden of proof of safety vs harm. In 2016 he provided comprehensive testimony on Smart Meters to the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission noting, “From animal studies we can now see that essentially any biological system in the body can be altered byenvironmental-strength levels of any technical type of electromagnetic energy.” He also comments on the importance of basic research and the lack of usefulness of epidemiologic studies stating, “Such studies produce the most relevant type of scientific knowledge regarding health risks ofelectromagnetic energy because their conclusions apply directly to human beings. Nevertheless their probative value is far more limited compared with experimental studies. This limitation arises directly from the logical structure of epidemiological studies.” https://www.andrewamarino.com/PDFs/F277-Povacz_v_PECO2017.pdf He has authored many studies and articles on electromagnetic effects that can be found at his website https://www.andrewamarino.com/? page_id=3258 Testimony Kirstin Beatty to the Massachusetts PUC outlining issues with Smart Meter infrastructure- Letter Kirstin Beatty Mass Public Utilitites Modernization 8:29:2020Military Expert Jerry Flynn Reveals EMR and Smart Meter Secrets to Preserve Industrial Profit In this 2012 video below, high level retired military expert Jerry Flynnexplains the history of military uses of pulsed electromagnetic radiation(radar) and reviews why wireless devices we use including smart meters, cell phones, baby monitors, Wi Fi routers that use pulsed 2.4GHz RF are harmful to biological processes and linked to chronic illness. He highlightsother scientists warning that this is “the single largest technologicalexperiment the public has endured without their knowledge or consent”. He notes that scientist Dr. Robert Becker, who studied basic science of EMR and wrote The Body Electric warns, ” I have no doubt in my mindthat at the present time the greatest polluting element in the earthsenvironment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater on a global scale than warming and the increase in chemicals in the environment.” Jerry Flynn notes that industry has chosen wireless telecommunications for 2 reasons. 1) It is cheaper for them, thus more profitable and 2) The wireless radiation goes through walls. This means data gathering andsurveillance are easy. He points out that no government around the worldhas ever studied heath impacts on children. Despite no studies on Smart Meters these are now placed on our homes without our consent or choice. PG&E REFUNDS SMART METER “OPT-OUT” FEES TO EMF-DISABLEDCUSTOMER In a press release April 22, 2021, it is stated that PG and E refunded, by court order, “Opt Out” fees to Nina Beety, who is disabled byelectromagnetic sensitivity, as an “unlawful surcharges against a disabled person (ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, II-1.3000 Relationship to title III)… She explained that EMF-emitting devices cause her disabling health effects. PG&E ignored Beety’s requests for disabled accommodation,and refused to allow residential customers to have analog, non-digital meters without paying a so-called “opt- out” fee. The family was forced to pay $415. in fees to avoid Smart Meters on their home.” “It took facing a bankruptcy judge in court for PG&E to quit fighting and refund fees that were unlawful surcharges under the ADA and that discriminate against disabled people… Beety said, “With this action, PG&E and other utilities must now halt their practice of charging unlawful “opt-out” surcharge fees to customers disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity or who have other EMF-sensitive medical conditions, and the companies must refund all unlawful surchargefees already paid by these disabled customers. Utilities must allow the simple, readily achievable, and reasonable disabled accommodation of analog, electromechanical, non-digital utility meters for all disabled persons who require them.”Opt Out Option in 24 States Many citizens and community groups have organized in the United States and abroad to oppose and stop Smart Meter installations for severalreasons, including health effects. As noted above 24 states now have an opt out option. Reports of harassment and power being shut off has raised concern and awareness about this issue. Michigan is now in the middle of assessing their utility, DTE Energy Corporation, with testimony beingentered into the record for 2018 (see below). Massachusetts is the latestto propose legislation allowing opt outs for smart meters Massachusetts Bill S 1864 , S 1864-An Act relative to utilities, smart meters, and ratepayers’ rights. California Opt-Out In Northern California you can call Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Opt Out Program at 1-866-743-0263 and ask to Opt Out or call your localutility. People who do not wish to keep their Smart Meters in the 24 statesthat allow this can call their local utility as well to return back to an analogue meter with a human meter reader. Note that municipalities vary even in states to allow opting out of Smart Meters.Michigan Senator Patrick Colbeck Sponsors Wireless Forum On Dec 4, 2018 Senator Colbeck sponsored a groundbreaking international wireless forum, with speakers discussing all aspects of wireless technologyincluding Smart Meters. This is the first of its kind forum in the depth and breadth of this issue. Senator Colbeck states this is the most important environmental issue of our time as it affects every human. He also notes the first steps of awareness of wireless technology, similar to grieving: Denial Anger Bargaining Depression Acceptance Senator Colbeck then relates the need to depoy this technology in a safemanner. Wireless Technology Forum Dec 4, 2018: To view the entire speaker series and panel discussion go here Electrical Engineer Bill Bathgate on Health and Safety Issues with Smart Meters, Dec 4, 2018 At the Dec 4, 2018 Wireless Forum sponsored by Michigan Senator Patrick Colbeck Here is an eyeopening video of Bill Bathgate, an electrical engineer, reviewing smart meters and how these can be not only a health hazard but also a fire hazard. Diana Ostermann Smart Grid Talk to Local Citizens SMART METERS: Michigan Stop Smart Meters – Diana Ostermann ProvidesDetailed Information on Smart Meters and How They Work, interference, dirty electricity and more. Technical thorough 1 hour video posted June 13, 2013. Smart Meters: A National Crisis? In this article in Health Impact News Smart Meters are discussed in detail and an engineer directly measures the difference between Smart Metersand Cell Towers. Smart Meters: Countdown to a National Crisis of Illness and Death. April 15, 2018.Smart Meters- A National Crisis How Smart Meters Work Experienced engineer and lecturer Rob States describes below how Smart Meters and the mesh network is created in neighborhoods. He discusses how Smart Meters can increase exposure to potentially harmful microwaveradiation. In addition, he looks at how Italy uses somewhat different“smart meters” that do not emit microwave radiation. The “Dark Side ” of Smart Meters . Robert States describes the manydilemmas with Smart Meters including health, privacy and home security. Are There Safer Smart Meters? Truckee California is Testing This Jeromy Johnson, on his website http://www.EMFAnalysis.com, Do YouHave a Smart Meter?, examines conventional Smart Meters versus newer models put in Truckee, California, that transmit infrequently and only once a month when the truck reader comes by. Are these safer? The question remains, however the Truckee Donner PUD aims to ” have the leastamount of RF in their community as possible.” They also allow Opt Outs to any of its customers and they do not force this untested technology on their residents. Dr. David Carpenter on Smart Meters and Health Public health expert and Harvard Professor Dr. David Carpenter explains that there are no studies showing long term safety of Smart meters. Smart Meter Versus Fruit Tree This non-scientific observational testimonial video from EMF Analysis.com demonstrates what scientists have found with non-thermal cell tower radiation effects on trees. There are widespread environmental effectsnow emerging in peer reviewed journals. For Scientific Literature Environmental Effects see https://mdsafetech.org/environmental-and- wildlife-effects/ Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. (2016) Waldmann-Selsam C. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Dec 1;572:554-569. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133. Privacy, Hacking, Fire and Billing Concerns Privacy Privacy of utility billing and usage has been a consumer priority. Third party regulations lag behind in many states, however, some have put in place laws that afford some protection of information. The California Public Utilities Commission was the first to establish rules to protect the privacyand security of customer smart meter usage data to third parties.Unfortunately, when electricity data is transferred to a third party, utilities can no longer reasonably protect that information. Balancing Smart Grid Data and Consumer Privacy. Constance Douris.June 2017. https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/Lexington_Smart_Grid_Data_Privacy-2017.pdf Smart electricity meters can be dangerously insecure, warns expert.Hackers can cause fraud, explosions and house fires, and utility companiesshould do more to protect consumers, conference told. Dec 29, 2016. Alex Hern. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/29/smart-electricity-meters-dangerously-insecure-hackers San Francisco Water District- About Your Water Meter. Encrypted data read every 6 hours. https://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=386 Hacking Hacking of smart meters has been reported for many years. In 2009 aseries of hacking incidents was reported in Puerto Rico where smart meters were altered and settings changed to reduce electricity bills. The FBI got involved at that time. Hackers with not much sophistication according to experts can take control of your electricity as well as any IoTdevices that are connected. Hackers RF device fools the “Smart Meter” into thinking it is a cell tower. IoT devices have unique signature loads and this information can be linked to personal information useful to police but also to others for surveillance purposes. Legitimate hacking concernssurround identity theft, burglary and vandalism. Encryption is now used but experts agree that there is no 100% hack proof system. Hackproofing smart meters. Science Daily. June 6, 2019. University ofBritish Columbia. “He adds that as with all security techniques, there is no such thing as 100 per cent protection: “Security is a cat-and-mouse game between the attacker and the defender, and our goal is to make it more difficult to launch the attacks. I believe the fact that our techniques wereable to find not just one or two vulnerabilities, but a whole series of them, makes them a great starting point for defending against attacks.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606101822.htm How to hack a smart meter. Engerati Network. Feb 12, 2018.https://www.engerati.com/transmission-and-distribution/article/energy-security/how-hack-smart-meter Fired Employee Hacked Smart Water Meters Just to be a Jerk. June 30, 2017. Elizabeth Montalbano. https://securityledger.com/2017/06/fired-employee-hacked-smart-water-meters-just-to-be-a-jerk/ Black Hat: Water Smart Meters Vulnerable To Attack. Jan 15, 2015. Stefanie Hoffman. https://news.hamlethub.com/swyonkers/life/1157- smart-water-meters-vulnerable-to-hacking Smart Meter Hack Shuts Off the Lights. European researchers willreveal major security weaknesses in smart meters that could allow an attacker to order a power blackout. Kelly Jackson Higgins. Oct 1, 2014. Dark Reading. https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/smart-meter-hack-shuts-off-the-lights/d/d-id/1316242 Cybersecurity Cybersecurity is an ongoing problem, despite encryption. The hackers are keeping up with more sophisticated technology. Having data in the “Cloud” is no assurance of security as well. Key Biscayne Hit by Cybersecurity Attack. Key Biscayne is the third Florida town to be hit by hackers in June. June 28, 2019. https://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/key-biscayne-hit-by-cybersecurity-attack/d/d-id/1335086 Hackers Won’t Let Up in Their Attack on U.S. Cities. Baltimore is still recovering month after more than one group breached its network. Wall Street Journal. June 7, 2019. Scott Calvert and Jon Kamp. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-cities-strain-to-fight-hackers- 11559899800 Ransomware Cyberattacks Knock Baltimore’s City Services Offline. NPR. May 21, 2019. https://www.npr.org/2019/05/21/725118702/ransomware-cyberattacks-on-baltimore-put-city-services-offline Yes. Ransomware Can Encrypt Your cloud Storage. MUO. Gavin Phillips. March 29, 2017. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/cloud-drive- ransomware/ Surveillance Invasive surveillance makes consumers and the ACLU uncomfortable. A recent May 2018 article in the North Jersey USA Today states “Electric cars take the surveillance potential one step further, according to Kate Connizzo of the ACLU in Vermont, one of six states with more than 80percent residential smart-meter penetration. “Determining how much electricity was required to recharge an electric car, and extrapolating from that how far it had traveled, would seem to be a pretty simple matter,” said Connizzo. “Put all this together with such devices as automatedlicense plate readers, surveillance cameras, facial recognition technology,and you construct a detailed record of a person’s movements and activities.” Fires Fires and explosions have also been reported with smart meters that overload. This is another potential risk. EMF Safety Network has complieda list of smart meter fires. Installing smart meters takes expertise andtime. According to an interview with a former Wellington Energy employee who installed smart meters, there was improper training. If the smart meter is placed too close to a gas line there could be arcing with resultantexplosion. Eight fires were documented by The Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia. In a 2017 comprehensive report BCUC & SMART METERFIRES: THE FAILURE TO PROTECT The author notes: Smart Meters in BC have never been independently certified by any agency as safe Smart Meters are being removed from the scene of fires without electrical inspections No agency is tracking fires Smart meters have burned, melted, and caused house fires Palo Alto Power surge raises questions about SmartMeters: East Palo Altoelectricity surge burnt out digital meters. Palo Alto Weekly. Sept 6, 2011. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2011/09/04/power-surge-raises- questions-about-smartmeters Billing Issues While cities across the country have spent tens of millions of dollars “upgrading” water metering systems, residents have frequently reported increased billing as soon as advanced water meters have been installed.The utilities have attributed this to leaks in the system or home renovations, which homeowners have found not to be the case. Water Bill Investigation: Are smart meters to blame for skyrocketingrates? There is still no explanation behind skyrocketing water bills across the City of San Diego. Steve Price. Feb 6, 2018. https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/water-bill-investigation-are-smart- meters-to-blame-for-skyrocketing-rates/509-3ac436c8-e822-4b0d-931a-1929ebfbc184 Homeowners Question If City’s Smart Water Meter System to Blame for High Bills. NBC San Diego. Tom Jones, Consumer Bob and Erica Byers. Feb 6, 2018. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Homeowners-Question-If-Citys-Smart-Water-Meter-System-to-Blame-for-High-Bills-473027503.html Residents claim water bills are rising after new water meters are installed. Jessica Bruno. Oklahoma News. August 3, 2016.https://kfor.com/2016/08/03/residents-claim-water-bills-are-rising-after-new-water-meters-are-installed/ Problems with city’s new ‘smart’ water meters generate numerous written complaints. Daniel chacon. Dec 28, 2015. The New Mexican.https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/problems-with-city-s-new-smart-water-meters-generate-numerous/article_d4a8e931- 9ff9-58a4-8a90-d366f2d3692e.html EMF Safety Network Smart Meter Bill Complaints.http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/complaints/ San Diego Lawsuits Over Smart Meters: For Electricity, Then Water and Now for Everything As Smart Meter systems are being installed in cities, there has been no premarket testing of these devices and no consideration for privacy or cybersecurity. All are significant threats to the health and wellbeing of thecommunities where these have been and are soon to be installed. Electric Monitoring: In 2012 A San Diego Woman filed a lawsuit after her Smart Meter was installed and she became ill with symptoms typical ofelectrosensitivity. Smart Meter Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court by San Diegan Water Monitoring Smart Meters: This 2018 lawsuit challenges where theymoney for these meters is coming from and rate increases. Environment Report: Lawsuit Targets Smart Water Meters Population Monitoring: Jan 2018. New “Smart” monitoring equipment hasbeen placed on streetlights in San Diego to monitor the sounds and sights of those in the city, as well as temperature, humidity and air pollution which will be uploaded to AT&T cloud. They claim it will save energy. San Diego Installs Smart Streetlights to Monitor the Metropolis Testimony Smart Meters Michigan House Energy Policy Committee Hearing 1/16/18 Smart Meters Michigan residents testify about harassment by DTE Energy Corporation, with many testifying to poor customer service, lack of communication, un- consented removal of analogue meters with placement of Smart Meter aswell as people having their power abruptly shut off. At time 43:49 A 90 year old woman and her caretaker discuss how her power was shut off for 2 weeks in November 2014. At time 1:00:00 A woman discusses the lack of communication with the DTE when she requested keeping her Smart Meter due to health issues with ultimate shutting off of her power. At time 1:17:15 A doctor discusses her electrosensitivity and the lack of knowledge and respect for her condition from DTE when her power was shut off because of her refusal to have a Smart Meter. Michigan Senator Patrick J. Colbeck Speaks on concerns about Smart Meters as a Part of Smart Grid and support for HR 4220 to allow Opt Out, March 9, 2017 Michigan Senator Patrick J. Colbeck discusses security threats and consumer protections regarding Smart Meters and a Smart Grid. He highlights a study done in California on failure mode and effects analysisshowing that the power to our homes, offices and businesses is put at riskby using Smart Meters. Analogue meters do not carry this risk. He puts Smart Meter risks in three broad categories- National Security, Business Liability and Family Security. He quotes former CIA Director JamesWoolsley, ” A so called “Smart Grid” that is as vulnerable as what we’ve got is not smart at all. It’s a really stupid grid.” Business risks to their operation include “threats of terrorism” and “Cyber attacks”. These are listed in the Michigan DTE 10K filing. “Technology systems are vulnerableto disability or failures, due to hacking, viruses, acts of war…” Regarding Family risks there are No surge protectors thus risking fires, no conducted emissions filter leading to early appliance failure, Cyber security back- door access for hackers, no circuit breaker between the meter and thepower source. Michigan Senator Patrick J. Colbeck Speaks in Support of Smart Meter Choice for Opt Out, Nov 10, 2016 Senator Patrick Colbeck speaks in support of property rights to allow property owners the choice of having a Smart Meter during the November 10, 2016 session. He notes that there are many reasons citizens wish tohave an analogue meter rather than a Smart Meter. These concerns include privacy, health, accurate pricing and data hacking on usage profiles. He states this comes down to property rights and the ability of people to refuse a device that causes substantial harm. Senator Colbecknotes there is no substantial harm in letting people have a choice. Dr. Martin Pall Testimony in Massachusetts on Smart Meters Dr. Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus at Washington State University and author of many papers on EMR on cellular structures, testifies June 20, 2017 in Massachusetts on Smart Meter bill SB1864. http://healthimpactnews.com/2017/smart-meters-countdown-to-a- national-crisis-of-illness-and-death/ Power Cut off in 4 North Carolina Homes as They Refuse Smart Meters. On June 28, 2018, four Asheville North Carolina homes had their power cut off for refusing Smart meters. No advanced notice was given according to the residents. They state they had signed a notarized document requesting removal of smart meters and replacement with analoguemeters.Smart Meters, Dirty Electricity and Disease Dr. Sam Milham, physician, epidemiologist and author of the book DirtyElectricity, is featured here, explaining smart meter devices, dirtyelectricity and adverse health effects. Informative. Research papers he highlights can be found on his website Sam Milham Research Papers. ” I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time the greatest polluting element in the earths environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater on a global scalethan warming and the increase in chemicals in the environment.” Share this: TwitterFacebook Like this: #MDSafeTech on twitter© 2016 Physicians for Safe Technology (mdsafetech.org). All rights reserved. The content of the MDSafeTech .org website is provided for informational purposes only. Each writer is expressing his or her own opinions and theyare not necessarily the opinions of the group at large or of any employer of individuals of the group. While every effort has been made to ensure that the information on this website is accurate, no guarantees can be made. The information here is for general education and not intended tobe medical advice to treat or advise patients. MDSafeTech.org is therefore not liable for damages resulting from the use of information obtained from this site or from sites linked to it. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the information on this site lies with the reader. Digital Technology and Public Health About Us Advisory Board Review of Topics Contact Us Blog Scientific Literature Biological and Cellular Mechanisms Health Effects Science Brain Tumors and Cell Phones Policies,Resolutions, and Testimony Electrosensitivity Science Behavior, Memory & Learning Reproductive Health Effects Health Effects of Digital Technology Cell Phones and Cancer: Review Information 5G “Mobile” Communications Electrosensitivity The Internet of Things Technology and ChildhoodDevelopment Kids and Social Media Health Effects Videos Links & Resources Electrosensitivity: Review of Relevant Research Baby Safe Executive Summary: Wireless Technology and Public Health A Clinical Approach to Electrohypersensitivty Eye, Sleep and Skin EffectsPsychosocial Issues Neurodegeneration NTP Study on Cell Phones andCancer 2018 Advocacy Cellular Mechanisms: Calcium Channels and Other DNA and RNA Effects NTP Study on Cancer Risk from Cellphone Radiation: Spin vs Fact Roxanna Marachi, PhD Addiction to Technology UnderstandingRadiofrequencies Advanced Glossary of Electromagnetic Radiation Termsand Conversion Charts Wi-Fi in Schools Mission Vision Goals Prenatal Effects Wearable Wireless Devices Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects Wi- Fi Radiation Effects Resolutions and Appeals Policies Testimony and CourtCases Letters Small Cell Antenna Deployment Local and Nationwide:California SB649 Expert Letters Human DNA Effects of RF EMR Nervous System Effects Sleep, Melatonin and Light at Night Cellular Mechanisms: Oxidation Electrosensitivity Stories New Legislation Small Cell TowersCancer and Radiofrequency Radiation Brain and Nervous System Effects5G Telecommunications Science Blood Brain Barrier Massachusetts Bills on Wireless Safety 2018 Smart Meter Radiation Health Effects Safety Tips for Wireless Devices Babies, Children EMR Science Physicians Call for Safetywith Wireless Technology Headache Research on EMR Liability Policies Electrosensitivity Questionnaire Broadband Expansion News Cardiac Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation Driverless, Hybrid and Electric Cars PST Summary: Wireless Technology and Public Health Cell Towers and CityOrdinances Head and Neck Tumors Hematologic Effects Kidney Effects Immune and Endocrine System Mitochondrial Effects and RFR Tinnitus and Hearing Loss Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits, Human Exposures EMR/EMF Non-Thermal Effects Stress Protein SynthesisTelecommunications Act of 1996 Testing Radiofrequencies Legislation Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD Glossary: Understanding Electromagnetic Radiation Environment and Wildlife Effects Privacy and Security of the Internet and 5G Public Health and Research Compendiums New LegislationReducing Wireless Harm Medical Implants and RFR Spanish Translations- Radiacion Electromagnetica Compendiums and Reviews of EMF/EMR Occupational Exposures Informed Consent Legal Issues and Cell Towers Facebook LinkedIn TwitterInstagram From:Aram James To:Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Moore; Council, City; SajidKhan; Jeff Rosen; Planning Commission; Joe Simitian; Winter Dellenbach; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; CeciliaTaylor; Betsy Nash; Raj; Jay Boyarsky; Greer Stone; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda;paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jonsen, Robert; Joe Simitian; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:Philadelphia to ban minor police traffic stops to promote equity Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 12:27:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/31/philadelphia-ban-minor-police-traffic-stops/6224286001/ Sent from my iPhone From:cusinger@yes2connect.com To:Council, City Subject:<cfif Palo Alto neq "">Palo Alto </cfif>Business support tools in Yes2Connect Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 11:59:47 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cusinger@yes2connect.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Adrian. What tools canmake Palo Alto businessesmore resilient? Business Idea CenterBiz Resource CenterBusiness BoostBusiness Disaster Plan Business support/BuyLocalClustersCrowdfunding SupportDecals/Veterans Disadvantaged businessegiftcardsHire LocalHR Center Loyalty ProgramMinimartPart-time/Gig EconomyTriage VIP ProgramVisitors Click on the topic, then sendan email or call! egiftcard W e're O pe n Business Idea Center Business Disaster Pian business support buy--1 ,ocal HR C8rih,r ~IP p,cxJ1,1m Biz Resourre Centeir C1owdlun,;111y%pfe}'l,qfJ Decals C luste rs Veteraros RooualdEiprnss Loyalty program Dis.advantaQOd bL1S1T10<.S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Carolyn UsingerYes2Connect.comcusinger@yes2connect.com925.360.9076 directConnect with me on LinkedIn About me: I developcustomized tools that make iteasier for businesses, non-profits, and government towork together. In the 1990s,my house and home officewere burned in the East Bayfirestorm. I also published aseries of Business Start-UpKits with the CaliforniaChamber of Commerce,customized for local chambersof commerce. I wrote a Guideto Hiring IndependentContractors, also published byCalChamber. In 2007 with agrant from Wells Fargo Bankand the California Associationfor Economic Development(CALED), I created Tools forBusiness Success, a customizedwebsite with local, state, andfederal resources to start andgrow businesses. CAN-SPAM email opt-out From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Binder, Andrew; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Moore; PlanningCommission; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Raj; Sajid Khan; JeffRosen; Council, City; Jay Boyarsky; Rebecca Eisenberg; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Jonsen, Robert; GreerStone; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Anna Griffin; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Cecilia Taylor Subject:Racist police a national problem attack black teens disproportionately Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 10:30:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/579726-black-girls-involved-in-police-use-of-force-incidents-far-more- often?amp Sent from my iPhone From:Ruth Robertson To:Council, City Subject:Renters need your consideration... Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 2:36:57 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rwsrobertson@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council: My husband and I have lived in Palo Alto close to 30 years now and raised our children here. Both have excellent careers, one in tech, yet both remain renters, and not by choice. It is easy for those of us who bought homes in Palo Alto decades ago to forget that we benefitted from moving here at a time when housing costs were a small fraction of what they are today. Renters are less secure than homeowners for so many reasons. They suffer under the weight of high housing prices and ever increasing rental costs. Evictions and landlord harassment are a reality, yes, even in Palo Alto! These are some of the things I would like to see happen. First of all, a rental survey program would help identify renter needs. I would like to see a limit put on security deposits, a right to counsel established and an eviction reduction program put in place. As a community we need to protect longtime renters, some of whom have lived in Palo Alto for decades, as well as new tenants who want to live in/near the city where they work. Thank you, Ruth RobertsonSouthampton Dr., Palo Alto Photo by Kiara Worth licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0 | Article | What Is COP26 and WhyDoes It Matter? Cherelle Blazer, Senior Director of the Sierra Club's International Climate and Policy Campaign, breaks down what happens at the UN’s Conference of the Parties (COP) climate summit, and why you should care about what'shappening at this year’s conference. "The climate crisis is a global threat that does not care about borders.The only way to counter a threat the size of climate change is through a coordinated global response." Photo courtesy of Otuo-Akyampong Boakye, Eco | Article | We Heard Clear andConsistent Demands at theGrassroots Climate LeadersSummit The annual Group of Twenty (G20) Leaders’ Summit happened last weekend and the 26th annual United Nations Climate Summit (COP26)kicked off in Glasgow, Scotland on Sunday. At these summits, world leaders will come together to make decisions that affect all of us. But the From:Sierra Club Insider To:Council, City Subject:What Is COP26 and Why Does It Matter, Build Back Better, Restore Protections for Wolves, and More Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 1:50:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. (P' I lG) ! ~ 1ragefflerf orourPlanet Warriors Movement - Ghana.obstacles to participation for grassroots leaders from many developing countries, especially those in the Global South, have never been greater. The Global Grassroots Summit is working to bridge the gap between frontline communities and decision- makers. Photo courtesy of Frances Denny for The Luupe | Read and Take Action | Build Back Better Act:What’s In, What’s Out,What’s Next After months of negotiations, House Democrats have released draft legislative text spelling out the details of President Biden’s historic Build Back Better Act. The legislation may come up for a vote in the House of Representatives this week, whichmeans this historic investment in climate, jobs, and justice is one step closer to the finish line. But what’s in this major legislative package, and how can you help move it forward? If you’re ready to take action, send a message to your representative about why you support the Build Back Better Act. | Sierra Magazine | West Virginians AreDisappointed in Joe Manchin In mid-October, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, announced he would forgo the Photo by AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite prosperity of his constituents and their descendants by refusing to vote for a climate measure billed as the nation’s last best chance to secure a livable future. Find out how West Virginians are reacting. Near Moore's Creek, New Jersey, one of the numerous areas threatened by the proposed PennEast Pipeline. | Photo courtesy of Taylor McFarland | Article | Win for the Little Guys:PennEast Pipeline Defeated In a win for open space, climate progress, and grassroots organizing, the PennEast pipeline has been defeated. This 118-mile pipeline would have been a disaster for both NewJersey and Pennsylvania. Learn how the Sierra Club’s New Jersey Chapter and their partnersdefeated PennEast. | Article | Biden Must Put PeopleBefore Fossil Fuels “For over six years, I’ve been organizing my community to prevent several proposed fracked gas projects in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley (RGV),” writes Rebekah Hinojosa, a Sierra Club campaign representative. “President Biden’s climate legacy will be Photo courtesy Ben Cushing determined by his administration’s willingness to listen to local residents most impacted and put a stop to these fracked gas projects.” "It's time for Biden to say no to LNGin the RGV—and everywhere else it's proposed— once and for all." Photo by iStock.com/Leonid Ikan | Take Action | Tell the Army Corps: Stopthe Mountain Valley Pipeline The Army Corps of Engineers could soon issue a permit that would allow construction of the dangerous Mountain Valley Pipeline in Virginia and West Virginia to continue—eventhough it has already harmed clean water sources across Appalachia and racked up hundreds of water quality- related violations. Speak out against this risky, unnecessary pipeline. | Article | Wolf Advocates Organize toRestore Protections for thePersecuted Species Photo by iStock.com/Dee Carpenter Photography One year after the Trump administration stripped Endangered Species Act protections for nearly all populations of gray wolves in the United States, wildlife conservationorganizations and Indigenous nations are scrambling to restore safeguards for the beleaguered animal before 30 years of wolf restoration work goesdown the drain. Learn why wildlife advocates say action "can’t happen soon enough." Photo courtesy of the Tent Lab | Sierra Magazine | Outdoor Gear That’ll KeepYou Snug and Dry, Sans“Forever Chemicals” Here are a few outdoor-gear brands leading the way when it comes to PFAS-free backpacks, tents, and shoes. Check out the list. | Sierra Magazine | Sci-Fi and Fantasy Authors:Our Anthropocene Guides Writers of fantasy and science fiction are starting to grapple with the Anthropocene. It’s a natural fit: The genres have always been known for their great world-building writers. Photo by iStock.com/AKKHARAT JARUSILAWONG Here’s how writers of speculative fiction believe their work can help us imagine and prepare for "the Ageof Humans." Photo of Layla who held a birthday fundraiser with Team Sierra. | Team Sierra | Celebrate With Team Sierra Instead of asking for presents for her birthday, Layla used her seventh birthday to raise money to protect the planet. Do you have a special occasion coming up—a birthday, a wedding, or a new baby on the way? You can createyour own celebratory fundraiser on Team Sierra and raise much-needed funds for climate action. You can create your own celebratory Team Sierra fundraiser and raise much-needed funds for climate action. | Brand Partnership | Donate Your Car Before theEnd of the Year Did you know that donating your old or no-longer-needed vehicle can help support the Sierra Club’s work to address the climate crisis, protect our wild places, and ensure that everyone lives in safe and healthy Photo courtesy of CARS communities? Our partners at CARS will pick up your vehicle from any location, no matter its condition, at no cost to you. They accept trucks, trailers, boats, RVs, motorcycles, and more. If we meet our year-end goal of 1,000 vehicles donated, we could raise$600,000 for our campaigns. Donate by December 31 to be eligible for a 2021 tax deduction. Find out more about the Sierra Club Foundation's vehicle donation program and call now to schedule a pickup: (855) 337-4377. This email was sent to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org This email was sent by the Sierra Club 2101 Webster St., Suite 1300, Oakland, CA 94612 Manage Preferences | Unsubscribe | View as Web Page From:Aram James To:Tanaka, Greg Cc:CA18AEima@mail.house.gov; Winter Dellenbach; city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; City Mgr; Council, City; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Joe Simitian; Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Kou, Lydia; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; gmah@sccoe.org; Tom DuBois Subject:Have you abandoned your campaign for an unconstitutional stand-alone-hate-speech- ordinance? (Slight edit) Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 8:44:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ >> Nov, 2, 2021>> Hi Greg,>> Hope you are well. I don’t want to unnecessarily continue to hammer against your call for the City of Palo Alto topass an unconstitutional stand-alone-hate-speech-ordinance, if you have already abandoned your effort.>> However, as you might guess, I will continue to call you out on the issue if you don’t publicly declare yourintention in this regard. So I will make it as simply as possible:>> 1. Yes, I Greg Tanaka will and do continue to push the City of Palo Alto to pass a stand-alone-hate-speech-ordinance.>> 2. No, I Greg Tanaka have abandoned my effort to have the City of Palo Alto pass an unconstitutional stand-alone-hate-speech ordinance.>> *** if you choose not to directly answer my question I will assume you are continuing in your effort to pass anunconstitutional stand-alone-hate-speech-ordinance.>> Best regards,>> Aram James>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Tanaka, Greg Cc:city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City; CA18AEima@mail.house.gov; Joe Simitian; Shikada, Ed; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Raj; Cecilia Taylor; Betsy Nash; Molly; Kou, Lydia; Greer Stone; Human Relations Commission Subject:Have you abandoned your campaign for an unconstitutional stand-alone-hate-speech- ordinance? Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 8:40:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Nov, 2, 2021 Hi Greg, Hope you are well. I don’t want to unnecessarily continue to hammer against your call for the City of Palo Alto topass an unconstitutional stand-alone-hate-speech-ordinance, if you have already abandoned your effort. However, as you might guess, I will continue to call you out on the issue if you don’t publicly declare your intentionin this regard. So I will make it as simply as possible: 1. Yes, I Greg Tanaka will and do continue to push the City of Palo Alto to pass a stand-alone-hate-speech-ordinance. 2. No, I Greg Tanaka have abandoned my effort to have the City of Palo Alto pass an unconstitutional stand-alone-hate-speech ordinance. *** if you choice not to directly answer my question I will assume you are continuing in your effort to pass anunconstitutional stand-alone-hate-speech-ordinance. Best regards, Aram James Sent from my iPhone From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Subject:1033 Amarillo Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 8:13:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ So you all are in favor of an apartment building on a busy, main thoroughfare, but against denser family housing in a quiet residential neighborhood? Nobody wants to live next University or Alma or El Camino or Page Mill if they have any other decent choice. And nobody wants to live in a rental apartment. They want to be able to buy property, even if it is a condo, in a decent neighborhood. That’s why house prices are out of sight, but there is still a whopping 30% apartment vacancy rate in Palo Alto. Do you give a toddler the pacifier back because it cries? Do you let the teenager play more computer games because they are throwing a fit? No. You don’t. Becuase doing so is not in anyones best interest. But you all are letting the lowest moral common denominator rule your decisions. Cowards. Deb Goldeen 2130 Birch St.. 94306 321-7375 From:M H To:Council, City Cc:Tanaka, Greg; consumerwatch@cbs5.com; KTVU2Investigates@fox.com; letters@paweekly.com; news@padailypost.com; Simms, Richard; Shikada, Ed; local@bayareanewsgroup.com; metrodesk@sfchronicle.com; craig gerber Subject:Civic/Resident Concern: Construction outside of construction hours 12/4/21 Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 4:51:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Hello, I received the November 2021 Palo Alto Public Safety Building Project Update email which establishes that there isafter hours construction (midnight to 8pm) slated for Saturday 12/4 pending city approval PLEASE do not approve this or any other off hour requests. As a resident living directly across the construction siteand new garage, I’m disgusted with how the city turns a blind eye to any violations or easily approves permits towork after hours without fully considering how this impacts tax paying residents of Palo Alto. I mean really, how on earth is this a good idea for those of us residents, many who have returned to the offices,leaving only Saturday and a Sunday to recover and enjoy life at home? On that note, please ban Saturday construction all together. It impedes the quality of life for those near by,something nobody in the council or City Hall itself understands. The City truly fails to understand the impact of construction on its residents. I recently submitted a restitution claimfor past, present and future cleaning services (car/window/interior) due to the amount of debris the constructioncauses (ongoing mini dust storms and bad air to breath that seeps into our residence) and was denied. Disappointed to see this is now being considered. Do Not Allow This! I’ve also attached Bay Area affiliates to this email. Best, Mark From:Ken Horowitz To:Council, City Subject:City of Berkeley Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax Revenue Allocation Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 4:18:34 PM Attachments:2019-01-22 Item 27a Allocation of 4.75 Million Over Two.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Hello CouncilPlease see attached memo to the Berkeley City CouncilThank you for readingKen Horowitz 525 Homer AvePalo Alto, ÇA https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/01_Jan/Documents/2019-01- 22_Item_27a_Allocation_of_4_75_Million_Over_Two.aspx Sent from my iPad Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts (SSBPPE) 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099E-Mail: manager@CityofBerkeley.info Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager ACTION CALENDAR January 22, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts Commission Submitted by: Poki Namkung, Chairperson, SSBPPE Commission Subject: Allocation of $4.75 Million Over Two Years, FY20 and FY21, to Reduce Consumption and Health Impacts of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs). RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt a Resolution allocating $4.75 million from the General Fund in FY20 (July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020) and FY21 (July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021) that shall be invested in a grant program administered and coordinated by the Berkeley Public Health Division consistent with the SSBPPE’s goals to reduce the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (SSB) in Berkeley and to address the effects of SSB consumption. The total of $4.75 million will be distributed in two installments of $2.375 million per year for FY20 and FY21. In each of these years, the funds will be distributed as follows: a. Direct the City Manager to award up to 40% of the allocated funds to Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) through a grant proposal to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) through the implementation and enhancement of the BUSD cooking and gardening programs. The BUSD funding process is separate from the RFP process for the general community-based organization funding process and shall be guided by the SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for BUSD Funding (Attachment 2). b. Direct the City Manager to award at least 40% of the allocated funds through a RFP process managed by the Public Health Division for grants to community-based organizations consistent with the SSBPPE’s goals to reduce the consumption of SSBs and to address the effects of SSB consumption. The community-based organization funding RFP process is separate from the BUSD funding process and shall be guided by the SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for Community Agency Grants (Attachment 3). 2. Direct the City Manager to utilize 20% of the allocated funds to support the Berkeley Public Health Division (BPHD) to coordinate and monitor the grant process, coordinate the overall program evaluation, and produce an annual report Page 1 of 11 Allocation of $4.75 Million Over Two Years, FY20 and FY21, to Reduce Action CALENDARConsumption and Health Impacts of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs)January 22, 2019 Page 2 that disseminates process and outcome data resulting from the SSBPPE funding program. A comprehensive and sustainable media campaign that coordinates with all regional soda tax efforts will be managed by the BPHD with 10% of this portion of the allocation. FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATIONMeasure D, passed in November of 2014, created two provisions, namely: a) a 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary drinks distributed in Berkeley and b) creation of a Panel of Experts Commission. The collection of this tax commenced in May of 2015 and is being deposited into the City’s General Fund. The SSBPPE Commission’s recommendation to Council for allocation of $4.75 million for FY20 and FY21 is independent of the amount of tax collected from the distribution of SSB in Berkeley. This request will create a liability of $4.75 million for the City’s General Fund in FY20 and FY21. CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS (Ordinance: SUGAR-SWEETENED, 2014)Our nation, our state, and our community face a major public health crisis. Diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay have been on the rise for decades. Although no group has escaped these epidemics, children, as well as low income communities and communities of color have been and continue to be disproportionately affected. While there is no single cause for the rise in diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay, there is overwhelming evidence of the link between the consumption of sugary drinks and the incidence of diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay. Sugary drinks such as soft drinks, energy drinks, sweetened teas, and sport drinks offer little or no nutritional value, but massive quantities of added sugar. A single 20-ounce bottle of soda, for instance, typically contains the equivalent of approximately 16 teaspoons of sugar. Before the 1950s, the standard soft-drink bottle was 6.5 ounces. In the 1950s, larger size containers were introduced, including the 12-ounce can, which became widely available in 1960. By the early 1990s, 20-ounce plastic bottles had become the norm. At the same time, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an ongoing massive marketing campaign, which particularly targets children and people of color. In 2006 alone, nearly $600 million was spent in advertising to children under 18. African American and Latino children are also aggressively targeted with advertisements to promote sugar-laden drinks. The resulting impact on consumption should not be surprising. The average American now drinks nearly 50 gallons of sugary drinks a year. Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and tripled in adolescents in the past 30 years; in 2010, more than one-third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese. The problem is especially acute with children in California. From 1989 to 2008, the percentage of children consuming sugary drinks increased from 79% to 91% and the percentage of total calories obtained from sugary drinks increased by 60% in children ages 6 to 11. This level of consumption has had tragic impacts on community health. Type 2 Diabetes –previously only seen among adults –is now increasing among children. If the current Page 2 of 11 Allocation of $4.75 Million Over Two Years, FY20 and FY21, to Reduce Action CALENDARConsumption and Health Impacts of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs)January 22, 2019 Page 3 obesity trends are not reversed, it is predicted that one in three children and nearly one-half of Latino and African American children born in the year 2000 will develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetimes. Our community has not been immune to the challenge of unhealthy weight gain and obesity. According to the 2018 City of Berkeley Health Status Report, over a quarter of Berkeley’s 5th and 7th grade students (all race/ethnicities) are overweight or obese. Berkeley has a lower proportion of 5th and 7th grade children who are overweight or obese (29.4%) compared to children in Alameda County (35.3%) but has a higher proportion compared to California (26.8%). However, a higher proportion of African-American children are overweight or obese in Berkeley compared to Alameda County or California. Tooth decay, while not as life threatening as diabetes or obesity, still has a meaningful impact, especially on children. In fact, tooth decay is the most common childhood disease, experienced by over 70% of California’s 3rd graders. Children who frequently or excessively consume beverages high in sugar are at increased risk for dental cavities. Dental problems are a major cause of missed school days and poor school performance as well as pain, infection, and tooth loss in California. There are also economic costs. In 2006, for instance, overweight and obesity-related costs in California were estimated at almost $21 billion. BACKGROUNDIn November of 2014, the Berkeley voters passed Measure D, which requires both the collection of a 1 cent per ounce tax on the distribution of sugary drinks in the City of Berkeley AND the convening of a Panel of Experts (the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Products Panel of Experts--SSBPPE) to recommend investments to both reduce the consumption of sugary drinks as well as to address the health consequences of the consumption of sugary drinks. Fiscal revenue reports from the Department of Finance detail that the total Soda Tax revenues collected from May, 2015 through May, 2018 was $5,096,596. Over the three fiscal years of collection, a conservative estimate of revenues collected for the month of June is $150,000 per month. Adding the missing revenue from June, 2018 to the previous total for a full three years of fiscal data makes the total funds from Soda Tax revenues $5,246,596. Approximately $1,700,000 of this total has thus far, not been allocated for the purposes of reducing sugary drink consumption. Projecting into the future, a conservative estimate of Soda Tax revenues would be $1,600,000 per year. On May 17, 2018, the SSBPPE Commission moved to approve the SSBPPE Media Subcommittee’s recommendation that 10% of the tax revenues of the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages that go into the City of Berkeley General Fund be Page 3 of 11 Allocation of $4.75 Million Over Two Years, FY20 and FY21, to Reduce Action CALENDARConsumption and Health Impacts of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs)January 22, 2019 Page 4 recommended for allocation toward a sustained annual media campaign to promote water consumption and reduce sugary beverage consumption. Per the SSBPPE’s charge, the SSBPPE Commission, on July 19, 2018, approved the recommendation to the Berkeley City Council for allocation of $4.75 million for the period FY20 and FY21, to be made available to invest in grants programs to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks as well as a sustainable annual media campaign to address the health consequences of the consumption of sugary drinks and moved to adopt their recommendation to Council as follows: The Commission approves that the Chair will write a Council Report requesting allocation for the Healthy Berkeley Funding Program for FY 2020 and FY2021 consisting of a base allocation of 1.5 million per year for two years for a total of 3 million dollars. The Commission requests an additional amount of collected soda tax revenues heretofore unallocated from 2015 through fiscal year 2018 of approximately 1.75 million dollars. M/S/C: Ishii/Browne Ayes:Commissioners Browne, Crawford, Moore, Namkung, Rose, Ishii, and Scheider Noes: None Abstain:None Recused: None Absent from vote:Commissioner Kouromenos Excused: Motion passed. 9:14 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYWhen sugary drink consumption decreases due to the direct investments in programs and activities, the SSBPPE expects that there will be a reduction to the City’s waste stream. RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONThe SSBPPE Commission, noting the previous two-year’s allocations of $1.5 million for FY18 and FY19, believes that it is more effective for grant recipients to continue receiving grant funding in two-year cycles. This longer grant period resulted in more comprehensive strategies to: a) reduce access to SSB, b) improve access to water, c) limit marketing of SSB to children, and d) implement education and awareness campaigns with specific populations. The longer grant period will also indicate the City of Berkeley’s commitment to reducing the consumption of SSB and improving the health of Berkeley residents, particularly those most impacted by obesity, diabetes, tooth Page 4 of 11 Allocation of $4.75 Million Over Two Years, FY20 and FY21, to Reduce Action CALENDARConsumption and Health Impacts of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs)January 22, 2019 Page 5 decay, and heart diseases. The Commission further estimates that the previous $3 million investment over FY18 and FY19 helped increase the capacity of community-based organizations and schools. The longer grant funding will allow grantees to develop multi-level interventions that include education, policy, and institutional, systems and environmental changes with measureable outcome data and evaluation to show the rise in public awareness about the harmful impacts of SSB, reduce consumption of SSB over time, and decrease the health risks among residents of Berkeley. To have the greatest impact, the SSBPPE Commission recommends that the following populations be prioritized: a) Children and their families with a particular emphasis on young children who are in the process of forming lifelong habits. b)Children and young adults living in households with limited resources. c) Groups exhibiting higher than average population levels of type 2 diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay rates.d) Groups that are disproportionately targeted by the beverage industry marketing. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDEREDa) The Commission deliberated on who should manage and implement the long-term sustained media campaign for which they recommend 10% of funds from the SSB revenues that flow into the General Fund be allocated. The Commission determined that the Public Health Division can be allocated an additional 10% to implement the media campaign since the Let’s Drink Water! Campaign was successfully implemented by the Healthy Berkeley Program in 2017. CITY MANAGER See City Manager companion report. CONTACT PERSONDechen Tsering, MPH, Commission Secretary, HHCS, (510) 981-5394 ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution2. SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for BUSD Funding3. SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for Community Agencies Funding Page 5 of 11 RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S. ALLOCATION: $4.75 MILLION TOTAL FOR SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION AND REDUCTION GRANT PROGRAM IN FY20 AND FY21 WHEREAS, the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (“SSB”) in Berkeley is impacting the health of the people in Berkeley; and WHEREAS, in FY18 and FY19, the City Council awarded a total of $3 million upon the recommendation of the SSBPPE Commission to demonstrate the City’s long-term commitment to decreasing the consumption of SSB and mitigate the harmful impacts of SSB on the population of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, many studies demonstrate that high intake of SSB is associated with risk of Type 2 Diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, and coronary heart disease; and WHEREAS, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an ongoing massive marketing campaign, which particularly targets children and people of color; and WHEREAS, an African American resident of Berkeley is 14 times more likely than a White resident to be hospitalized for diabetes; and WHEREAS, 40% of 9th graders in Berkeley High School are either overweight or obese; and WHEREAS, tooth decay is the most common childhood disease, experienced by over 70% of California’s 3rd graders; and WHEREAS, in 2012, a U.S. national research team estimated levying a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages would prevent nearly 100,000 cases of heart disease, 8,000 strokes, and 26,000 deaths over the next decade and 240,000 cases of diabetes per year nationwide. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is hereby authorized to allocate $4.75 million from the General Fund to be disbursed in two (2) installments of $2.375 million in FY20 and $2.375 million in FY21 and invested as follows: 1. Allocate up to 40% of the allocated funds to Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) through a grant proposal to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) through the implementation and enhancement of the BUSD cooking and gardening programs for the period, July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021; and2. Allocate at least 40% of the allocated funds through a RFP process managed by the Public Health Division for grants to community-based organizations consistent Page 6 of 11 with the SSBPPE’s goals to reduce the consumption of SSB and to address the effects of SSB consumption for the period, July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021; and3. Allocate 20% of the allocated funds to support the Berkeley Public Health Division (BPHD) to coordinate and monitor the grant process, coordinate the overall program evaluation, and produce an annual report that disseminates process and outcome data resulting from the SSBPPE funding program. A comprehensive and sustainable media campaign that coordinates with all regional soda tax efforts will be managed by BPHD with 10% of this portion of the allocation. A records signature copy of the said agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Page 7 of 11 Attachment 2 Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts - (SSBPPE) A Vibrant and Healthy Berkeley for All 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510. 981.5300 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510. 981.5395 E-mail: publichealth@ci.berkeley.ca.us - - http://www.cityofberkeley.info/health/ The SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) Funding The SSBPPE Commission adopts the following recommendations to City Council for a grant proposal process for BUSD. This recommendation is separate from the SSBPPE Community Grants Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Only BUSD is eligible for this funding. A district proposal must conform to the criteria below and must be adopted by the school board. Definition: BUSD Schools are defined as any BUSD school or program from early childhood education through high school including out-of-school care programs and family engagement. The SSBPPE Commission recommends: 1.Up to 40% of the total allocation of the City Council’s funding to reduce theconsumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) through theimplementation and enhancement of the BUSD cooking and gardeningprograms. The SSBPPE will consider and recommend full or partial fundingdepending on the proposed outcomes. The SSBPPE recommends two yeargrants for FY20 and FY21. a.Priority Areas and Activities:i.Reducing access to SSBs, ii.Improving access to water,iii.Implementing education and awareness programs to reduce SSBconsumption at BUSD.iv.Developing multi-level interventions to reduce SSB consumption thatinclude a combination of institutional policy, systems, and environmental change as well as nutrition education and awareness. b.Priority Populations:i.Children and their families; pre-school through high school;ii.Children and young adults living in households with limited resources; iii.Groups exhibiting higher than average population levels of type 2diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay; andiv.Groups that are disproportionately targeted by the beverage industrymarketing. Page 8 of 11 SSBPPE-Criteria for BUSD Funding Process SSBPPE Commission Page 2 of 2 c. The highest priority outcomes that should be tracked and measured for beneficiaries of funded programs include: i. Increases in knowledge and awareness of the health risks (oral health, diabetes, and obesity) of consuming sugary drinks. Changes in attitudes reflecting a preference for water or other non-sugary drinks among BUSD students and staff. ii. Decreased consumption of sugary drinks among BUSD students and staff. iii. Increased family engagement to raise awareness about the health impacts of sugary drink consumption. Changes in family attitudes reflecting a preference for water. 2. The Grant Process: City staff will provide opportunities for technical assistance during the grant application process. a. Proposal Requirements: i. Proposals must reflect approval from the BUSD School Board. ii. BUSD will not sell or serve sugar-sweetened beverages (as defined by the SSB tax) at any BUSD schools or campuses. iii. Awarded funding will not supplant BUSD FY20 and FY21 General Fund allocations. iv. Funded projects will publicly reflect support from City of Berkeley Program. v. Funded projects and programs will include methods for evaluating their process and outcomes based on SMART Objectives. vi. The proposal timelines and budgets are feasible. b. Criteria for proposal: The following criteria will be considered, although not exclusively, in determining which proposals are funded: i. Proposal aims to decrease consumption of sugary drinks and/or address the health effects of the consumption of sugary drinks. (15%) ii. Proposal includes policy, system, or environment (PSE) strategies. (30%) iii. Proposal reaches people and communities in the priority populations. (15%) iv. Proposal includes partnerships and collaboration. (10%) v. Proposal has elements that will last beyond the grant period. (10%) vi. Proposal budget matches the work plan and is feasible. (10%) vii. Describe related experience. (10%) Page 9 of 11 Attachment 3 Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts - (SSBPPE) A Vibrant and Healthy Berkeley for All 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.5300 Fax: 510.981.5395 – TDD 510.981.6903 E-mail: publichealth@ci.berkeley.ca.us - http://www.cityofberkeley.info/health/ SSBPPE Commission’s Criteria for Community Agency Grants Recommended actions to reduce Sugar-Sweetened Beverage (SSB) consumption and decrease health disparities. 1.Minimum of 40% of the total allocation by the City Council’s funding to reducethe consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (SSB’s) be invested in grants for community-based programs for FY20 and FY21. A two year commitmentwill help to stabilize program design and implementation and will result inbetter outcomes to reduce SSB consumption. a.The types of interventions that should be prioritized for support include actions to: i.Reduce access to SSBs;ii.Improve access to water;iii.Limit marketing of SSBs to children;iv.Implement education and awareness campaigns with specific populations, including measurable outcome data; and v.Developing multi-level interventions to reduce SSB consumption thatinclude a combination of institutional policy, systems, and environmentalchange as well as nutrition education and awareness. b.Priority populations:I.Children and their families - with an emphasis on young children who arein the process of forming lifelong habits;II.Children and young adults living in households with limited resources; III.Groups exhibiting higher than average population levels of type 2 diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay rates;IV.Groups that are disproportionately targeted by the beverage industrymarketing. c.The highest priority outcomes that should be tracked and measured forbeneficiaries of funded programs include:i.Increases in knowledge of the health risks of consuming sugary drinks;changes in attitudes reflecting a preference for water or other non-sugarydrinks; and ii.Decreased consumption of sugary drinks. d.Organizations that are prioritized to apply for funding include:i.Berkeley-based organizations and service providers serving thepopulation of Berkeley. Page 10 of 11 SSBPPE- Criteria for Community Agency Grants SSBPPE Commission Page 2 of 2 ii. Non-profit (501(c)(3) or groups with a fiscal agent. iii. Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) programs will only be able to access BUSD specified funding. 2. The Grant Process: i. Every effort should be made to simplify the SSB grant process. ii. City staff should make available opportunities for technical assistance for first time applicants. a. Requirement for receiving a grant: i. Funded organizations must have in place or agree to adopt prior to being funded an organizational policy prohibiting serving SSBs at organization- sponsored events or meetings. ii. Awarded funding will not supplant any existing funding. iii. Funded projects will publicly reflect support from City of Berkeley Program. iv. The project includes methods for evaluating both its process and outcomes based on SMART Objectives. b. Criteria for ranking proposals: The following criteria will be considered, although not exclusively, in determining which proposals are funded: I. Proposal aims to decrease consumption of sugary drinks and/or address the health effects of the consumption of sugary drinks. (15%) II. Proposal includes policy, system, or environment (PSE) strategies. (30%) III. Proposal reaches people and communities in the priority populations. (15%) IV. Proposal includes partnerships and collaboration. (10%) V. Proposal has elements that will last beyond the grant period. (10%) VI. Proposal budget matches the work plan and is feasible. (10%) VII. Describe related experience. (10%) Page 11 of 11 From:Ken Horowitz To:Council, City Subject:$30 Million in Soda Tax Revenue: What Will It Fund in San Francisco and Oakland? | SPUR Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 4:17:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hello Council See attached article about soda tax revenues for San Francisco and Oakland Thank you for reading Ken Horowitz 525 Homer Ave Palo Alto, CA https://www.spur.org/news/2019-09-27/30-million-soda-tax-revenue-what-will-it-fund-san-francisco-and-oakland Sent from my iPad From:GP Jones To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Closure Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 3:48:07 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from senojpg@hotmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. This letter is in response to this (partial) paragraph from the Tue Nov 2nd 2021 Palo Alto Online: With a price tag of between $50 million and $65 million, the closure option is the cheapest of the three and it would take the least time to implement — about two years according to an analysis by the city's consulting firm, Aecom. It would usher in a suite of traffic improvements, including a reconfiguration of the clunky interchange of Alma Street and Embarcadero Road, and it would feature an underpass for pedestrians and bicycles looking to get across the tracks. First, closure can be accomplished by lowering the train crossing barriers and placing the ubiquitous concrete roadway construction barriers across the Churchill roadway on each side of the tracks. Used ones can be had for less than $1000 each (plus shipping). Gotta be less than $100,000 for an adequately and ‘nicely enough’ blockage of Churchill. MUCH BETTER THAN $50-$60 million. Put that money toward the Public Safety Building. Or to other parts of the railway project. Second, I understand that that does not pay for “other improvements”. But price those improvements for what they are, and not “for closure of Churchill.” If that money does not have to be spent by leaving Churchill open, then LEAVE Churchill OPEN. You want to add a pedestrian underpass and some greenery at Churchill? Fine. Price that out by itself. Finally, some article (The Weekly, I believe) quoted estimates of 15-20 minute waits to get across the tracks at Churchill and having a line of cars down Alma to Embarcadero and a backup of cars to El Camino on Churchill. Bah! Do you actually think that people will choose those routes with that long a wait? I wager that they will alter their drive by time and/or route. Carl Jones From:M. Gallagher To:Council, City Subject:Housing, Renters, Public Health Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 3:03:24 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from writing2win@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council: Our housing crisis is a public health issue. Without housing and too often with housing such as Alma Place or poorly maintained housing, the health of residents and our community has been and continues to be profoundly and adversely affected. I join the chorus of housing activists to ask the Council to please meet the complex housing needs of ALL Palo Alto Residents by expanding renter protections. To begin, let us be aware of the renter and homeless landscape in Palo Alto with a robust rental survey program. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic that increased the precarity of housing, the Bay Area suffered from a significant housing crisis with insufficient units, lack of access to affordable housing, looming evictions, actual evictions, and landlord harassment. Especially after the end of renter protections like the eviction moratorium, we are hearing story after story of renters facing eviction, being evicted, and suffering under the overwhelming weight of high housing costs. We call on you to protect and grow access to safe, affordable housing through enhanced renter protections, including the following: A Rental Survey Program Expanded tenant relocation assistance An eviction reduction program Anti-rent gouging Security Deposit Limits • • • • • • Fair Chance Ordinance Right to Counsel If the City Council hopes to protect longtime renters who have lived in Palo Alto for decades - and new tenants with ties to the community - it must enhance protections for the 46% of Palo Altans who rent. It is our responsibility to care for one another at our most vulnerable. Thank you, Mary Gallagher, B.Sc. Content Strategist 650-683-7102 Copyright 2021 Security Alert Notice The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free, and intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the responsibility of the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, dissemination or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the material from your computer. Thank you. • From:Carol Lamont To:Council, City Subject:Renter Protections Needed for Palo Alto Residents Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 1:53:41 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from carol@lamont.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. October 23, 2021 Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council: Please meet the complex housing needs of ALL Palo Alto Residents, including the 46% thatare renters, by expanding renter protections. We need a robust rental survey program - but that’s just the start! Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic that increased the precarity of housing, the Bay Areasuffered from a significant housing crisis with insufficient units, lack of access to affordable housing, looming evictions, and landlord harassment. Especially after the end of renterprotections like the eviction moratorium, we are hearing story after story of renters facing eviction and suffering under the overwhelming weight of high housing costs. We call on you to protect and grow access to safe, affordable housing through enhancedrenter protections, including the following:A Rental Survey Program Expanded tenant relocation assistance Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance Security Deposit Limits Fair Chance Ordinance Right to Counsel If the City Council hopes to protect longtime renters who have lived in Palo Alto for decades - and new tenants with ties to the community - it must enhance protections for the 46% of PaloAltans who rent. It is our responsibility to care for one another at our most vulnerable. Thank you, Carol Lamont • • • • • • From:wcleikam@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:Housing the Unhoused Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 12:03:28 PM Attachments:image002.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from wcleikam@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On the website Palo Alto Online, I just read the article, “Rising costs don't deter PaloAlto from pursuing interim housing project: City Council votes to move ahead withplan to build 88 apartments for the unhoused on San Antonio Road. The location thatthe city has planned to develop this much needed housing is directly in the path of wildlifecorridors that cross Adobe Creek right at the location where this housing is planned to bebuilt. Once again, our human needs trump the needs of the wildlife that lives there. It is precisely that kind of development that is causing the global Sixth Great Extinction which ishappening as I write; Human encroachment on wildland. Since 1970 60% of all wildlife thatwas alive then are now extinct. That’s in a mere 50 years. I urge the City to reconsider thislocation and find another area to build this housing. Sincerely, Bill Leikam – aka The Fox Guy President & Co-founderUrban Wildlife Research Projectwcleikam@gmail.com A nonprofit 501 C3 EIN: 47-2341365(650) 380-8342 “If you talk to the animals they will talk with you and you will know each other. If you do not talkto them you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear. What one fears onedestroys.” Chief Dan George of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, British Columbia We cannot call ourselves civilized until we freely give all living things on planet Earth their rightful place beside us. - wcl October 2015 “Failure is a wonderful professor.” Excerpt from my book The Road to Fox Hollow, 2022 wcl Alternative facts can be deadly. - wcl April 2017 Ignorance precedes knowledge. Wcl 2019 From:pennyellson12@gmail.comTo:Council, CitySubject:Possible South PA Grade Separation SolutionDate:Monday, November 1, 2021 6:42:06 PM Attachments:image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members. A gap I see in the XCAP planning is provision of a grade separated bike/ped rail crossing anywhere south of East Meadow that can be used during the East Meadow and Charleston construction period during construction. This will create serious congestion problems because there will be no convenient way for students who live south of East Meadow and east of Alma to get to the high school. The sole planned south Palo Alto bike pedestrian grade separation at Loma Verde would add eight minutes or 1.4 miles to school commutes each way for students who live south of Charleston or one mile for those who live south of East Meadow. This will certainly reduce the number of students who bike to Gunn. Please consider that pre-Covid bike counts at Gunn were 982. Many SRP workers bike commute to work using the East Meadow and Charleston crossings. A detour of this magnitude is likely to affect their mode choices as well.Consider what it would mean for the Arastradero /El Camino intersection or the Arastradero/Foothill intersection if even a third of these trips converted to cars while the city is actively detouring motor vehicle tips to San Antonio and these two intersections through construction. There may be a solution. On the way to researching other things, I recently ran across the 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study. In the study (page 4.05), is a map that identifies existing and possible rail crossing options. (See map below.) Notice that this map identifies a possible grade separated crossing in the general vicinity of the Adobe Creek bed. There are two streets in this area, Ely and Greenmeadow Way, either of which could provide landing for a grade separated crossing on the east side of Alma. The streets on the west side of Alma at these locations provide access to regional bike/ped routes to Los Altos, Mountain View, the Wilkie Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge, SRP, and Gunn HS. This is a grade sep location that will provide real bike/ped access through construction for this part of Palo Alto and greatly improve regional bike /ped connectivity long term. The Gunn HS Walk & Roll map shows connections through the Charleston Meadows or Monroe Park neighborhood could take advantage existing planned school commute routes to Gunn and SRP. It doesn’t appear that this option was explored in the XCAP process. If it has not been looked at, I think it should be. Thank you for considering my comments. Penny Ellson Virus-free. www.avg.com Figure 4.2: Existing and Possible Rail Crossing Locations l I I. ,. I I I \ I ,, (' ., ii ,/fr )i .-' Legend e VellicularCrossingonly e Veliicular, Pedestrian & Bicycle Crossing 0 Pedeslrian&BicycleCrossing E ExistingCrossing p PossibleCrossing U Grade-separatedUnderpass o Grade-separatedOverpass S Surface/At-grade Crossing Study Area Boundary c::::::J PublicPark c=:J School --Creek ■ PotentialfutureBRTStation C CaltrainSta6on () 1/2-mileRadiuslransitServiceArea ~-o· 1.250· 2500· I~ ------, EXISTING GRADE-SEPARATED VEHICULAR ONLY CROSSINGS 2 ~~:r::i:ay EXISTING GRADE-SEPARATED VEHICULAR/ PEDESTRIAN/ BICYCLE CROSSINGS 2 UniversityAveoue Embarcadero Road EXISTING GRADE-SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CROSSINGS PaloAltoCaltrainStationUrtderpass 3 HomerTurVlel CaiforniaAvenueUnderpass EXISTING SURFACE CROSSINGS (ALL MODES) 4 ~,:~~ :=~ Meadow Drive Char1estonRoad EXISTING+ POSSIBLE CROSSINGS (see figure above lot type) 25 ~: ::~;: ::~:~:~~:e(n~:=n~:~~:n~:;n,.:::;.::t!!!::~e, Embarcadero Road, Kingsley Avenue, Melville Avenue, Kellogg Avenue, Churchill Avenue, Seale Avenue, Calilomia Avenue, Oregon Expressway, Colorado Avenue, Matadero Creek, East Meadow Drive, Charlestoo Road, Adobe Creek, Del Meclo Avenue, San Antonio Road. CIRCULATION & CONNECTIVITY NOTES, 1. Some existing rsossings shown exist but need improvement. The colored dots indicate lhe prelerredtypeofcrossing. 2. The Task fora! recommends Iha! all rail crossings, whethef existing or new, be ~ade-- separated. 3. ltisdesirabletohaveabalancedapproach along the entire rail cooidor for east-west con- nections. HOW!!Vl!f, landuse(exislinghomes) and discontinuous streets create considerable difficullyinidenlifyingadditionalcrossingsin the south. further studies are recorrmended to explore additional cornectivily oppo1t1..11ities acrosslherailtinesinsouthPaloAlto. 4.05 From:Kang, Danielle To:Michael Price Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: Public comment for the 11/02/2021 City Council meeting Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 6:23:45 PM Good afternoon, Thank you for your public comment.In order to have a spokesperson speak 8-10 minutes for a group, the group must be at least 5 (including thespokesperson). Since the group is of 3, each will have the individual speaking time of 2-3 minutes. Please let me know if you have further questions. Best,Dani Danielle KangAdministrative Associate IIIOffice of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 P: 650.329.2159 | E: Danielle.Kang@CityofPaloAlto.org -----Original Message-----From: Michael Price <mikeprice.1285@gmail.com>Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 3:08 PMTo: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Public comment for the 11/02/2021 City Council meeting [Some people who received this message don't often get email from mikeprice.1285@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Please accept the attached PDF with comments to be offered at the City Cou8ncil meeting of 11/1/2021. I will bespeaking and the following attendees have ceded their time to me: Nancy MadisonTheo Nissim Thank you, Michael Price Southgate From:Teri Llach To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Grade Separation - Please close Churchill Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 5:01:00 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from llachteric@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you City Council members for your hard work to improve our lives in Palo Alto. For today’s meeting, I would like to voice my vote to follow the XCAP’s thorough research and vote to close Churchill. I know this is an emotional subject and there are many points of view so I think best to stick to facts vs emotion Facts: As outlined by XCAP, closure is the most cost effective and safest for all the kids going to Paly After a long and extensive review XCAP voted to close Churchill Police and Fire said it was fine to close Churchill The cost of closure with mitigation is lower than all other alternatives The mitigations at Embarcadero & Oregon address traffic issues across all of Palo Alto. Even the research conducted supports closure – if you look at the household numbers there were almost as many people saying close Churchill as keep it open and the closure group of people WAY over indexed to those living on Churchill – that says that closure is more universal The alternatives massively negatively affects those on Churchill while closure only minimally affects others I attended just about every XCAP meeting and heard all the details and the closure is by far the best alternative. Opponents talk about the additional time to get to the other side of Alma, yet I never see El Camino between Churchill and Embarcadero clogged up, so going from Southgate to Any part of Palo Alto via El Camino to Embarcadero or Oregon is a breeze. Mitigation measures outlined on XCAP provide even easier movement to any part of Palo Alto from Southgate. Let’s solve this problem cost effectively by closing Churchill, improving Embarcadero & Oregon, and then focus our budget on the larger issues at Meadow & Charleston. Thanks Teri • • • • • • • From:Eduardo F. Llach To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Grade Separation - Please follow XCAP"s advise to close it Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 4:44:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you City Council members for your hard work to improve our lives in Palo Alto. For today’s meeting, I would like to voice my vote to follow the XCAP’s thorough research and vote to close Churchill. As outlined by XCAP, closure is the most cost effective and safest for all the kids going to Paly. The included cost effective mitigations at Embarcadero & Oregon address traffic issues across all of Palo Alto. I attended just about every XCAP meeting and heard all the details and the closure is by far the best alternative. I live on Churchill and I have lost two pets to fast drivers on Churchill, my kids went to Paly and had to deal w/ the safety issues related to the ever increasing traffic. Opponents talk about the additional time to get to the other side of Alma, yet I never see El Camino between Churchill and Embarcadero clogged up, so going from Southgate to Any part of Palo Alto via El Camino to Embarcadero or Oregon is a breeze. Mitigation measures outlined on XCAP provide even easier movement to any part of Palo Alto from Southgate. Let’s solve this problem cost effectively by closing Churchill, improving Embarcadero & Oregon, and then focus our budget on the larger issues at Meadow & Charleston. Thanks, Eduardo Eduardo F. Llach 36 Churchill Ave, Palo Alto Cel – 650 678 1406 View this email in your browser. Visit us on www.lwvpaloalto.org, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter November VOTER November 1, 2021 In this Issue Message from our President LWVPA Virtual Speaker Event October 2021 Board Meeting Highlights Advocacy Reports Events from Other Leagues & In the Community Voting Rights Rally & Protest at the White House Civic Education Government 101 Series The Challenges of Making Taxation and Spending Decisions From:LWV Palo Alto VOTERTo:Council, CitySubject:LWVPA November VOTER - Your League in ActionDate:Monday, November 1, 2021 4:41:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Subscribe to our Google Calendar • • • • • 0 0 0 J ~ 1LEAGUE OF L -WOMEN VOTERS" OF PALO ALTO Criminal Justice Reform Bay Area League Day In Case You Missed It Lessons from America in One Room Announcements Sustainability/Climate Action Plan Bay Area Monitor Notes Native American Heritage Month Message from our President Happy fall to everyone! It’s a particularly colorful and dramatic fall in Palo Alto. Don’t miss some of the streets that are worth an extra trip such as Bowdoin. Pistaches trees line the street with brilliant red and yellow leaves. You don’t have to go east for beautiful fall colors. And the League started fall with a new format for Board meeting agendas. We will concentrate on our four program priorities by giving extra time to those topics at the beginning of each Board meeting and invite all members to participate. The priority discussions last about 45 minutes to an hour, so members can watch them without having to stay for the entire meeting. We began the October meeting with a special housing presentation by Steve Levy and Lisa Ratner. Our November Board meeting will concentrate on climate change, another important program priority for the League, and once again we will have a special presentation at the beginning of the meeting. Local campaign finance reform was introduced and discussed at the September Board/Off-Board retreat. The League's Campaign Finance Task Force is working on this issue and together with community allies will be calling on city officials to consider enacting the reforms developed by the Task Force. Progress is being made! • • • 0 0 0 0 0 There will also be a community forum in late January on housing issues, to engage the community in that discussion. The date is January 26, 2022. We are looking forward to our holiday lunch on December 9 with a very special speaker, Lori Nishiura McKenzie, Lead Strategist, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. She is also Cofounder of the VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab. This will be a virtual event, as the speaker has requested a Zoom presentation. Don’t forget that Daylight Savings Time starts next weekend; time to set your clocks back! Best to all, Liz LWVPA Virtual Speaker Event We are proud to announce our next webinar event featuring: Lori Nishiura Mackenzie Lead Strategist, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, Stanford Graduate School of Business Thursday, December 9, 2021 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Language of Leadership (for all) Language is a powerful tool. The word choices you make shape the culture in your organization. Sometimes we are intentional in our language use. However, oftentimes our word choices are not intentional or well thought out. In these instances, stereotypes about gender, ethnicity and other characteristics may inadvertently influence the words we choose in ways that can advantage some or disadvantage others on your teams. Learn the language of leadership so that you can be the best advocate for yourself, your peers, and your teammates. About the Speaker: Lori is lead strategist for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and cofounder of the new Stanford VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab, offering her a unique view at the intersection of the two organizations. Under her leadership, the lab launched a corporate affiliates program in 2014, and is now the second largest affiliates program on the Stanford campus. In her work at Stanford GSB, Lori is pioneering “small wins” to make the classroom experience more inclusive, to diversify our community, and to foster new research in the areas of leadership, inclusion, and diversity. Lori is a keynote speaker to a wide range of audiences, was featured as one of the BBC 100 Women 2017, and was interviewed for the award-winning documentary, Bias, which premiered in 2018. She has an MBA from the Wharton School of Business and a BA in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley. October 2021 Board Meeting Highlights The following motions were approved: 1. A through C on Consent Calendar including minutes, EAC letter to Santa Clara County in support of Educator Workforce Housing Project and gratis memberships for Register Now Communications Intern and Leadership Team Intern. 2. Bringing a resolution to the PAUSD School Board for educating PAUSD families about Palo Alto’s Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance. 3. Submitting a “Resolution for Campaign Finance Reform in Palo Alto” to the City Council, and adding a clause in the resolution citing how many other cities and counties have adopted similar reforms in California. Our next Board Meeting is on Tuesday, November 23, 7 - 9 pm. All members are invited! Please use our Zoom meeting link to join. - Karen Kalinsky standing in for Secretary, Megan Swezey Fogarty Advocacy Reports Local LWV Palo Alto’s Local Campaign Finance Task Force completed a review of donations and spending in the 2014-2020 City Council election cycles. The Task Force found that Council elections are dominated by a small number of large donors. Just 20 donors, each of whom gave over $3500, contributed 29% of itemized donations in 2020. During the three election cycles between 2014- 2018, the top 25 donors gave one-third of all money raised by all candidates. Between 2014 and 2020, the average amount of money raised by winning candidates skyrocketed by 66%. Unlike more than 80 other cities and counties in California, Palo Alto has not enacted either donation or voluntary spending limits. Our Board agreed to go forward with proposing campaign finance reform to the City Council, focusing on mandatory donation limits, voluntary spending limits, and expanded disclosure of top funders of political ads. These reforms will combat the appearance of undue influence, allow candidates to get their message out, enhance opportunities for political equality and participation for all citizens, and protect the public’s right to know who is spending money to influence elections. Our Board approved a request from its Responsible Gun Ownership Committee to ask the PAUSD Board to undertake community education on the importance of safely storing unloaded firearms at home, either in a locked container or with a trigger lock, pursuant to a newly adopted city ordinance which our Board recommended to the Council in 2020. Neighboring School Boards have already resolved to do similar community gun safety education. This effort will reduce the number of accidental deaths, suicides, and other shootings resulting from firearms being easily accessible to children and teens. State Advocacy by the state League has included support of the following bills which were recently signed into law: Campaign finance disclosures: SB 686 requires limited liability companies which make contributions to, or oppose or support, ballot measures to make specific disclosures of ownership interests or capital contributions of at least $10,000. This bill will prevent LLC’s from hiding the sources of spending designed to influence elections. Peace officer release of records: SB 16 expands the disclosure of personnel records relating to the use of force, wrongful arrests and searches, sexual assault and battery by peace officers. It also requires hiring agencies to review files of misconduct prior to hiring a peace officer. LWVC believes SB 686 will help confront systemic racism and the epidemic of police misconduct which has disproportionately impacted the lives of Black and Brown Californians. Repealing mandatory minimum sentencing: SB 73 repeals laws which prohibited probation or suspended sentences for persons convicted of specified nonviolent crimes involving controlled substances. LWVC’s support letter stated that mandatory minimum sentencing has exacerbated existing racial disparities in criminal law enforcement, devastating Black and Brown communities. National Voting Rights: Activists from LWVUS and other civil rights, civic, faith and labor organizations have led a series of demonstrations in front of the White House aimed at pressuring President Biden to help get the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed into law. LWVUS CEO Virginia Kase Solomón asked President Biden to persuade his caucus to dump the Jim Crow- era filibuster, a barrier to enacting these voting rights bills. Twenty-five leaders from civil rights, faith, labor, and civic organizations, including LWVUS CEO Solomón, were arrested in front of the White House in an effort to highlight the urgency of this legislation. Biden said in a statement to CNN that he would be open to eliminating the filibuster as an obstacle to passing federal voting rights legislation. As the Senate failed to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, 51-49, more demonstrations and arrests are planned by activists including LWV in early November, to continue pressure to eliminate the filibuster. - Lisa Ratner, 2nd Vice President and Advocacy Chair Events from Other Leagues and In theCommunity Voting Rights Rally & Protest at the White House Sponsored by LWVUS As you read this, anti-voter bills are going into effect, redistricting is occurring, and midterms are around the corner. We must protect the freedom to vote before it’s too late. Join us and our coalition partners in demanding that President Biden take action on voting rights: Wednesday, November 3, 7:00 am PT: With 2022 midterms less than one year away, youth activists are leading the call for action on voting rights! Join in person or via livestream Wednesday, November 10, 7:00 am PT: Civil and voting rights activists, religious leaders, and League members will make their voices heard in Lafayette Park. Find updates here. • • VOTING RIGHTS NOW! Rally & Protest at the White House 11.3.21 and 11.10.21 L 'NOMENVOTERS' ,",:;;Foa, .. f ~'LEAGUE Of i PEOPLE ,.~A~!:IC,\N I ' ' In 2020, we showed just how powerful our democracy can be when we all show up. Let's keep the momentum going forward! Civic Education: Government 101 Series LWV of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Wednesday, October 21 through Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:00 pm - 7:45 pm Many naturalized citizens, including the series creator, Aileen Kao, “didn’t have a chance to learn civic education in high school. We had learned pieces of it from news, books, and friends, but not in a systematic way.” It’s not too late to join this informative Civic Education series on November 4, 11, and 18. Click the links below if you’d like to watch their first two sessions: October 21: Federal Government Recording October 28: California State Government Recording Please share this information with all your naturalized friends! Where the Rubber Meets The Road: The Register Now Challenges Of Making Taxation And Spending Decisions LWV Santa Clara County Council Civil Discourse Committee Saturday, November 6, 2021 2:00 pm - 3:30 pm How do our leaders make decisions about what to spend and how much? What real world elements do leaders consider in these decisions? What methods can we use to come to consensus? With a limited money supply, pressures from all sides on how to pay for what is decided by taxation, who to tax and how much, these decisions are “wicked” problems that often have unpopular results. During this workshop, you will first be immersed in extreme scenarios that could become real if you make poor decisions. After struggling with what to spend limited resources on and how to pay for those expenses, you will make tax and spending decisions as an individual exercise. Then you will compare and discuss your decisions in a small group, and attempt to reach consensus. Join other community members to solve these “wicked” problems. Criminal Justice Reform Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm Join the League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley for a Register Now • • • discussion on criminal justice reform. You will hear from three speakers about the history of criminal justice, the need for reform, and what you can do to help. Sharon Kyle is a civil libertarian committed to social justice. She is the publisher and co-founder of LA Progressive, former President and Professor of the Guild Law School, member of several space flight teams at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, member of the Board of Directors of the ACLU-SoCal and editorial board of the BlackCommentator.com. Karyn Sinunu is a volunteer attorney for the Northern California Innocence Project and former Chief Assistant District Attorney for Santa Clara County. Sinunu also co-authored Hate Crimes, which was published by the California District Attorneys Association, and coordinated the creation of the Santa Clara County Law Enforcement Child Abuse Protocol, the first of its kind in California to cover homicide, sexual and physical assault, kidnapping and neglect. Carolina Goodman is co-chair of the Criminal Justice Committee for the League of Women Voters of California. As chair, she is integrally involved in establishing the LWV California's position on criminal justice. She is a retired elementary school curriculum coordinator. Goodman is also member of the LWV Los Angeles, where she works on youth outreach and human trafficking committees. Issues referenced by this event are: EQUAL RIGHTS and DEATH PENALTY. Bay Area League Day Saturday, February 19, 2022 Register Now CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM November 10, 2021 • 7:00 PM Online webinar Sharon Kyle LA Progressive • • • KarynSinunu Carolina Goodman Californialnnocen.:eProject LWVcalifornia The next Bay Area League Day is planned with the theme of "Where Can More Housing Go?" The Bay Area League Board has decided that the upcoming community dialogues will feature "Civil Discourse and Inclusivity", and an exploration of criminal justice and homelessness of the formerly incarcerated. Stay tuned for more info! In Case You Missed It Lessons from America in One Room Sponsored by LWV Los Altos-Mountain View On October 28, Dr. James Fishkin and Dr. Alice Siu shared what they learned from America in One Room, a project of Stanford’s Center for Deliberative Democracy which brought together a diverse group of 523 Americans to constructively discuss some of our country’s most polarizing issues. Listen to the excellent talk and learn how their methods can be applied to promote more productive discussions around locally divisive topics. Watch the recording here. Announcements 0 These 526 Voters Represent All of America: And They Spent A Weekend Together The New York Times Upshot Do you have suggestions and feedback regarding Palo Alto’s sustainability and climate action? Please take this survey to help inform the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP Update) conversation currently underway. The City would like to hear from community members like you! In early 2020, the City launched an update to the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) to develop the strategies needed to meet Palo Alto's sustainability goals, including the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 (the “80 x 30” goal). The proposed goals and key actions include seven topic areas: Energy, Mobility, Electric Vehicles, Water, Climate Adaptation and Sea Level Rise, Natural Environment, and Zero Waste. In this survey, you will provide feedback in each of the seven areas. Bay Area Monitor Notes Help the League Communicate Joint Platform Finalized Informing Energy Use All About Oaks Holiday Cooking • • • • • SUSTAINABILITY 7k:nJ:_, Globally 0 PALO ALTO Ael Locally Celebrating Native American Heritage Month Native American Heritage Month has evolved from its beginnings as a week- long celebration in 1986, when President Reagan proclaimed the week of November 23-30, 1986, as "American Indian Week". Every President since 1995 has issued annual proclamations designating the month of November as the time to celebrate the culture, accomplishments, and contributions of people who were the first inhabitants of the United States. Click here to explore the rich ancestry and traditions of Native Americans as well as find a list of celebratory events throughout November. LWVPA Board Officers & Directors OFFICERS Liz KnissPresident Nancy Shepherd1st Vice President, Immediate Past President Lisa Ratner 2nd Vice President, Advocacy Megan Swezey Fogarty Secretary Theivanai Palaniappan Treasurer DIRECTORS Ellen Forbes Webmaster Liz Jensen Voter Services Karen Kalinsky Collaborations & Community Outreach Myra Lessner Events Hannah Lu Communications Jeannie Lythcott At-Large DEI Kathy Miller Voter Services Sigrid Pinksy Parliamentarian Lynne Russell Fundraising Co-Chair Cari Templeton Membership LWVPA Off-Board Budget Kathy Miller, Chair Civics Education Jenn Wagstaff Hinton Civil Discourse Liaison Susan Owicki Education Team Chair TBD Equal Justice Chair TBD Fundraising Co-Chairs Abbie Dorosin Heike Enders Housing & Transportation Steve Levy, Chair LWVPA Board Folder Task Force Ellen Smith Hannah Lu Natural Resources Mary O'Kicki Hilary Glann Nominating Committee Chair, Terry Godfrey Cari Templeton Dawn Billman Melissa Baten Caswell Observer Corps Kevin Ma Pros & Cons and League Presentations Mary Jo Levy Responsible Gun Ownership Hilary Glann Stacey Ashlund Social Media Admin Aisha Piracha-Zakariya Rachel Kellerman Bella Daly VOTER and E-Blast Editors Hannah Lu Arati Periyannan Voter's Edge David Springer Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and Action Alerts Click here to sign up for Email News and Action Alerts from LWVUS How to contact your elected officials United States President Joseph R. Biden (202) 456-1414 Senator Dianne Feinstein (415) 393-0707 Senator Alex Padilla 202-224-3553 Rep. Anna Eshoo (650) 323-2984 California Governor Gavin Newsom (916) 445-2841 Senator Josh Becker (650) 212-3313 Assemblymember Marc Berman (650) 691-2121 Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian (650) 965-8737 joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org Other Areas in California Locate your elected officials by street address For a complete list of ALL your electeds, see here on our website. JOIN A TEAM Learn More About Our Teams and Programs on our Website! Facebook Twitter Website Copyright © 2021 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. From:Eileen Fagan To:Council, City Subject:Churchill rail crossing Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 4:40:16 PM Attachments:XCAP Southgate Survey Results Aug 2020 FINAL FINAL.pptx PastedGraphic-2.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from eileenfagan2012@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council members, Thank you for your time on this important issue as it is one that will affect our community andall of Palo Alto for a long time to come. I have several points for you to consider: 1. Although this issue has been under discussion for years, I do think that we need to acknowledge the significant changes brought on by the pandemic that will affect travel andwork going forward. This data calls into question some of the assumptions that are driving Caltrain’s push for grade separation and our considerations around it. More than 50% offormerly full-time office workers plan to work remotely 2-3 days per week. This will REDUCE ridership…not increase it as dramatically as predicted. If that is true, do we need tomodify the Churchill intersection (beyond the safety improvements already underway)? 2. In a survey conducted during the summer of 2020 (when commuting to offices and going to school was still in recent memory), the Southgate neighborhood as well as others did a surveyto try to understand how people felt who were close to this intersection. While 36% of our neighborhood (which includes Churchill itself) were in favor of closing Churchill. On slide 11and shown below, 83% of those votes came from a very small radius around the intersection - those whose property values are likely to increase if Churchill closes. This is a self-interested VOCAL MINORITY. 3. Please note that most of the neighborhood was in favor of the partial underpass…which is the best of the current options that meets a key objective - keeping east and west PaloAlto connected. 4. Closing Churchill takes away a key thoroughfare connecting Palo Alto…forcing traffic toalready burdened Embarcadero and Oregon. The traffic studies missed some key data…but did confirm that both of those streets would get a grade F for traffic if Churchill closes. Please consider carefully this change as it could have negative repercussions for years tocome. PAUSD has already sent a letter asking for it not to close as it would have significantimpact on its operations - both for Paly and all bus service across the city. In addition, many stakeholders have not been informed or involved - such as other neighborhoods, Stanford,small businesses that rely on that access, etc. Thank you for your consideration. Eileen Fagan1651 Castilleja Ave Palo Alto z §83% of the votes that were most in favor of Closing Churchill come from the 3 blocks within this blue arc (Churchill Ave, 1500 blocks of Mariposa and Castilleja) §Votes most in favor of the Partial Underpass were distributed throughout the neighborhood 11 ,, -.... -; ~ .,. ..---:::: -; -,..~ ,-;_ -,,. ~ - \\ \\l :-.. ~ ,-;_ --.,,. - \_ \ \l.l \:.J \ ~ OBJ I \ \\ F , .. -r :; \I\DR '\(} \\t PORlOL ::: -:: V' -r:; ~ -,:. - \ l ~ ~ ,,, -:.. ... -.... -""' .... :.. ;,r. ... ~ ., ,,, ·-· --- From:Jim Cornett To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Train Crossing Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 4:06:45 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jbcornett@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I urge you to NOT close the Churchill train crossing. And I STRONGLY urge you to adopt the innovative Partial Underpass concept. Closing Churchill would shift a large volume of vehicle traffic to Page Mill or Embarcadero. This would cause greater traffic congestion on these two already crowded east-west corridors and increased traffic flow through the adjoining residential neighborhoods on lateralconnecting streets. Closing the Churchill crossing would require all residents and visitors to Southgate's roughly 200 homes to travel east on Churchill to the traffic light at El Camino Real when driving toANY location in Palo Alto and beyond. For the past 22 years I have resided in the Southgate neighborhood. I am keenly aware of the traffic density on Churchill and the disruptions that result whenever a train transits theChurchill intersection. Of all the proposals to date, the Partial Underpass design provides the best solution to managing traffic flow while maintaining critical east-west connectivity for ALL residents ofPalo Alto. Most sincerely, Jim Cornett 420 Sequoia AvePalo Alto, CA 94306 650.279.2434 From:Michael Price To:Council, City Subject:Public comment for the 11/02/2021 City Council meeting Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 3:20:16 PM Attachments:comments-to-council-2021.11.01.pdf [Some people who received this message don't often get email from mikeprice.1285@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Please accept the attached PDF with comments to be offered at the CityCou8ncil meeting of 11/1/2021. I will be speaking and the followingattendees have ceded their time to me: Nancy MadisonTheo Nissim Thank you,Michael PriceSouthgate Date: November 1, 2021 To: The Palo Alto City Council Subject: Public comments for the Council meeting on 11/01/2021 I urge the City Council to defer decisions about the Churchill crossing and to focus rather on the other crossings since they carry more traffic than Churchill. In the meantime I ask that you direct Staff to continue to refine the Partial Underpass design so that the uncertainties associated with it's implementation can be reduced. This will enable the Council to have more well-informed decision. The Partial Underpass is a compromise that supports most of the goals of connectivity and safety Continued refinement of the Partial Underpass need not be costly. In part, this is because some of the uncertainties are shared with the other crossings and will be resolved as those designs are moved along. This includes better understanding of Caltrain's requirements, for example. Construction cost, schedule, and disruption are primary concerns. More clarity can be obtained with further refinement. There are unexplored methods for constructing rail bridges and underpasses that eliminate the need for a shoofly. One such technique is from ART Engineering and can be seen at https://artengineering.ca/gss . There are surely other similar techniques to be discovered and evaluated. These could significantly affect the cost, schedule, and disruption of construction and warrants further investigation in collaboration with Caltrain. Another concern is the appearance of the intersection once completed. The current design was focused on evaluating feasibility and did not include any aesthetic considerations. The City should solicit some design concepts to explore how the intersection can be made more appealing. Opening this question to the community may produce some surprising contributions. There are several proposals on the table for how to provide a safe and secure method for bikes and pedestrians to cross Alma and the tracks. All of these share a common problem: the entrance on the Old Palo Alto side will be narrow and must mix bikes and pedestrians in a tunnel. The only difference between the proposals is where the tunnel is to be located: Kellogg, Churchill, and Seale have all been suggested. This question can be mostly addressed separately from the road crossing decision since all of the choices share the same tunnel and egress issues in Old Palo Alto. Palo Alto residents will have to live with the consequences of the choices made at Churchill as well as the other crossings for the next 100 years. Let's make sure we've looked at the alternatives thoroughly and not rush to a decision. Michael Price Southgate From:Mohamed T. Hadidi To:Council, City Cc:Mohammed Hadidi; youngjoh Subject:November 1, 2021 City Council Meeting - Grade Separation at Churchill Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 2:46:09 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from mthadidi@alumni.stanford.edu. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Honorable Members of the City Council, Thank you for all the care and due diligence you are devoting to this very important and consequential issue. I would like once more to voice my strong support for the XCAP’s recommendation to close Churchill. The 2 alternatives to Closure inflict a huge iniquity on the neighborhood by literally concretizing beyond recognitionthe Churchill/Alma intersection, which is what the Partial Underpass boils down to, or by erecting a specter in theform of a viaduct that will loom over and haunt the neighborhood houses for decades to come. All just to avoid apotential slight increase in traffic at some intersections, or a minor inconvenience for some Southgate residents. Please also keep in mind that the originator of the Partial Underpass concept, Michael Price, in his public commentsat the March 23rd meeting of the City Council expressed unhappiness with the way his concept had to beimplemented in order to meet the various safety requirements. This fact in itself should underscore just howunpalatable this underpass alternative is. I urge you to accept the XCAP recommendation of closing Churchill, which the XCAP came up with after 18months of painstaking work. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards,Mohamed Mohamed Hadidi, PhD From:PJ Balin-Watkins To:Council, City Subject:Mitchell park library thank you Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 2:13:37 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from pjbalin@gmail.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I went back to the mitchell park library this Saturday and it was really awesome. I asked oneof the librarians where to find guidebooks for an upcoming trip to france. She not only pointed me to the area to find the guidebooks, but also brought over some kids books about france too!What great service! Thank you so much, and I'm so excited that the libraries are open again! Best PJ Balin-Watkins3814 Ross Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Peter Coughlan To:Council, City Subject:I support closure of Churchill (with opening of Park Ave) Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 2:01:18 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from petercoughlan@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear city council, Excited to see movement toward a Churchill crossing decision! As someone who has lived in close proximity to the Churchill crossing for more than 23 years(first as a renter at 1435 Alma, then as a homeowner at 1527 Mariposa in Southgate, I support closure of the Churchill Ave crossing. I agree with many expressing concern that school bicycle traffic has become extremely chaoticand that an accident is waiting to happen. A second concern is the many drivers I see stopping on the tracks after failing to anticipate that the car in front of them was held up for pedestriantraffic to cross Alma before being able to turn right. A third reason has to do with noise mitigation — the increased number of Caltrain trips and the increase in horn volume and duration over many years, as well as the regular 2 a.m.Southern Pacific crossings, with an even louder signal. Although neighboring cities (Atherton, San Jose) have successfully petitioned for quiet zones, Palo Alto has not, to my knowledge,pursued this strategy to increase livability next to the tracks. With anticipated increase in train traffic over the coming decades (with Caltrain integration with BART, with HSR, with electrification), I believe Churchill closure to be the best optionfor our community, with the caveat that the reduced access due to Churchill closure be compensated with access to Park Avenue (which was shut owing to traffic-calming measures). Thanks for your thoughtful deliberation on the various options and for taking the time to listento the opinions of long-time residents! Peter Peter Coughlanpetercoughlan@gmail.com 650-384-5790 From:Nadia Naik To:Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Nadia Naik - Public Comment for City Council Agenda item 15 for Nov 1, 2021 City Council Meeting Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 1:12:37 PM Attachments:Mitigations extracted from XCAP report.pdf Excerpt from XCAP Report - Appendix B-14.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, As the Chair of XCAP I wanted to bring attention to a number of items that were in XCAP’s report that were left out of the Staff Report. I made a similar verbal public comment at the August 23, 2021 City Council meeting when the review of Meadow/Charleston was discussed, but today I want to really stress that these missing items are a critical component of XCAP’s recommendations and their omission misrepresents XCAP’s intentions. The XCAP’s report had a series of general recommendations for policymakers and specific technical recommendations for each crossing. I’ll summarize the missing ones below: General Recommendations clarifications: 1. Some of the criteria given to XCAP conflicted with existing policies, so XCAP recommended the City Council should review existing reports and policies to inform future study and consider future criteria (The Comprehensive Plan- 2017, The City of Palo Alto Bike + Pedestrian Transportation Plan-2012, and the Rail Corridor Report- 2013). XCAP’s report (Section 7.1.1) calls out some specific conflicts in policy that should be considered to help guide this process going forward. 2. XCAP’s report said City Council and Staff should formalize a series of feedback from groups including: · Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) · Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee · Safe Routes to School (SRTS) · Palo Alto Council of Parent Teacher Associations (PTAC) · School Facilities personnel · City/School Traffic Safety Committee The Staff Report (pg 17) mentions that “Staff and XCAP provided project updates and related information[1] to the Pedestrian and Bike Advisory Committee (PABAC), City’s School Liaison Committee, and City School Traffic Committee”, however, XCAP’s recommendation is that they these groups need to be key partners in design refinement and not merely receive updates on what is being done. XCAP specifically recommended the development of “a formal series of feedback groups” from the above list. On Staff Report page 22, under “Design Refinement of Underpass Alternatives” the report says “refine the three underpass alternatives (Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston) by including input received[2] by the XCAP, the school committees, and the ped/bike advisory committee (PABAC, etc.) and on page 27 under “Additional Outreach” Staff proposes conducting “separate virtual meetings with PAUSD, Stanford and PABAC to review the alternatives still under consideration.” And that “a total of three meetings with the stakeholder are anticipated.” It is unclear whether Staff intends to meet 3 times with each stakeholder, or meet once with the three stakeholders. The report also doesn’t describe how this feedback will be incorporated into the designs, whether it will be an iterative design process or whether the Council will be consulted if there are competing viewpoints among the groups. These considerations may seem too detailed, but ultimately, the structured involvement of key stakeholders in the iterative design process is vital to achieve the desired outcome. 3. XCAP’s report identified new bike/pedestrian connections at Seale and Loma Verde as key infrastructure highlighted by the Comp Plan, the Bike plan and the Rail Corridor report and XCAP pointed out they are critical interim mitigations that are needed regardless of what grade separation alternatives are selected. At the August 23, 2021 meeting, the Council voted to “Continue work on the bike plan in parallel with consideration of construction time and interaction with grade crossing plans” however there is no update in the Staff Report about when the new Bike/Ped plan is expected, how council’s direction will fit into that work and what is the timeframe in which this information will be made available. This information is critical to ensure work on these projects can begin as soon as possible. Technical Recommendations clarifications: XCAP’s report listed a series of additional mitigations beyond what the consultant recommended that are not presented in the Staff Report. This omitted information is a key component of XCAP’s recommendation and should be fully considered by the City Council. I’m providing a summary list here, but the relevant excerpt of the XCAP’s report is attached to this email. 1. 2016 Bike Project: During the COVID budget negotiations of 2020, the previously approved “2016 Bike project” relating to improvements along El Camino and Embarcadero (appendix B-14 of the report) were removed from the Capital Improvement Program, and thus pushed out past the 5 year time period. These improvements were approved regardless of whether or not the Council decides to close Churchill, but become even more critical if Churchill is closed and there will be more cars interacting with bikes and pedestrians in this location. 2. XCAP was made aware of an unofficial student pick-up/drop off locations along Embarcadero slip road which may require additional safety mitigations needed if more cars travel on that road. 3. XCAP reiterated that the Embarcadero intersection should be revisited when alternatives for Palo Alto Avenue and Downtown are selected since decisions in North Palo Alto will likely impact traffic on Embarcadero. 4. Lincoln/Kingsley/High/Embarcadero multi-way intersection issue needs to be addressed to reduce neighborhood through traffic. (There is no part of the Staff Report that addresses where these design improvements will be addressed.) 5. Consider working with Town & Country on reducing congestion on Embarcadero/ El Camino. 6. Review proposed Pedestrian overpass over Embarcadero for safety issues (Mitigation A in Figure 8) and consider stairs at the northwest corner of the existing grade separation. (There is no part of the Staff Report that addresses where these design improvements will be addressed.) 7. Consider creating a comprehensive bike/pedestrian connection plan (There is no part of the Staff Report that addresses where these design improvements will be addressed.) 8. Bike/pedestrian path at Seale before building the Churchill bike/pedestrian to allow safe crossing during construction (and how that might be used for phasing a closure). 9. Study whether Park Blvd should be reopened between Southgate and Evergreen Park. Consider testing an opening. Neighborhood outreach is critical. 10. Consider a traffic signal at North California/Alma to have fewer cars along Churchill and to provide a signalized left out of Old Palo Alto. As mentioned in the General Recommendations area above, XCAP also recommended adding a bike/ped crossing at Seale as a mitigation to any decision on Churchill. And, if Churchill is closed, XCAP favored Bike/Pedestrian Option 2 and gave specific design suggestions to be considered: Explore closing Churchill to cars on the East side between Alma and Emerson - only homeowners and their guests would use the road. Residents would enter/exit Churchill from Emerson Street. Explore the need and possibility for a turn-around at the end of the resulting cul-de-sac. Consider the effect of changes on moving trucks, garbage trucks, emergency vehicles, etc. on an altered Churchill Avenue block. Consider any traffic implications including any additional traffic onto Embarcadero. Explore use of the area from curb and landscaping between curb and sidewalk on both sides of Churchill Avenue to enable an increase in width of ramp. Explore flatter, wider, taller, and fully lit crossing with increased sightlines. Consider moving the entry to ramp further back from Alma to decrease ramp grade. The Staff Report does not mention these suggestions at all and it is unclear whether these refinements would be made at a later date. • • • • Also, if the Council chooses not to close Churchill and instead pursue either the Viaduct or the Partial Underpass, XCAP made a series of recommendations available in section 4.6.2 and 4.6.3. The following comments are mine alone and are not related to XCAP’s report: There are three parallel paths that likely need to be pursued to continue to make forward progress on this critical issue: bike/ped improvements, grade separation design refinements, and policy refinement. Bike/Ped Improvements: While the update to the 2012 Bike + Pedestrian Transportation Plan is likely to come in 2022, work on the Seale and Loma verde crossings should begin ASAP. These have been identified for years as critical links needed regardless of grade separation projects and are now even more important to help achieve grade separations. Similarly, the previously approved 2016 Bike improvements that were cut from the Capital Improvement Budget during COVID need to be reinstated, or at a minimum, a path to eventual funding needs to be prioritized. Grade Separation Design Refinements: Council has already voted to further refine the Underpass alternative, but consideration should be given to how the design can be developed with appropriate feedback in an iterative manner. Council should direct Staff to come back with a detailed plan to incorporate feedback from the variety of stakeholders identified in XCAP’s report. The inclusion of the key stakeholders in an iterative process remains a key component of maximizing eventual community acceptance of the eventual solutions. As is noted repeatedly, none of the alternatives are clear winners, so doing everything possible to make the alternatives as palatable as possible is critical. Policy Refinement: The Council should continue to work on policy priorities related to grade separations including negotiating with Caltrain around the issue of 4-tracks, working with Caltrain on the development of alternative construction methods (such as box-jacking) and the formation of a sub-committee of the Caltrain Local Policy Maker Working Group of cities currently working on grade separation projects. In addition, the Council should work with PAUSD to formalize how to gather input from PAUSD and their key committees (PABAC, City-School Traffic Committee, etc.) for design refinement. A formalized process between the school district and the City could be helpful in gathering their feedback on all sorts of key issues and could be considered a long-term investment in further strengthening the relationship with this key partner. Council should also consider reviewing the conflicting policies highlighted in XCAP’s report to ensure there is clear policy and direction going forward relating to vehicular and bike/pedestrian grade separations. Lastly, the City should continue to focus on the Stanford Municipal Services Study being conducted with Santa Clara County. Regular updates of this study should be part of the grade separation Staff reports as they help inform Stanford’s financial role in grade separation projects. Thank you for considering my comments. Nadia Naik Attachments: 1)excerpt of XCAP report 2) XCAP report Appendix item B-14 2016 Embarcadero and El Camino Real Corridor Study report [1] bolding and italics added for emphasis [2] “ EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 10, 2016 City of Palo Alto 15062 Concept Plans 11x17 Size (2016 07-21).indd 15062 Concept Plans Half Size (2016 07-22).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1 LEGEND PROPOSED TREE NEW CURB EXISTING CURB RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING TREE TREE TO BE REMOVED Town & Country Village Palo Alto High SchoolStanford Campus planting area, typ. planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian markers, typ. bike and pedestrian markers, typ. flush curb with protective bollards, typ. bike and pedestrian markers speed table paly pedestrian entrance raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. existing pedestrian path., typ. existing pedestrian path., typ. pedestrian path pedestrian path, typ. pedestrian path existing planting area existing pedestrian path pedestrian path, typ. median nose reduction pedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. planting area, typ. bulb out and curb ramp existing pedestrian path modified kingsley ave. intersection bus shelter modified town and country exit. right turn only raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. bus shelter existing shared use path pedestrian path, typ. raised cycle track typ. shared use path (bike/ped) raised cycle track existing shared use path, typ. existing shared use path, typ. modified alleyway access existing shared use path, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. rolled curb, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. rolled curb and gutter rolled curb and gutter, typ. rolled curb and gutter, typ. pedestrian crosswalk enhancements high visibility crosswalk, typ. raised cycle track, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. pork chop reduction with bike and pedestrian accessutilities to be relocated protected intersection, typ. enlarged curb ramp, typ. bike lane, typ. existing pedestrian path, typ. existing pedestrian path stamped asphalt pavement, typ. median refuge island, typ. existing bike path, typ. existing bike path existing pedestrian crosswalk modified driveway alignment pedestrian path, typ. E l C a m i n o R e a l Embarcadero Rd. Embarcadero Rd.Embarcadero Rd. Galvez St. H i g h S t . Al m a S t . E m e r s o n S t . Kingsl e y A v e . Stairs with bike runnel M L E A J J J J L L A A B D D C L L H A A J J G I K D connection to kingsley ave. bike route EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL Ma t c h l i n e S e e B e l o w 15062 Concept Plans Half Size (2016 07-22).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1 LEGEND PROPOSED TREE NEW CURB EXISTING CURB RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING TREE TREE TO BE REMOVED Town & Country Village Palo Alto High SchoolStanford Campus planting area, typ. planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian markers, typ. bike and pedestrian markers, typ. flush curb with protective bollards, typ. bike and pedestrian markers speed table paly pedestrian entrance raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. existing pedestrian path., typ. existing pedestrian path., typ. pedestrian path pedestrian path, typ. pedestrian path existing planting area existing pedestrian path pedestrian path, typ. median nose reduction pedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. planting area, typ. bulb out and curb ramp existing pedestrian path modified kingsley ave. intersection bus shelter modified town and country exit. right turn only raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. bus shelterexisting shared use path pedestrian path, typ. raised cycle track typ. shared use path (bike/ped) raised cycle track existing shared use path, typ. existing shared use path, typ. modified alleyway access existing shared use path, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. rolled curb, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. rolled curb and gutter rolled curb and gutter, typ. rolled curb and gutter, typ. pedestrian crosswalk enhancements high visibility crosswalk, typ. raised cycle track, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. pork chop reduction with bike and pedestrian accessutilities to be relocated protected intersection, typ. enlarged curb ramp, typ. bike lane, typ. existing pedestrian path, typ. existing pedestrian path stamped asphalt pavement, typ. median refuge island, typ. existing bike path, typ. existing bike path existing pedestrian crosswalk modified driveway alignment pedestrian path, typ. E l C a m i n o R e a l Embarcadero Rd. Embarcadero Rd.Embarcadero Rd. Galvez St. H i g h S t . Al m a S t . E m e r s o n S t . Kingsl e y A v e . Stairs with bike runnel M L E A J J J J L L A A B D D C L L H A A J J G I K D connection to kingsley ave. bike route EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL Ma t c h l i n e S e e A b o v e CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1 I I I I I __ I I I .---------------- 1------------- I I :- ~[XAGON \ \ \, \ \ \ I I I • \ ' ' /; ---, I \ I I I ' I _______________ : ____________ . I 10.s· LAN£ -----I -----·1 . -\ -----------------L---=-------------I -------------------~------------ ----------------------. -------------------1 I -------~_:-_-;-/---- I ' I I -,----.I-\ ..... / --..... ----1. ..... _____ ,,, ~ ......... \ \ I I r~□'~ 40' \JY EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AUGUST 10, 2016 City of Palo Alto 15062 Concept Plans 11x17 Size (2016 07-21).indd 15062 Concept Plans Half Size (2016 07-22).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 Town & Country Village Palo Alto High SchoolStanford Campus E l C a m i n o R e a l Embarcadero Rd. Galvez St. Hi g h S t . E m e r s o n S t . Kingsl e y Ave. existing pedestrian path raised cycle track, two way, typ. bike and pedestrian markers bike lane, typ. pedestrian path, typ. pedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. planting area, typ. pedestrian path, typ. tree planter, typ. bike lane, typ.existing porkchop island removed bus shelter median curb existing pedestrian crosswalk existing shared use path, typ. existing pedestrian path existing bike path existing pedestrian path existing shared use path (bike/ped) Embarcadero Rd. LEGEND PROPOSED TREE NEW CURB EXISTING CURB RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TREE TREE TO BE REMOVED CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 2 planting area, typ. flush curb with protective bollards, typ. bike and pedestrian markers speed table paly pedestrian entrance pedestrian path raised cycle track, two way, typ. pork chop reduction with bike and pedestrian accessutilities to be relocated O N N F G A A J J protected intersection, typ. enlarged curb ramp, typ. existing pedestrian path existing bike path Galvez St. L stamped asphalt pavement, typ. bike ramp median refuge island, typ. C I M B BNpedestrian path, typ. existing planting area existing pedestrian path tree planter, typ. median nose reduction pedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. bus shelter bike ramp flush curb with protective bollards, typ. modified town and country exit. right turn only existing shared use path, typ. speed table F C G O Stairs with bike runnel D planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. raised cycle track, two way, typ. existing shared use path, typ. high visibility crosswalk, typ. modified driveway alignment pedestrian path, typ. connection to kingsley ave. bike route H N A J K planting area, typ. bulb out and curb ramp existing pedestrian path modified kingsley ave. intersection modified alleyway access existing shared use path, typ. E N Embarcadero Rd. A l m a S t . Ma t c h l i n e S e e B e l o w 15062 Concept Plans Half Size (2016 07-22).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 Town & Country Village Palo Alto High SchoolStanford Campus E l C a m i n o R e a l Embarcadero Rd. Galvez St. H i g h S t . E m e r s o n S t . Kingsle y Ave. existing pedestrian path raised cycle track, two way, typ. bike and pedestrian markers bike lane, typ. pedestrian path, typ. pedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. planting area, typ. pedestrian path, typ. tree planter, typ. bike lane, typ.existing porkchop island removed bus shelter median curb existing pedestrian crosswalk existing shared use path, typ. existing pedestrian path existing bike path existing pedestrian path existing shared use path (bike/ped) Embarcadero Rd. LEGEND PROPOSED TREE NEW CURB EXISTING CURB RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TREE TREE TO BE REMOVED CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 2 planting area, typ. flush curb with protective bollards, typ. bike and pedestrian markers speed table paly pedestrian entrance pedestrian path raised cycle track, two way, typ. pork chop reduction with bike and pedestrian accessutilities to be relocated O N NF G A A J J protected intersection, typ. enlarged curb ramp, typ. existing pedestrian path existing bike path Galvez St. L stamped asphalt pavement, typ. bike ramp median refuge island, typ. C I M B BNpedestrian path, typ. existing planting area existing pedestrian path tree planter, typ. median nose reductionpedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. bus shelter bike ramp flush curb with protective bollards, typ. modified town and country exit. right turn only existing shared use path, typ. speed table F C G O Stairs with bike runnel D planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. raised cycle track, two way, typ. existing shared use path, typ. high visibility crosswalk, typ. modified driveway alignment pedestrian path, typ.connection to kingsley ave. bike route H N A J K planting area, typ. bulb out and curb ramp existing pedestrian path modified kingsley ave. intersection modified alleyway access existing shared use path, typ. E N Embarcadero Rd. A l m a S t . Ma t c h l i n e S e e A b o v e CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 2 I I I I \ \ \ . t------__J--, •---------------------1 I I I --, __ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ ---- 1 ------------------:----------------------------------------------------------------------, I \ I \ ,:.~ Callander Associates 8 k F ~ I Landscape Arc hitecture ~ :;!;?, '"''"""""'"'"""p~""" ~[XAGON . ....... __ ,.....,, \ I I /~ /. I • I I I \_ ,/' 1,/ ..... __ .... ..... __ ___ I I I I I I ------------, L-----------J ----------------- 1 '---------==--~------_-------------------------1 I --• Churchill Avenue 52 4.2.4.2. Palo Alto Council of Parent Teacher Associations (PTAC) The Palo Alto Council of Parent Teacher Associations (PTAC) submitted a letter on January 18th, 2021 (after XCAP had completed its deliberations) saying that as “one of the key partners of the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, PTAC has not had a chance to fully participate in any designs or decisions” and have asked to “work with Staff on future designs of the grade separation projects and any mitigations...” See Appendix B-11 PTA Council. 4.2.4.3. Palo Alto Fire Department Memo from Palo Alto Fire Department, dated October 30, 2019: “The data available clearly indicate that only a very small number of incidents (probably fewer than 0.5%, city-wide) will be affected by the closure [of Churchill]. Response time delays for these few incidents may be on the order of a minute or more.” Full letter in Appendix B-7 Police and Fire Department Letters. 4.2.4.4. Palo Alto Police Department Memo from Palo Alto Police Department, dated October 30, 2019: “The Police Department recognizes the local and regional importance of this project and will be able to successfully adapt their responses to whichever option is ultimately selected.” Full letter in Appendix B-7 Police and Fire Department Letters. 4.3. Recommendations Six XCAP members voted to recommend Closure with mitigations to the City Council as the preferred alternative for the Churchill grade separation (No votes: Phil Burton, Keith Reckdahl and Nadia Naik). More information about the Majority and Minority positions is in the next section. The mitigations proposed by the consultants are early conceptual designs, not final plans. In a follow-on motion, XCAP voted for additional mitigations and areas of study if Council selects the Closure alternative. XCAP voted 7-0-2 (Abstain: Tony Carrasco and Phil Burton) for the following additional mitigations: ● Mitigations should include the 2016 Bike Project and evaluate impacts to El Camino and Embarcadero and Embarcadero/Emerson/High Streets and along both sides of Embarcadero (see: Appendix B-14 Embarcadero and El Camino Rail Corridor Study) (approved but removed from the Capital Improvement Program due to COVID - has been pushed out past the 5-year timeline). ● Unofficial student pick-up/drop off locations along Embarcadero slip road and possible safety mitigations needed if more cars travel on that road. Churchill Avenue 53 ● Embarcadero intersection should be revisited when alternatives for Palo Alto Avenue and Downtown are selected. ● Lincoln/Kingsley/High/Embarcadero multi-way intersection issue needs to be addressed to reduce neighborhood through traffic. ● Consider working with Town & Country on reducing congestion on Embarcadero/ El Camino. ● Review proposed Pedestrian overpass over Embarcadero for safety issues (Mitigation A in Figure 8) ● Consider creating a comprehensive bike/pedestrian connection plan. ● Bike/pedestrian path at Seale before building the Churchill bike/pedestrian to allow safe crossing during construction (and how that might be used for phasing a closure). (Note: bike/pedestrian path is consistent with park use and can be done on dedicated park land). ● Study whether Park Blvd should be reopened between Southgate and Evergreen Park. Consider testing an opening. Neighborhood outreach is critical. ● Consider mitigations (ex. stairs) for the northwest corner of the Embarcadero grade separation, where westbound foot traffic (represented by the red arrow) on the north side of Embarcadero Road travels under the grade separation and then up through landscaping on the northwest embankment towards Town & Country, with many continuing to Palo Alto High School by looping across Embarcadero using the Embarcadero bike/pedestrian bridge adjacent to the railroad tracks (represented by the yellow arrow). Churchill Avenue 54 • Consider a traffic signal at North California/Alma to have fewer cars along Churchill and to provide a signalized left out of Old Palo Alto. Of the choice between Bike/Pedestrian Option 1 or Option 2 (which fully grade-separates bikes/pedestrians from both Alma and Caltrain), XCAP voted in a follow-on motion 7-0-2 (Abstain: Tony Carrasco and Phil Burton) for Option 2 with the following general potential mitigations: 4.3.1.1. Add Bike/Pedestrian Crossing at Seale ● Recommended in the Rail Corridor Plan. ● Adds a bike/pedestrian crossing that can be built while mitigations are being built. ● Would provide a more direct Safe Route to School for Greene and Walter Hays from West of Alma and for Palo Alto High School from students West of Alma and South of Churchill. ● Reduces bike traffic on congested California Avenue bike/pedestrian tunnel and on Churchill tunnel. ● Bikes on the west side of tracks end up on Park Blvd which is a bike path. ● Alternatives for Seale design could be center of the road or property acquisition to create bike/pedestrian ramps to separate from Alma and tracks. 4.3.1.2. Bike/Pedestrian Option 2 ● Explore closing Churchill to cars on the East side between Alma and Emerson - only homeowners and their guests would use the road. Residents would enter/exit Churchill from Emerson Street. Explore need and possibility for a turn-around at the end of resulting cul-de-sac. ● Consider the effect of changes on moving trucks, garbage trucks, emergency vehicles, etc. on an altered Churchill Avenue block. Consider any traffic implications including any additional traffic onto Embarcadero. ● Explore use of the area from curb and landscaping between curb and sidewalk on both sides of Churchill Avenue to enable an increase in width of ramp. ● Explore flatter, wider, taller, and fully lit crossing with increased sightlines. Consider moving the entry to ramp further back from Alma to decrease ramp grade. The main reasons the group preferred Option 2 is the increased safety for bikes and pedestrians resulting from entirely grade separating them from both Alma and the tracks. In addition, there is no queuing from bikes gathering at a traffic signal, which leads to faster bike/pedestrian connections, significantly improving east/west connectivity. Member Burton abstained because he did not support the Closure and Member Carrasco thought all bike designs needed to be re-conceptualized because both designs were unacceptable since they have tunnels, and he prefers at-grade bike/pedestrian alternatives. Churchill Avenue 55 4.4. Majority Position Six XCAP members voted to recommend the Closure of Churchill for the following reasons for the following 5 key reasons: 1. Lowest cost option 2. Minimal aesthetic Impacts 3. Minimize construction time 4. Vehicular traffic moved elsewhere can be mitigated 5. Safer experience for bicycle and pedestrians 4.4.1. Lowest Cost Option Closure with Mitigations is by far the lowest cost option, estimated at $50-65M. The Partial Underpass option is estimated at $160-200M, and the Viaduct option is estimated at higher still costs of $300-400M. The likelihood of achieving a funding goal is maximized when the amount sought is minimized. The Majority felt that additional expenditure of public funds to further study the Partial Underpass is not justified since the Partial Underpass is already an expensive alternative that is unlikely to be improved with additional design iteration. In addition, the Minority’s no vote on this motion seems rooted more in their support for further study rather than their belief that the Partial Underpass is actually a superior alternative. 4.4.2. Minimal Aesthetic Impacts The Closure plus Mitigations option minimizes visual changes of the surroundings. There are no large structures being constructed. The bike/pedestrian underpass will create a new below ground structure, although much smaller in visual impact than a structure that serves vehicles. Proposed mitigations at Embarcadero will result in modifications in lane designations, improved accommodations for cyclists and pedestrians, and new traffic signals, but do not include the construction of large structures nor large modifications of existing structures. On the other hand, both the Viaduct and Partial Underpass options will have much greater visual impact and resulting controversy. The Viaduct option will introduce a new above-ground structure that runs for some length, visible from Embarcadero to some point beyond Churchill Ave. Those who own houses with their backyards adjacent to the train tracks will experience a structure with a train running on it over 40 feet in the air. Because of the width of the rail corridor near Churchill, the viaduct would be constructed only a few feet from property lines, increasing the impact on the nearby properties. During construction, there would be additional visual impact with temporary, shoofly tracks running on Alma Street with Alma Street narrowed down to two lanes, one in each direction. Churchill Avenue 56 The Partial Underpass, while below ground, would also create a large concrete structure whose roadways are more complicated than a simple underpass, due to a design that preserves some of its turns and not others. There would be concrete retaining walls arranged to support the proposed turning movements and roadways. During construction, the Partial Underpass would also require temporary shoofly tracks running on Alma Street, and a subsequent lane reduction on Alma. Both of these changes will result in visual impacts during construction. 4.4.3. Minimized Construction Time Along with the Viaduct option, the Closure plus Mitigation option has the least amount of construction time at approximately 2 years, thus minimizing any disruption to traffic and the community. In contrast, the construction time for the Partial Underpass is estimated to be greater at 2.5 to 3 years. 4.4.4. Vehicular Traffic Moved Elsewhere Can Be Mitigated As previously discussed in the Traffic Studies section in this chapter, the vehicular traffic diverted to other roadways by the closure of Churchill can be successfully mitigated, if not improved in service level. Mitigations were examined by traffic consultant Hexagon at seven different intersections where traffic was projected to be rerouted. Details of currently proposed mitigations can be found in Hexagon’s report available in Appendix B-3 Traffic Studies and Presentations - Final Traffic Study - Hexagon Traffic Consultants. ***The following information is directly from the Traffic Study except where noted*** Churchill Avenue 57 Figure 8 below is a rendering44 of the proposed mitigations: 44 Appendix B Final Traffic Study - Hexagon Traffic Consultants - Analysis of Churchill, Meadow and Charleston Grade Separation (Final Aug 2020). Figure 8, page 51. Figure 8 Embarcadero/High/Kingsley Improvements Churchill Avenue 58 A summary of projected results of the mitigations, and the affected intersections, is shown in Table 5 45 below: 45 Ibid., Table 5 page 49. Table 5 Churchill Closure -Miti ated Intersection Levels of Service under Exist in Conditions Churchill Closure -Existin Conditions No Improvements With Improvements Peak Traffic Avg. Delay Traffic Avg. Delay Intersection Hour Control (sec.) LOS Contr~ ~ec~ LOS 1 Alma Street & Lincoln Avenue AM One-Way >=50 F One-Way 5.7 A PM Stoo >=50 F Stoo 21 .1 C 2 A lma Street & Embarcadero Road AM One-Way >=50 F Signal 4.8 A PM Stoo >=50 F 3.0 A 3 Alma Street & Kingsley Avenue AM One-Way >=50 F Signal 13.3 B PM Stoo >=50 F 18.3 B 4 El Camino ReaVEmbarcadero Rd* AM Signal >80 F Signal 67.1 E PM >80 F 61.1 E 5 El Camino ReaVOregon Expwy-Page Mill Rd* AM Signal >80 F Signal 72.5 E PM >80 F 73 .5 E 6A Alma St & Oregon ExpwyWB Off Ramp (Oregon Ave) AM One-Way >=50 F Signal 6 A PM Stoo >=50 F 6.7 A 6B Alma St & Oregon Expwy EB Off Ramp AM One-Way >=50 F Signal 17 .9 B PM Stoo >=50 F 16.0 B Notes: 1. Average delay is reported for the worst approach at one-way stop intersections. 2. Bold indicates substandard intersection level of service. Churchill Avenue 59 XCAP notes the four existing intersections with STOP signs were analyzed in the traffic study. These intersections were assigned LOS F due to heavy delays experienced on the side streets. In the above chart, Intersections 2, 3, 6a and 6b change from STOP signs to traffic signals. Intersection 1 changes from a STOP sign to a right-turn-only STOP sign. The proposed changes at these intersections indicate improvement to LOS for existing and 2030 traffic conditions. 4.4.4.1. Alma Street Intersections (No. 1, 2 and 3) With the closure of Churchill Avenue, some traffic would be rerouted to Embarcadero Road. However, the connections for some of the turning movements between Alma Street and Embarcadero Road are circuitous. Traffic from Alma Street that wants to head west on Embarcadero Road must use Lincoln Avenue to Emerson Street. Due to the close spacing, intersections 1, 2 and 3 could be mitigated as a group with the following recommendations (shown in Figure 8). ● Restrict the intersection of Alma Street/Lincoln Street to right-in/right-out only movements. ● Divert left-turning traffic off of Lincoln Avenue by adding a left-turn lane to the Embarcadero Road slip ramp to facilitate left-turns onto Alma Street. ● Install traffic signals at the Alma Street/Embarcadero Road slip ramp and Alma Street/Kingsley Avenue with one controller. ● Install a traffic signal at the Embarcadero Road/Kingsley Avenue intersection to allow left- turns from Kingsley Street onto westbound Embarcadero Road. ● Provide a 75 to 100-foot left-turn pocket on southbound Alma Street at Kingsley Avenue. ● Provide two northbound travel lanes on northbound Alma Street at Kingsley Avenue. Providing two northbound travel lanes on Alma Street at Kingsley Avenue would require widening of the Alma Street bridge over Embarcadero Road, as the existing width of the bridge can only accommodate three travel lanes on Alma Street. Widening would require extensive modification or potential replacement of the existing bridge structure. No additional right-of-way is needed on Alma Street, south of Embarcadero Road. These improvements would provide a direct connection between Alma Street and Embarcadero Road. Diverted traffic from southbound Alma Street would not have to use local streets to access Embarcadero Road. In addition, existing traffic on northbound Alma Street would no longer have to go around the block (Lincoln to Emerson) to travel west on Embarcadero. This traffic on Alma would make a right-turn at Kingsley and a left-turn at the proposed traffic signal at Embarcadero Road. With the proposed improvements, the analysis shows that intersections 1, 2 and 3 would operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours under existing (see Table 5) and Year 2030 traffic volumes (see Table 6). Churchill Avenue 60 Note that Figure 8 shows a conceptual design of potential improvements at the Embarcadero Road and Alma Street interchange. If this project were to be pursued, many design details would need to be worked out with regard to maintaining access to existing residential driveways on Embarcadero Road, Kingsley Street, High Street, and the Embarcadero slip ramp. Table 6 Churchill Closure -Miti ated Intersection Levels of Service under Year 2030 Conditions Churchill Closure -Year 2030 Conditions No Im rovements With Im rovements Peak Traffic Avg. Delay Traffic Avg. Delay Intersection Hour Control (sec.) LOS Control (sec.) LOS 1 Alma Street & Lincoln Avenue AM One-Way >=50 F One-Way 14.4 B PM Stop >=50 F Stop 15.2 C 2 Alma Street & Embarcadero Road AM One-Way >=50 F Signal 4 A PM Stop >=50 F 3.6 A 3 Alma Street & Kingsley Avenue AM One-Way >=50 F Signal 13.0 B PM Stop >=50 F 14.8 B 4 El Camino ReaVEmbarcadero Rd* AM Signal >80 F Signal 73.6 E 5 El Camino ReaVOregon Expwy-Page Mill Rd* AM Signal >80 (120.3) F Signal >80 (91.8) F PM >80 (!!1 8.4) F >80 92.7) F GA Alma St & Oregon ExpwyWB Off Ramp (Oregon Ave) AM One-Way >=50 F Signal 7.8 A PM Stop >=50 F 9.1 A 68 Alma St & Oregon Expwy EB Off Ramp AM One-Way >=50 F Signal 24.9 C PM Stop >=50 F 21.5 C Notes: 1. Average delay is reported for the worst approach at one-way stop intersections. 2. Bold indicates substandard intersection level of service. Churchill Avenue 61 4.4.4.2. El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road (Intersection 4) The analysis showed that at the VTA Congestion Management Program intersection of El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road, significant traffic impacts would occur due to reassigned traffic. It is recommended that an additional westbound left-turn lane and a northbound right- turn lane be provided along with signal optimization at this intersection (see Figure 9). With these improvements, the intersection of El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road would operate at acceptable LOS E during both peak hours under existing and Year 2030 traffic volumes. Churchill Avenue 62 = PrOPoSed layout Figure 9 El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road Improvements Churchill Avenue 63 4.4.4.3. El Camino Real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway (Intersection 5) At the VTA Congestion Management Program intersection of El Camino Real/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road, the traffic analysis identified significant traffic impacts due to reassigned traffic. The report recommended a westbound right-turn lane from Oregon Expressway to northbound El Camino Real along with optimizing the signal timing (see Figure 10). With these improvements, the intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours under existing conditions. Under Year 2030 traffic conditions, the analysis shows that the intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F with the proposed improvements. However, the intersection delay during both the AM and PM peak hours is projected to be lower than the intersection delay without these improvements. Churchill Avenue 64 = Prol)OSed Layout Figure 10 El Camino Real and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway Improvements Churchill Avenue 65 4.4.4.4. Alma Street and Oregon Expressway (Intersections 6A and 6B) The traffic analysis identified significant impacts to the intersections of Alma Street/Oregon Expressway with the reassignment. The analysis determined that these intersections currently meet the peak hour signal warrant and recommends traffic signals at both the on and off ramps (see Figure 11). With the proposed traffic signals at both the ramp locations, the intersections of Alma Street and Oregon Expressway are projected to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during both peak hours under existing and Year 2030 traffic conditions. Churchill Avenue 66 ***End of Excerpt from Traffic Study*** = Proposed Layout Figure 11 Alma Street and Oregon Expressway Improvements Churchill Avenue 67 4.4.4.5. Impacts to University Avenue According to the Traffic Study: “Due to the existing congestion on University Avenue, trips from the potential Churchill closure much more likely would be rerouted to Embarcadero Road or Oregon Expressway. The potential Churchill Avenue closure is not likely to impact traffic operations along University Avenue.”46 The Minority raised concerns about the Traffic Study, however the Majority feels the work presented was professional and persuasive and that the mitigations presented will sufficiently address the impacts highlighted in the report. It was noted by City Staff that Hexagon Transportation Consultants is the leading resource for work in this area and that their reputation and experience was what led AECOM and City Staff to engage them to work on this project. The Minority also believes that further analysis might find a need for additional mitigations, which might lead to increased costs. The Majority believes this is piling speculation upon speculation. 4.4.5. A Safer Experience for Cyclists and Pedestrians The Churchill/Alma intersection experiences a sizable amount of bicycle and pedestrian traffic, especially during the weekdays. Given the proximity to Palo Alto High School, hundreds of high school students travel to and from campus through this intersection.47 This intersection also serves as a connection from points north and Stanford University, for both pedestrians and cyclists. As it stands currently, neither auto traffic nor the train are separated from cyclist or pedestrian traffic. This pattern creates a hazardous condition that has seen many accidents over the years48, and is only poised to worsen as Caltrain electrifies its trains and they travel faster and, over time, more often. By fully separating bicycle and pedestrian traffic from both vehicular traffic and the train, a safer and more enhanced crossing condition can be created for cyclists and foot traffic in and near Churchill Ave. Proposed mitigations at Embarcadero and Alma also address shortcomings in the current bicycle and pedestrian paths there. These should include improvements relating to the areas around Embarcadero at Alma, including Kingsley, High, and Emerson at 46 Pg. 50 of Appendix B-3 Traffic Studies and Presentations - Final Traffic Study - Hexagon Traffic Consultants 47 Appendix B-3-2 DRAFT Traffic Study- TJKM - Draft Traffic Impact Study Report - Churchill Ave Closure (Aug 2019) page 33: Through their daily traffic counts, they saw approximately 258 cyclists on the days they gathered data. Note that this count was only in the AM, as their PM counts were after students had ended school 2-3 hours before, and thus would not have been seen during their PM count time. 48 See Chapter 6, Safety. Churchill Avenue 68 Embarcadero as defined by The Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard (NTSBB) Projects.49 4.5. Minority Position Three members of the XCAP (Phil Burton, Keith Reckdahl, Nadia Naik- the “Minority”) did not support the motion, stating that they wanted additional information that the current traffic study did not provide, that the Closure of Churchill would inequitably distribute traffic to other neighborhoods, and that further evaluation of the Partial Underpass should also be explored before any decisions are made. 4.5.1. Additional Traffic Information Needed The Traffic Study provided baseline analysis to facilitate decision making, but ultimately, it was insufficient for the Minority to support a Closure due to the following areas of concern: ● The few east/west traffic crossings in the City are inextricably linked. The relationship of the future grade separation of Palo Alto Avenue or changes to the existing University Avenue and Embarcadero grade separations should be part of the analysis. ● The report included intersection LOS but without a network LOS analysis of proposed mitigations/improvements, making it difficult to understand the queuing effects of these mitigations on the entire network and whether they create capacity constraints at other intersections. A network analysis may uncover deficiencies that require additional mitigations/improvements, increasing costs. ● The report did not evaluate potential delays to public transit or/and school buses from concentrating more traffic on fewer roadways. ● Bike/Pedestrian mitigations were identified as an area of future study, but the Minority felt the available traffic information was insufficient. ● Analysis describing network impacts of the proposed mitigations beyond 2030 are needed- even if that analysis is within certain bands of uncertainty given the long-range nature of the forecasts. Future scenario analysis should test how sensitive the LOS forecast predictions are to changes in the input assumptions. ● Specific impacts to school operations were not evaluated because detailed information from the school district was unavailable, so additional potential traffic or safety mitigations remain unknown. The mitigations do not prevent the Closure from relocating Churchill traffic to other neighborhoods. Rather, the mitigations only attempt to reduce the impacts of the relocated traffic. 49 The Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard (NTSBB) Projects https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/trn/bicycling_n_walking/ntsbb.asp Churchill Avenue 69 4.5.2. Embarcadero Bridge Concerns The widening of the Alma Street bridge (part of the existing Embarcadero grade separation) is needed to mitigate some of the proposed changes. Today, the pinch point created by the narrow bridge serves to slow the speed of northbound Alma traffic and the impact of its removal was not addressed. In addition, the 1936 Embarcadero grade separation could at some point in time need to be retrofitted or replaced, whether due to future earthquake damage or because it has reached the end of its useful life. If rebuilt, it is very unlikely that the new grade separation would retain the current single eastbound lane and limited turning movements. Furthermore, from a network resiliency standpoint, the City should weigh the removal of an east/west arterial. In particular, maintaining the Churchill crossing may be necessary to support traffic during any Embarcadero underpass reconstruction. 4.5.3. Partial Underpass Study As described in the main report, significant iteration of the Partial Underpass design was cut short and key stakeholders, particularly from the school and bike community, weren’t able to fully participate in design iterations. The Minority’s concerns have been folded into the upcoming Areas of Future Study section but represent key areas of deficiencies of the incomplete design iteration. If, with full participation from key stakeholders, an agreeable design could be achieved, the Partial Underpass could be a viable compromise addressing the issues of geographic equity. Alternatively, if after full exploration, the Partial Underpass proved infeasible, it could bolster community support for the Closure. 4.5.4. Irreversible Nature of the Decision The railroad on the Peninsula has historically closed existing at-grade crossings, not re-opened or created new ones. Since today’s CPUC is unlikely to grant a reversal, the decision to close Churchill should only be made after careful review of as many foreseeable issues as possible. 4.6. Areas for Future Study XCAP members noted potential areas for future exploration. These are: 4.6.1. Churchill Closure with Mitigations 1. The following suggestions were made: a. Mitigations should include the 2016 Bike Project and evaluate impacts to El Camino and Embarcadero and Embarcadero/Emerson/High Streets and along both sides of Embarcadero (see: Appendix B-14 Embarcadero and El Camino Corridor Improvement Study Aug 2016) (approved but removed from the Capital Improvement Program due to COVID - has been pushed out past the 5-year timeline). b. Unofficial student pick-up/drop off locations along Embarcadero slip road and possible safety mitigations needed if more cars travel on that road. c. Embarcadero intersection should be revisited when alternatives for Palo Alto Avenue and Downtown are selected. Churchill Avenue 70 d. Lincoln/Kingsley/High/Embarcadero multi-way intersection issue needs to be addressed to reduce neighborhood through traffic. e. Consider working with Town & Country on reducing congestion on Embarcadero/ El Camino. f. Review proposed Pedestrian overpass over Embarcadero for safety issues. g. Consider creating a comprehensive bike/pedestrian connection plan. h. Bike/Pedestrian path at Seale before building the Churchill Bike/Pedestrian to allow safe crossing during construction (and how that might be used for phasing a closure). (Note: bike/pedestrian path is consistent with park use and can be done on dedicated park land). i. Study whether Park Blvd should be reopened between Southgate and Evergreen Park. Consider testing an opening. Neighborhood outreach is critical. j. Consider mitigations (ex. stairs) for the northwest corner of the Embarcadero grade separation, where westbound foot traffic (represented by the red arrow) on the north side of Embarcadero Road travels under the grade separation and then up through landscaping on the northwest embankment towards Town & Country, with many continuing to Palo Alto High School by looping across Embarcadero using the Embarcadero bike/pedestrian bridge adjacent to the railroad tracks (represented by the yellow arrow). k. Consider a traffic signal at North California/Alma to have fewer cars along Churchill and to provide a signalized left out of Old Palo Alto. 2. Additional bike/pedestrian crossing mitigation future study areas. a. Add bike/pedestrian crossing at Seale. i. Recommended in the Rail Corridor Plan. ii. Adds a bike/pedestrian crossing that can be built while mitigations are being built. iii. Would provide a more direct Safe Route to School for Greene and Walter Hays from West of Alma and for Palo Alto High School from students West of Alma and South of Churchill. iv. Reduces bike traffic on congested California Avenue bike/pedestrian tunnel and on Churchill tunnel. v. Bikes on the west side of tracks end up on Park Blvd which is a bike path. vi. Alternatives for Seale design could be center of the road or property acquisition to create bike/pedestrian ramps to separate from Alma and tracks. b. Bike Option 2 i. Explore closing Churchill to cars on the East side between Alma and Emerson - only homeowners and their guests would use the road. Residents would enter/exit Churchill from Emerson Street. Explore need and possibility for a turnaround at the end of resulting cul-de-sac. Churchill Avenue 71 ii. Consider the effect of changes on moving trucks, garbage trucks, emergency vehicles, etc. on an altered Churchill Avenue block. Consider any traffic implications including any additional traffic onto Embarcadero. iii. Explore use of the area from curb and landscaping between curb and sidewalk on both sides of Churchill Avenue to enable an increase in width of ramp. iv. Explore flatter, wider, taller, and fully lit crossing with increased sightlines. Consider moving the entry to ramp further back from Alma to decrease ramp grade. 3. Analyze the impacts of widening the Alma Street bridge on the overall traffic network and any necessary mitigations. 4. Consider a cost-benefit analysis of whether the Embarcadero grade separation might eventually need replacement, whether opportunities exist to improve all turn movements if replaced, and what impact that has on other east/west arterials and their planned improvements since closure of Churchill could impact network resiliency. 5. Consider impacts of any roadway modifications to east/west travel, particularly with regard to decisions made on the future Downtown coordinated Area Plan and the Palo Alto Avenue crossing. 6. Given the impacts to the overall project timelines from COVID, it is expected that an updated Traffic study eventually will be needed. The following suggestions are areas of future study that could be included: ● Expand Traffic Study to include impacts beyond 2030 - Analysis describing network impacts of the proposed mitigations beyond 2030 are needed. Given the uncertainty of long-range forecasts, analysis with certain confidence bands and future scenario analysis should test how sensitive the LOS forecast predictions are to changes in the input assumptions. ● Perform network LOS analysis of proposed mitigations and improvements to understand the queuing effects of these mitigations and whether they create capacity constraints at other intersections. ● Consider potential delays to public transit or/and school buses that may result from concentrating more traffic on fewer roadways. 4.6.2. Churchill Partial Underpass If the Council would like to pursue the Partial Underpass, further design review should seek to reduce the underpass cost, size, and encroachment within the Caltrain ROW. Some ideas include: ● Explore whether raising the rail tracks by a few feet, which would reduce both the underpass depth and length along both Churchill and Embarcadero, potentially reducing property impacts and cost and improving visual appearances. ● Explore ideas to reduce the width of Churchill’s lanes/shoulders to reduce the underpass width, further reducing excavation and construction costs. Churchill Avenue 72 ● Explore whether it is possible to design a bike/pedestrian crossing closer to Churchill itself to address circuitousness created by having the bike/pedestrian crossing at either Kellogg or Seale. ● Work with Caltrain to address encroachment on their ROW. ● Model whether the building of a Partial Underpass could cause auto traffic inducement. 4.6.3. Churchill Viaduct If the Council would like to pursue the Viaduct, some ideas for areas of further study include: ● Consider the exploration into a viaduct over Embarcadero, but with a reduced and diminishing height at the Churchill intersection to allow for a Homer-like bike/pedestrian underpass. ● Model whether building a Viaduct at Churchill would induce auto traffic. 4.6.4. Future Outreach Opportunities Although the City did some outreach, the distractions of the pandemic may have inhibited the community’s ability to fully participate in XCAP’s Churchill designs and eventual decision. Palo Alto has an incredibly rich bike/pedestrian community, and collaboration with community members should be encouraged to leverage their insights to improve all future designs. XCAP recommends that further outreach about the Churchill crossing should include the following groups: ● Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) ● Palo Alto High Students ● Palo Alto High School PTSA ● Palo Alto Council of Parent Teacher Associations - PTAC ● Safe Routes to School Team (SRTS) ● City/School traffic liaison committee ● Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee (PABAC) and other bicycle-advocacy organizations ● Stanford University ● Town & Country Village management and merchants ● Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce ● Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) ● Adjacent neighborhood associations ● Castilleja school administration and students ● Caltrain ● Union Pacific Railroad (or future short line operator) From:Modular Technology To:Council, City Subject:#MakeItHappenMonday: Facility Maintenance for Occasional Requirements Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 12:45:21 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email fromtkissinger+taskmodular.com@ccsend.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Modular Technology Friends and Clients, Look around your facility and you will likely see small projects and maintenance items that need attention. You may already know that Modular Technology provides commercial office furniture and monthly facilities management and maintenance programs. We are always looking for ways to make it easier for our clients to work with us. Our #MakeItHappenMonday initiative is designed for clients that haveoccasional requirements, including items such as: Light bulbs Plumbing fixtures Moves, adds and changes Clean and declutter Patch and paint Assembly and installation Seismic bracing Seasonal storm drains Season time clock change How It WorksContact Modular Technology and ask for more information about #MakeItHappenMonday (actually, we’ll make it happen any day of the week). A Project Manager will contact you and review and prioritize your task list as well as plan for materials and tools. Our qualified Facilities Technicians are available by the day, and you will receive a flat-rate quote for labor. The PM will set expectationsabout what can be accomplished in a day then schedule a time. Benefits This program is an excellent way to get caught up with deferred maintenance items and evaluate Modular Technology’s service. If you are satisfied with the experience,then simply repeat when you have more work or you may want to explore other options for continual Facilities Management and Maintenance Services. Next StepContact Modular Technology at (650) 327-1700 or reply to this email. If you know of someone else who may benefit from our services, please forward this email. Sincerely, • • • • • • • • • Terry Kissinger Modular Technology | 643 Bair Island Road, Suite 200A, Redwood City, CA 94063 Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by tkissinger@taskmodular.com powered by Try email marketing for free today! Modular Technology Innovative Facility Resources ,;~ Constant \::!.I Contact From:Kathy Roskos To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick Cc:City Mgr; Kathy Roskos Subject:Letter to Council from Page Mill Road Neighbors - Title 8 Tree Protection Ordinance Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 11:25:09 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from kathyroskos@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 01 November 2021 4020 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, Counselors, and Staff, We write on behalf of the residents of the Upper Page Mill neighborhood. We only last week became aware that the City is seeking to update Title 8 of the Municipal Code, the tree protection ordinance. We believe that Title 8 has been a great asset to the City and agree that it deserves an update and Council’s attention. The proposed changes seem to us to have been thoughtfully crafted, through years of effort by many people, to enhance the Urban Forest in Palo Alto. However, the proposed changes have not been tailored for the majority of trees in the City, which are in Wildland Forest, not Urban Forest. This is a problem with the existing Title 8 as well, but the proposed changes make the matter much more urgent. Palo Alto’s Wildland Forest has been an ugly stepchild. The Urban Forest Master Plan specifically excludes the Wildland Forest (see the maps on its page 25) while also saying, “In concept the urban forest may be considered to encompass all the trees … in Palo Alto.” But while it does mention the phrase “Sudden Oak Death” thrice and the idea of defensible space once, the Urban Forest Master Plan barely touches on the issues of the Wildland Forest. One can hardly fault the Master Plan for this. “Urban Forest” is right there in the title. Wildland Forest is not. To be clear, the problems of the Wildland Forest are not unauthorized removals of trees, or canopy loss due to development, or the unnecessary loss of a tree much loved by a neighborhood. We do not need to plant replacement trees to preserve the canopy — replacement trees plant themselves in Wildland areas. Instead, we face outbreaks of disease, especially Sudden Oak Death, and the constant risk of wildfire, accentuated in recent years by the effects of climate change. Because the issues faced by the Wildland Forest are so different — in some cases, diametrically opposed — to the issues faced by the Urban Forest, and because the proportion of trees in the Wildland Forest is so large, our fundamental objection is that the responsibilities for Wildland Forest should not be concentrated in an official whose title is simply Urban Forester. The issues of the Wildland Forest should not be addressed in a master plan entitled simply Urban Forest. All of us know that, in administrative organizations like the City, the titles of documents and people are their main focus and everything else is seen through that main focus. We respect the, truly, years of effort that has gone into these proposed revisions for the Urban Forest. On behalf of our Wildland Forest, we ask for the same effort and tailoring, that the Wildland Forest not be shoehorned in at the end of a process that was not designed for it. We ask that these revisions not be applied to the Wildland Forest without substantial time spent with stakeholders, including the owners of the 190 acres of private forest, as well as Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, to understand the consequences for this marvelous ecosystem and for us as its stewards. We are currently working with several entities regarding wildland fire safety planning: Palo Alto OES, Palo Alto Fire, Santa Clara County FireSafe Council, CalFIRE, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. We welcome a partnership with Palo Alto City Council and staff to further other Wildland Forest management principles. To prepare for this joint work, we have the following questions for staff and Council: How many entries does the City’s Tree Keeper database contain for trees in the City’s Nature Preserves? What proportion of all trees in those preserves are entered into the database, would you estimate? Is the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) legally required to satisfy the regulations in Title 8 for the land it manages within the City of Palo Alto? Regardless of whether MROSD is so required, has staff, Canopy, or Council consulted with MROSD Board and staff — not just one member of the MROSD Board — since MROSD owns the largest number of private trees as defined by Title 8? Does the City attempt to comply with Chapter 8.10 of Title 8, Weed Abatement, in its Nature Preserves? • • • • • Does the City obtain permits for removals of diseased trees in its Nature Preserves? Does the City have a policy of replanting trees to replace removed or otherwise dead trees in its Nature Preserves? Does a single policy apply to all areas of the Nature Preserves, including the areas that are inaccessible by vehicle, or do different policies apply in different areas? What is the City’s policy for mapping trees in its Nature Preserves that have been infected with Sudden Oak Death? What is the City’s policy for disposing of public trees that are diseased with Sudden Oak Death, without spreading the pathogen to nearby trees? Is that policy carried out in the Nature Preserves? What is the City’s policy for management of non-oak species, such as bays, that are reservoirs for the Sudden Oak Death pathogen? As Tree Committee Chair, I encourage the members of Council and Staff to engage with me as the point of contact to work through the challenges specific to the Wildland Forest in our neighborhood. I am aware of the relatively short timeline for engagement and outreach —with the goal to return to Council on revisions to Title 8 by April 2022. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Kathy Roskos (Tree Committee Chair) kathy.roskos@gmail.com Resident 1991 - present Mark Schneider (Tree Committee) Resident 1971-1977, 1986 - present Upper Page Mill Neighborhood Also signed by the following Upper Page Mill Road Residents: Scott Selover Resident 1991 - present David R. Ditzel • • • • Inmaculada del Castillo Residents 1987 - present Tony Tam Resident 1992 - present Daniel Dulitz Alice Sheppard Residents 2008 - present Joss and Tim Parsey Residents 2013 - present Jane and Henry Evans Residents 1992 - present Winfried Wilcke Christie Jordan Residents 2002- present From:carial To:Council, City Subject:Objection to proposed rent protection policies Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:06:12 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from carial_2002@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and Council members, I am a Palo Alto resident working hard to support our growing family. I have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and I oppose all recommended rent protection items. The past 2 years have been very difficult for me as one of the housing providers. I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage and raise the family. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and materialto maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers it is very difficult for is to survive! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually toadminister; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in thecity; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! ------- Yinqing From:George Thomas To:Council, City Subject:November 8th City Council Meeting Agenda Item #12Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 4:36:24 PMAttachments:Screen Shot 2021-11-05 at 4.01.54 PM.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from vbthomas@pacbell.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. November 6, 2021 Dear Council Members, We have been long-term residents of an RM-40 zoned community (i.e., Palo Alto Central) for over 35 years. The purchase of a condo at that timewas the only affordable choice for us if we wanted to live in Palo Alto (which we did). The appeal of RM-40 affordability has not changed over theyears and it is clearly the type of denser housing needed to address the current housing shortage. However, your staff continues to push through objective design standards that clearly discriminate against the RM-40 zone in terms ofrequirements, such as height, daylight, privacy, etc. Even though RM-40 has historically been left out of equal zoning rights, we expected theprocess to update the design standards would be a "golden opportunity" to bring those standards in compliance with your Equity Mission Statement.And, elimination of second class standards for RM-40 zoned communities would increase their appeal as a great place to live affordably in PaloAlto. If the Council is sincere about promoting affordable housing and eliminating inequities, then it should send these standards back to staff forrevisions requesting equity across all zoning types. Regards,George & Vivian Thomas161 California Ave Apt K204Palo Alto CA 94306 Equity Mission Statement: The City of Palo Alto is committed to creating a respectful, fair, and professional workplace and city. We will identify prejudices, eliminate inequities, welcome many perspectives, and use a collaborative approach to create an environment that works for everyone. The City's commitment to achieve equity in Palo Alto is the shared responsibility of our residents, organizations, governments, and other institutions. From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Nose, Kiely; Paras, Christine; Abendschein, Jonathan Subject:questions re business tax Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 11:36:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the City Council and staff, I am trying to understand which organizations will be subject to taxation unless a business tax based on square footage and, how many of them are there. I think this information is needed both for accurate modeling but also for organizations and residents to know the scope and reach of any proposed tax. Some of these questions will be asked by residents who are polled on their views. Basic question Is this tax levied on the occupant of the space, not the owner if the owner is not the occupant? Exemptions Will all occupants occupying less than 20,000 square feet be exempt? If not, which occupants under 20,000 square feet be taxed? Will some sectors be exempt regardless of the square feet they occupy? retail? restaurants? hotels? medical/hospital occupants? Clarify the mandatory exemptions again, thanks. Vacant space How will space be handled if there is no occupant? On my block there are vacancies thateven pre date the pandemic and as I walk downtown I see more not fewer vacant spaces>Perhaps most will be covered under exempt categories but what is large and vacant? In this regard there may be consolidation of space for some large organizations in the post- pandemic world. How many organizations will be subject to tax Staff has shown how many square feet are in various size categories but how many occupants are there in each size category--not the names but the number of them? Will most of the tax revenue come from 10 organizations? 20? how many will be touched bya square footage tax? Can you give examples? I am not able to easily imagine what 20,000 square feet looks like. Can staff provide 5 or 10 examples of spaces that are well know to residents and how many square feet they include? Thanks Stephen Levy From:Ken Horowitz To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Clerk, City Subject:Agenda item #13 11/8/21 Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 9:55:15 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from horowitzken@fhda.edu. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello All During the Council's discussion on agenda item #13 "update and recommend further refinement of potential revenue generating ballot measures", I am suggesting a general tax for the privilege of engaging in the business of making an initial distribution within the City of a sugar sweetened beverage, syrup, or powder. The City shall impose a sugary drinks distributor tax which shall be a general excise tax, on the Distributor making the initial distribution of a sugar sweetened beverage, syrup, or powder in the City. This tax will model similar taxes in the cities of Berkeley, Albany, Oakland, and San Francisco. To assist the Council, I am suggesting that Mertz and Associates do the polling in conjunction with their polling of a potential business tax. I have attached a document on "Best Practices in Designing Local Taxes on Sugary Drinks" Thank you for your consideration Sincerely Dr. Kenneth Horowitz 525 Homer Ave Palo Alto, CA Subject: Designing Sugary Drink Taxes | ChangeLab Solutions https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.changelabsolutions.org/product/designing-sugary-drink-taxes__;!!A-B3JKCz!XzXxKpkrjJlthNKeRpD_t5iROCohw15KKQBxOgh8P2gYukhBblCWc8_oEWnV7JTMjiY$ Sent from my iPhone From:Robert Chun To:Council, City Subject:Please support renter protections tonight Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 9:58:24 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rgchun@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I urge you to strongly consider the following measures at tonight's Council meeting: 1. Implementation of a Rental Survey Program (“Rent Registry”) 2. Expanded Tenant Relocation Assistance - covering all homes, renters, and eviction types 3. Close AB1482 loopholes 4. Explore a "COPA - Community Opportunity to Purchase Act" ordinance to preservenaturally occurring affordable housing These measures are essential to protecting tenants, and in particular rent-burdened families who struggle to maintain housing stability in Palo Alto. Thank you! Sincerely, Robert Chun From:Sydney Speizman To:Council, City Subject:Protect Palo Alto Renters Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 9:51:51 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sydneyspeizman@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council: As a Palo Alto resident and renter in College Terrace, it is deeply important to me that the complex housing needs of ALL Palo Alto Residents are met, including the 46% that are renters like me. I join the coalition calling on City Council to expand renter protections in Palo Alto. We need a robust rental survey program - but that’s just the start! Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic that increased the precarity of housing, the Bay Area suffered from a significant housing crisis with insufficient units, lack of access to affordable housing, looming evictions, and landlord harassment. Especially after the end of renter protections like the eviction moratorium, we are hearing story after story of renters facing eviction and suffering under the overwhelming weight of high housing costs. We call on you to protect and grow access to safe, affordable housing through enhanced renter protections, including the following: A Rental Survey Program Expanded tenant relocation assistance An eviction reduction program Anti-rent gouging Security Deposit Limits Fair Chance Ordinance • • • • • • • Right to Counsel If the City Council hopes to protect longtime renters who have lived in Palo Alto for decades - and new tenants with ties to the community - it must enhance protections for the 46% of Palo Altans who rent. It is our responsibility to care for one another at our most vulnerable. Thank you, Sydney Speizman From:Liao, Chuntao To:Council, City Subject:Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 9:45:17 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from liao1005@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, As a long time Palo Alto resident, I strongly oppose the Renter Protection Policy Recommendations, and urge you to reject it. As far as I know, the past 18 months have been very difficult for housing provides as well, thecost of owing a hour raised a lot, while the rent is actually going down. The recommendationsadd extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Alto residents. The extra costs addedby the proposal either will transfer to the additional rent that the tenants have to pay, or helpkilling the housing market. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; the expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; theeviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those strugglingto pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer;the security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the reviewgiven to prospective tenants;the fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk;the right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollarswould go to the tenant to clear back rent;the community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened codeenforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. Chuntao Liao,Resident at Arbutus Ave, Palo Alto From:Palo Alto Forward To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer;Burt, Patrick Subject:Supporting Renter Protections Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 9:26:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. RE: Agenda Item #14 Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council Members, Palo Alto Forward is a non-profit organization focused on innovating and expanding housing choices and transportation mobility for a vibrant, welcoming, and sustainable Palo Alto. We are a broad coalition with a multi-generational membership, including new and longtime residents. We’re writing to support the package of renter protections proposed by staff. As you know, the high cost of housing in Palo Alto has made entry level homeownership out of reach for many in the community. According to staff presentations at PTC and HRC on this topic, 80% of renters making less than $75,000 per year are rent-burdened. That demonstrates a profound need for deed-restricted affordable housing and the stabilization of rising housing costs. Unless you act with urgency, we will continue to see young families and longtime renters leave the community - and increasing homelessness. We recognize that the tenants impacted by high rents, landlord harassment, and unclear tenant protections are best positioned to provide feedback on this set of policies. As such, we support the Palo Alto Renters’ Association’s recommendations to fully implement the rental survey program, expand tenant relocation assistance, close loopholes from AB1482, and explore a community opportunity to purchase act ordinance. City Council demonstrated great leadership in passing one of the first temporary moratoria on residential evictions for nonpayment of rent related to COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic. We hope that the political will remains to extend protections to nearly half of our residents who are tenants. Thank you, Palo Alto Forward Board of Directors From:Matt Smith To:Council, City Subject:I support tenant protections Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 8:56:37 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from ndrhodymatt@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, I am a 10 year resident of Palo Alto. My family of four has been renting here for 10 years. Wecannot afford to own but want to remain in this community. With one child in 2nd grade and a second about to enter kindergarten, I am scared of how a sudden rental increase could force usto leave the city we have made our home and force us to uproot our kids from the school they love. We tenants have a voice and that voice is growing. As elected representatives of thiscommunity, please echo our voice and please vote to enhance renter protections by: 1. Implementation of a Rental Survey Program (“Rent Registry”) 2. Expanded Tenant Relocation Assistance - covering all homes, renters, and eviction types 3. Close AB1482 loopholes 4. Explore a "COPA - Community Opportunity to Purchase Act" ordinance to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing Thanks, Matt Smith 141 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Lik Wong To:Council, City Subject:Please reject Tenant Protection in Palo Alto Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 8:02:03 AM Attachments:2009-01-jenkins-reach_concl.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from lik.wong@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I can understand some tenants’ frustrations in finding a suitable place to live. There are numerous arguments for and against rent control. It should be beneficial for us to survey the past several decades of rent control experiences across the world. Attached please find this article “Rent Control: Do Economists Agree?”. Summary from the paper: My review of the rent-control literature indexed by EconLit (or cited by such indexed articles) finds that economic research quite consistently and predominantly frowns on rent control. My findings cover both theoretical and empirical research on many dimensions of the issue, including housing availability, maintenance and housing quality, rental rates, political and administrative costs, and redistribution. As Navarro (1985) notes, “the economics profession has reached a rare consensus: Rent control creates many more problems than it solves” (90). I see the literature as supporting the point of view that there are few long-run winners from the policy, that it is an example of the transitional gains trap. Some highlights from the paper are quoted below. Basic economic theory suggests that at controlled rates, quantity supplied is reduced and controlled housing is less available. Further, the regulatory cluster attenuates ownership, creates uncertainty, and increases the costs of supplying housing. Thus, basic economic theory would suggest that both short-run and long-run effects will reduce housing availability. many economists expect rent controls will undoubtedly decrease the supply of controlled rentable units Having closed off the main means of defending cash flows, profit maximizing landlords will look to other alternatives. The most likely results, given that returns to rental housing in controlled markets will decline relative to other investments, would be either sale at depressed price or abandonment. (Mengle 1985, 15) Developers will choose to build de-controlled new homes, condominiums, office buildings, or simply not to build at all, investing their funds elsewhere. (Navarro 1985, 90) The decay and shrinkage of the rental housing markets in Britain and Israel caused by long-term rent control are persuasively documented in Coleman (1988) and Werczberger (1988), respectively; Tenant’s benefit and rental rate Does rent control successfully target benefits to less fortunate individuals? Landlords and superintendents use non-price forms of rationing. In sifting through credit reports, references, and other components of applications, they are likely to select the individuals or families that appear to struggle the least. Both Arnott (1995) and Glaeser (2002) raise doubts about targeting to needy tenants. The benefits of rent controls go to individuals selected by landlords. Navarro (1985) further explains how this allocation occurs and who is more likely to benefit from rent controls. [W]hile some tenants win, other tenants unquestionably lose. (Navarro 1985, 96) The likely long-run effect of the regulatory cluster is to shift cost curves up and supply curves back, so it is not surprising that there is evidence that, in the long-run, rent control leads to higher rents even in the controlled markets The average estimated benefits are -$4 [a loss, in 1995 dollars] per month for households in ‘old style’ rent controlled housing and -$44 per month for households in rent stabilized apartments. This implies that, on average, households in regulated units would have been better off if rent regulations had never been established in New York City. (Early 2000, 197-199) Rent control’s impact on Tax revenue the control’s negative effect on aggregate housing rents (the tax based in this model) reduces tax revenues and causes a deficit. (Heffley 1998, 767) Rent control and homelessness Several empirical studies find no clear relationship between rent control and homelessness Administrative cost [T]he inefficiency costs of these regulations may be substantial, as they involve both administrative costs and the misallocation of resources. (Linneman 1987, 29) Regarding limiting landlords’ ability to ask applicants’ criminal history, please be mindful of unintended consequences in numerous situations: Duplex: Owner occupies one unit and plans to rent the other unit. Would Owner rent to a tenant with some criminal history? Single-family owner would like to rent ADU in the backyard or some spare room. Would Owner rent to a tenant with some criminal history? Neighboring tenants in a Duplex, Triplex, Apartments: do they have the right to know if a neighboring tenant has a criminal background? It is highly likely that such a limitation about criminal history inquiry would reduce housing supply. Please reject Tenant Protection in Palo Alto. Yours sincerely, Lik Wong • • • From:Joyce Liu To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 7:54:05 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from joyceliu94301@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. The past 18 months have been very difficult for the housing providers. Debt has accumulated due to unpaid or late- paid rent. The rent has actually decreased in many cases to help the renters to stay. On the other side, the costs of building materials, labor, utilities, and insurance for maintaining the property have been skyrocketed. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. This recommendations will add extra burdens to housing providers, to the housing industry, and to the renters as well. The recommendations will add extra costs and burdens to the City for the enforcement. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. Joyce Liu Sent from my iPhone From:Bonnie Liu To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 7:07:08 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bonnieliu2006@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. I’m extremely concerned about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. The costs for building materials, construction worker chargers, utilities, and insurance have skyrocketed. However the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Alto residents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you! Bonnie Liu From:Stanford MOT To:Council, City Subject:Tonight"s vote: Chan Zuckerberg Foundation Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 6:43:30 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from stanfordmot@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To our dear City Council members: I strongly oppose this costly rent control and monitoring proposal founded by Chan Zuckerberg Foundation. Chan Zuckerberg Foundation should use its resources to create moreaffordable units to solve the housing problem. Currently, Eviction is already very difficult and almost impossible during the Pandemic. Thecurrent legal process enables tenants not paying rent for 4-12 months and will NOT be evicted as long as they negotiate to move out at the last minute. CZI's proposal is basicallyencouraging people to not pay the rent. This proposal will also discourage Mom and Pa Landlord to provide rentals which will further impact the housing supply. Does CZI hire people without background checks of their own employees? Rent Control forsingle-family homes is a terrible idea. CZI should use its resources to fund homeless shelters instead. Regards, William Young, a citizen of Palo Alto for 30+ years Stanford MOT Mobile: 650-283-7046 From:Jack He To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on housing Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 12:56:14 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jackhe168@outlook.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. We are seniors, retired several years ago, while our child is still in college and so we need to support their tuition. The social security benefit is far from enough for us living in this area, and so we have to get rental income to pay for the mortgage and to keep the finance balance for the living of the family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas price is now almost doubled than before, and the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you! Palo Also Resident Jack He From:Roger Chen To:Council, City Cc:Emily Hong Xu Subject:Opposition to the "Renter Protection Policy" Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 11:57:25 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from chenrmail@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are longtime Palo Alto residents and love this great city. This email is to express our deep concerns and opposition to the proposed "Renter Protection Policy". This policy is tooextreme. It adds extra burdens on the landlords and does consider how to maintain a healthy and quality rental market in Palo Alto. It will discourage landlords from offering rental housesand developers from building more rental homes in Palo Alto, which will eventually harm renters. Furthermore, the extreme protection of renters wilt have an adverse impact on the crime and safety of Palo Alto, far beyond just the rental market We are sure that you have heard similar opposition from many Palo Alto residents. We deeplyappreciate your attention to our concerns. Sincerely Yours, Roger Chen From:danielleenh To:Council, City Subject:No harassment to property owners Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 11:30:48 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from danielleenh@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. I’m extremely concerned about the proposed RenterProtection Policy recommendations. The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. The costs for building materials, constructionworker chargers, utilities, and insurance have skyrocketed. However the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Altoresidents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners;The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer;The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants;The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollarswould go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city;and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcementdepartment. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. Daniel Lee From:Jennifer Liu To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:44:44 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jenliu_01@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a Palo Alto resident and a mom-and-pop housing provider. I’m deeply concerned about the Renter Protection Policy recommendations. Those proposals are bad for landlords as well as for tenants. The past year and a half is extremely hard for us housing providers. Rents have decreased, there are more unpaid or delayed rents, and expenses for maintenance, utilities and insurance skyrocketed. This means that it’s getting harder and harder to do the rental business. Passing the proposed Renter Protection Policy is like hitting a man when he’s down. When housing providers give up, it hurts renters since it’ll be even harder to find accordable housing. In Sweden, the average wait time to rent an apartment is 9 years. Why? Because there’s severe rent control. Housing providers give up the rental business when it’s getting too hard. Builders stop building apartments because no one is interested in buying them. The ultimate suffers are the renters. Are we trying to repeat the story of Sweden? Please think twice! Thank you very much! Jennifer Liu From:BAHN Org To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:03:15 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bahn.org@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, BAHN, representing hundreds of mom and pop Palo Alto housing providers, strongly opposesthe proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past two years have been extremely difficult for mom and pop housing providers. They are the victims of the pandemic and the victims of the eviction moratorium, they got a doublehit. They have been struggling to survive, needing help from the government instead of punishment again and again with unjust law from our policing makers. We hope that you can consider the following facts:1. The rent in Palo Also has actually decreased during the past two years. 2. The costs for building materials, construction worker chargers, utilities, and insurance haveskyrocketed since last year. 3. Mom and pop housing providers' debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid orlate-paid rent? This Renter Protection Policy Package will not only kill Palo Alto mom and pop housing providers, but also, in the long-run, harm the free housing market and tenant you intend toserve. Please reject it! Thank you. Dan Pan BAHN Representative website: BAHN.house Phone: 408-475-8498 BAHN is a non-profit, grassroots organization representing mom and pop rental property owners in California. BAHN advocates constitutional rights and housing friendly policies. It promotes education and professional development among members for their daily property management needs. It provides a platform for homeowners to connect and help each other. Its mission is to help members achieve greater success in their rental housing business. From:Suemei Jiang To:Council, City Subject:We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:43:28 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from suemeij@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are working class working hard to support our growing family. We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and we oppose this recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. My husband was laid off, my children are in college we need to support their tuition. I am a self employee. My tenant has not paid rent for 6 months, and I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage to raise the family, I am the only one working in this family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated from unpaid or late rent. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Palo Alto Resident From:Linda Chan To:Council, City Subject:346 College Avenue Palo Alto, Calif. Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:32:14 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from blchan09@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ As a owner, I dolly reject extreme rent control. According to present economics, rent should be par to the present times. Linda Chan Sent from my iPhone From:Alice Sing To:Council, City Subject:rental control Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:27:54 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from singfamilysf@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are working class working hard to support our growing family. We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and we oppose this recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. My husband was laid off, my children are in college we need to support their tuition. I am a self employee. My tenant has not paid rent for 6 months, and I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage to raise the family, I am the only one working in this family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated from unpaid or late rent. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Palo Alto Resident Sent from my iPhone From:carial To:Council, City Subject:Objection to proposed rent protection policies Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:06:12 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from carial_2002@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and Council members, I am a Palo Alto resident working hard to support our growing family. I have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and I oppose all recommended rent protection items. The past 2 years have been very difficult for me as one of the housing providers. I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage and raise the family. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and materialto maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers it is very difficult for is to survive! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually toadminister; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in thecity; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! ------- Yinqing From:Fanghua Xu To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 6:43:52 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from xuanna168@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are working class working hard to support our growing family. We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and we oppose this recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. My husband was laid off, my children are in college we need to support their tuition. I am a self employee. My tenant has not paid rent for 6 months, and I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage to raise the family, I am the only one working in this family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated from unpaid or late rent. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you! Palo Also Resident Anna Xu From:Shiming Ye To:Council, City Subject:against proposed renter protection policy Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 6:40:14 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from shiming_ye@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are working class working hard to support our growing family. We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and we oppose this recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. My husband was laid off, my children are in college we need to support their tuition. I am a self employee. My tenant has not paid rent for 6 months, and I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage to raise the family, I am the only one working in this family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated from unpaid or late rent. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Palo Alto Resident Shiming Ye Sent from my iPhone From:Carol Li To:Council, City Cc:Carol Li Subject:Against extreme controls on Housing in PA! Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 1:10:03 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cli@compass.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, We are working class working hard to support our growing family. We have concerns about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations and we oppose this recommendations. The past 2 years have been very difficult for us as one of the housing providers. My husband was laid off, my children are in college we need to support their tuition. I am a self employee. My tenant has not paid rent for 6 months, and I have to work harder to pay for the mortgage to raise the family, I am the only one working in this family. We are struggling to catch up with the mortgage and the debt has accumulated from unpaid or late rent. The costs for living are becoming higher and higher, the gas now almost doubled ,the labor and material to maintain the property going up crazy! As small housing providers we hardly survived! The eviction reduction and rent stabilization program would cost millions annually to administer; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. We oppose the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Regards, Carol Li Yugang Cui Palo Alto residents From:Home Land To:Council, City Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:11:27 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from happyjane.liu6@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a resident with two kids.my family strongly against the extremely strict rent control, freedom is the base of the growth of economy and neighborhood and society!Rent control will lead to community worse, no new high quality coming will lead to a dead lake. see what happened in San Francisco !I’m extremely concerned about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Altoresidents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners;The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer;The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants;The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollarswould go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city;and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcementdepartment. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thanks Jane From:Donna Chee To:Council, City Subject:rent control policy issues Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:59:08 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from donna.chee@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto City Council, I am oppose to new extreme rent control policies. Increased relocation payments, rent and eviction control are not needed. City needs to focus on providing more homes, not costly regulations. Landlords who are middle classed are under siege by tenants. I am a part owner (1/5) of an apartmentcomplex in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Donna Chee RE: 346 College Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 There is a Palo Alto City Council Meeting on November 8th, 2021, Monday evening, and oneof the topics is rent control policy. The city council will consider: Possible rent and eviction control Increased relocation paymentsLimiting security depositsRental registryRental InspectionsEviction attorneys for tenant If you have time before the 11/8th meeting, please send an email to City.council@cityofpaloalto.org to reject extreme rent control policies. These policies are not needed. Demand the city to focus on providing more homes, not costly regulations. From:Roberta Ahlquist To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Dave Price; HRW Silicon Valley; Joe Simitian Subject:Renter Proections Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:49:30 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Palo Alto Council: The local Low-income & Homeless Committee of the Women's International League forPeace & Freedom (WLPF) supports the PA Renter's Assn list of protections for nearly 1/2 the population of Plato Alto, who are tenants!. In addition, WILPF seeks support fpr thefollowing: RENT CONTROL/STABILIZATION --as rents continue to go up in Palo Alto. Cities all sound have mandated control over how much owners can increase rents NO OFFICE DEVELOPMENT until the city meets the state requirements for Low-incomehousing for its workers--We have a glut of office space whale city workers cannot fiend affordable housing in the city Also, we oppose destroying housing for pools--NO Swimming Pools to replace any kind ofhousing! You all-- members of our city council-- are responsible for regulating construction for the benefit of all-- renters are as important as landlords-- maybe more important. Would each of you please respond to this and explain what you as a council member have done and will do to rectify the very difficult plight of renter residents of Palo Alto? If you are not going to support rent control and encourage low-income residential development, what do you propose to do about the long standing, difficult-for- everyone lack of affordable housing for Palo Alto's support system? Roberta Ahlquist & Chuck Jagoda for the WILPF Low-Income & Homeless Committee From:Dan Pan To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:24:45 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from dan_pan@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. I’m extremely concerned about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. The costs for building materials, construction worker chargers, utilities, and insurance have skyrocketed. However the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Alto residents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Dan Pan From:Ling Zhuang To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 4:49:18 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from lzhuang@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a small housing provider. I’m extremely concerned about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Despite many difficulties, the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Alto residents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. From:ping wang To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 1:24:15 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from pwang0103@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. I’m extremely concerned about the proposed Renter Protection Policy recommendations. The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. The costs for building materials, construction worker chargers, utilities, and insurance have skyrocketed. However the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling very hard. The recommendations add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Alto residents. The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. Ping Wang 3087 south court Palo Alto, ca 94306 Sent from my iPhone From:meinayoung1 To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Sunday, November 7, 2021 1:17:43 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from meinayoung1@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I’m a mom-and-pop housing provider. Please say "NO" to the proposed Renter ProtectionPolicy recommendations. As econmists concur, rental restrictions are bringing down the housing supply, both existing and future, throughout CA. Who would want risk such great amount of capital, often their lifesavings, on something they have no control over? The past 18 months have been very difficult for us housing providers. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. The costs for building materials, constructionworker chargers, utilities, and insurance have skyrocketed. However, the rent actually decreased. Small housing providers are struggling immensely. The recommendations will add extra burdens to housing providers as well as to Palo Altoresidents: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the reviewgiven to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city;and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. Please reject the Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations! Thank you. Meina Young Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S8, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone From:Li To:Council, City Subject:I Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 10:27:55 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rziyo@yahoo.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up withexpenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees.While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. Theproposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics ofPalo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Altorenter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of thecity’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time.I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful orsolicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and thePartnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposalsthat have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach toPalo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by thesepolicies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearinga balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city;The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners;The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to payrent and would cost millions annually to administer;The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given toprospective tenants;The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk;The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go tothe tenant to clear back rent;The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; andProactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcementdepartment. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what definedproblem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters makeover $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help thosefamilies most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, Li Wang From:Larry Alton To:Council, City Subject:Oppose extreme controls on rental housing in Palo Alto-Any landlord fees of these recommended policies will result in higher rents Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 9:00:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The costs of these recommended policies will be passed on to renters and further restrict the availability of reasonably priced rentals. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by these policies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with landlords prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: • The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; • The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; • The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; • The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; • The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; • The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; • The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and • Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, Larry Alton From:Angie Evans To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer; Cormack, Alison;Tanaka, Greg Subject:Renter Protections on Agenda - and a copy of the CAA Action Alert Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 7:08:27 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from angiebevans@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Councilmembers, I wanted to share the action alert that the CAA sent to their network. I am sharing it because itis misleading and has probably caused a number of emails to come your way. A few years ago I attended a nearby City Council meeting where the attendees were stoked by a CAA alert.After speaking with the 22 landlord attendees, only 2 remained at the meeting to speak. It's not because I'm some great lobbyist. They left because they realized that the action alert they'dread was misleading. They often get great landlords to speak up who aren't actually against the policies they are fighting. As you know, CAA is an organization that was formed in order toprevent renter protections and as public officials, I hope you will consider your role in advocating for groups who lack power in the community. There is virtually no protection thatthe CAA would sign off on. This is demonstrated by their support of policies like Tenant Relocation Assistance and Redtag Ordinances in 2018 and not in 2019 in Redwood City. The CAA also claimed that these protections were too difficult among the hardships faced bylandlords during the pandemic, but again the data doesn't support that claim. JP Morgan did a study of how landlords are doing and it appears that they are OKAY. Here's a link to thedata. Many renters however were able to pay their rents without rental assistance at a cost to their credit. They've borrowed from friends, family, banks, maxxed out their credit cards, etc.Housing stability - and homeownership - is much further away for many of us who are longtime renters. History will view us by how we've treated the least among us. I hope you can demonstrateyour leadership on this issue and expand protections for the 46% of Palo Altans who rent. We need an urgency ordinance expanding Tenant Relocation to cover all types of evictions andhousing types, a fully implement a rent registry with every housing and landlord type included, a COPA policy drafted with Housing Element related milestones (ie. identifyingpotential buildings and funding streams), and I hope you can consider an urgency ordinance to close the 1482 loopholes. I would also ask that you avoid means testing any of these programs.It's easy to fall into a trap of only covering the most financially vulnerable in programs like this. It ends up being more difficult and expensive to implement though. Ask any City staffhow hard it is to ensure that low-income tenants know their rights under AB330. It's a great policy that is difficult to implement because of means testing. When we cover everyone thereare clear rules for landlords, tenants, and developers. Thanks for your commitment to this issue. I am happy to talk on the phone and clarify any of the points I've made, if that's helpful. My number is 314-556-5330. Best, Angie ---------------CAA Action Alert------------------ Subject: Palo Alto to consider rent registry, harsher rent control Write to council today, speak at Monday's meeting On Monday, Nov. 8, the Palo Alto City Council will discuss a variety of proposals to regulate the rental housing industry. These proposals are unnecessary and would only make it more challenging to provide quality rental housing in Palo Alto. The package of policies would cost the city millions of dollars each year -- costs the city will likely pass on to property owners through new fees. The City Council needs to hear from property owners like you. Tell them not to consider these proposals, particularly when housing providers have not yet recovered from the financial effects of the pandemic. The council also needs to know that city staff failed to reach out to property owners prior to drafting their report, which would have benefited from hearing your perspective. On Monday, staff will urge council to: 1. Create a rental registry 2. Increase relocation fees 3. Expand just cause to more units 4. Lower the rent cap 5. Lower the security deposit cap 6. Limit the use of criminal background checks 7. Provide tenants with the right to legal representation 8. Establish a tenant opportunity to purchase 9. Impose proactive rental inspections Rental housing providers must take this opportunity and voice their opposition now. It’s essential that rental owners convey to the council that these proposals are not necessary for Palo Alto. What you can do It is critical that you take two key actions: 1. Send a letter to the Palo Alto City Council (sample letter and email address below) 2. Participate in the Nov. 8 City Council meeting and voice your opposition. Council meeting information When: 9:30 p.m. (estimated start time), Monday, Nov. 8. Zoom link: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238 Sample letter Subject line: Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Email: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by these policies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: • The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; • The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; • The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; • The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; • The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; • The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; • The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and • Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, © 2020 California Apartment Association All rights reserved. 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1430, Sacramento, CA 95814 https://caanet.org/ | Unsubscribe From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:support for increased renter protections Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 5:00:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I support items 1-8 in the staff memo regarding renter protections. I believe #8 is worthy of exploration though financing may be difficult. Stephen Levy From:Leannah Hunt To:Council, City Subject:Mon. Nov. 8th Agenda- Rental Properties Date:Saturday, November 6, 2021 2:33:38 PM Attachments:PA city council-rentals.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from lhunt@sereno.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see email below Leannah Hunt SRES,CIPS,GRI, RPAC Hall of Fame REALTOR® t.650.400.2718 w.LeannahAndLaurel.com a.350 Cambridge Ave Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94306 DRE 01009791 LEANNAH & LAUREL sere no- From:Ernie & Emily To:Council, City Cc:Cindy Katz Subject:Rent registry, rent controls under consideration Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 4:24:37 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from quiettimes1@earthlink.net. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: We have invested in residential property in Palo Alto for some time. We have risked our entire investment, at timeshaving to pour money into the property when we had 20% or more vacancy and nearly losing the property by notbeing able to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintenance. Both myself and my wife have had to work hardduring these times, doing all the refurbishing - painting, plumbing, repairs, clean up - working until late at nightseven days a week. The result of our investing is that we have provided housing for people who cannot afford to buya house and would otherwise have to share housing with family or friends or live in whatever low scale housing theycould find, perhaps in a dangerous, crime infested area. So we, along with other mom and pop investors, haveliterally provided a needed and worthwhile public service. We, as the private sector, have taken risks where publicservice housing has mostly failed. There are numerous examples in cities where the public housing has deterioratedand been abandoned and torn down, some of it of very large proportions, because the managing authorities,representing the public interest, have not been able to deal with what becomes an overwhelming responsibility andan economic disaster. Public housing has been a failure. Private investors are the only ones who can handle rentalhousing. Otherwise, there would be a large amount of rental housing run by elected officials, such as yourselves. So why should we be treated as a public entity, taken over by public officialdom? This is what is happening. We arebeing saddled by laws and regulations that restrict, more and more, our market driven competitive operations as ifwe were public housing under your control. I can think of no other private enterprise sector that has to deal withharsh controls that limit what they can do to compete in what in America is the essence of a thriving market driveneconomy. If you want to control rents, why not also control supermarket prices? We are also the public. We have succeeded against the odds in downturns in the economy by working very hard. Wenow have title to property with a big mortgage on it and expenses that must be paid. Yes, we are rental propertyowners and collect rent, otherwise we would not be providing affordable housing to the public. We do this as achoice. What other persons would be willing to save up, invest, take the risks of buying rental property, then working sevendays a week, all hours, to make their investment worthwhile? Many could do it. But the many do not want to takethe hard steps we have taken to become rental property owners. We should not be singled out in the panoply of hard-working investors in the world of risks in market drivenbusiness and investment entities, particularly small, mom and pop investors. Please consider your actions in the lightof equity for those of us who have gone the distance and those who have not, for which we are providing homes. I submit to you the considerations and comments of my fellow investors in a letter that is more to the point withwhat you are considering at this time. Consider this a part of what I am expressing in this letter. It encompasses mythoughts and adds to what I have said above. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financial assistance isavailable, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. The proposal fails toconsider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does notdemonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housingassistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmedthat the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’srental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and the Partnership for theBay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targetedthe rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers,REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by these policies in advance of these recommendationsgoing to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearing a balancedperspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city;The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom- and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent andwould cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospectivetenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenantto clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city - also, it would be ataking in contravention of the proper and legal use of eminent domain procedures; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem thecity of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 peryear, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need ofhousing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely,Ignacio Mendez From:Josh Davis To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 4:19:42 PM Attachments:PA City Council_Extreme Rent Control.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from josh@daviscorealtors.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, please see my letter attached opposing the extreme controls on housing that are up for debate. Regards,Josh Davis -- Josh DavisPresident Davis & Co. Realtors From:Harold Davis To:Council, City Subject:Extreme Rent Control_PA City Council.pdf Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 3:28:16 PM Attachments:Extreme Rent Control_PA City Council.pdf [Some people who received this message don't often get email from harold@daviscorealtors.com.Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ See attached Sent from my iPhone From:maricar horton To:Council, City Subject:Protect single family homes Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:38:42 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from maricarhorton@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, As a REALTOR® based in Palo Alto, I can assure you that the proposed expansion of rent control and tenant protections will be costly to enforce and burdensome on small mom-and-pop landlords. Existing state law, ongoing COVID-19 protections, and Palo Alto's current ordinance already protect tenants. Further restricting the property rights of small property owners will only incentivize them to get out of the rental market and sell to large developers. Please think twice before expanding expensive and burdensome regulations that further take away our property rights. Sincerely, Maricar Horton Palo Alto REALTOR® Sent from my iPhone From:susan chamberlain To:DuBois, Tom; Council, City Subject:Please Support the Rent Registry Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:06:49 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from suschamberlain@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council: 350 Silicon Valley Palo Alto Team would like to endorse the Rent Registry. Not only will if offer important renter protections and help get access to more affordable housing, but it will help us meet our carbon reduction goals. Given the large number of renters in our community, it's impossible to meet our electrification goals without clear ways to engage ALL property owners. By fully implementing the rental survey program, the City would enable a system that can incentivize landlords to choose more environmentally sustainable updates at key moments for landlords. Please cover all housing types in the program to ensure that every landlord has access to the program. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Susan Chamberlain 350 Silicon Valley Palo Alto Team From:Nadr Essabhoy To:Council, City Subject:tenant protections Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 7:57:46 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from nadr.essabhoy@compass.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. As a REALTOR® and landlord based in Palo Alto, I can assure you that the proposed expansion of rent control and tenant protections will be costly to enforce and burdensome on small mom-and-pop landlords. Existing state law, ongoing COVID-19 protections, and Palo Alto's current ordinance already protect tenants. Further restricting the property rights of small property owners will only incentivize them to get out of the rental market and sell to large developers. Please think twice before expanding expensive and burdensome regulations that further take away our property rights. Sincerely, Nadr Essabhoy Palo Alto REALTOR® and Palo Alto Landlord Broker Associate Mobile: 650.248.5898DRE#: 01085354578 University AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 I have not, and will not, verify or investigate the information supplied by third parties NADR ESSABHOY From:DAVID BENA To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Rental Housing Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 6:52:26 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from davidbena@sbcglobal.net.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I am a Palo Alto resident that provides fair and quality housing for Palo Alto residents. There have been periods of time over the years when it was difficult to manage but nothing like the past 18 months. Units stayed vacant for 6 to 8 months and required a reduction in rent from 5 to10 % to get them rented; which were extended to other units. During that time my mortgage holder allowed a reduction of the payment, the amount to be paid at a laterdate. Also, at the time both my wife and I were working so we were able to make adjustments to be able to keep the property. Wewere not able to figure out how to apply for the financial assistance that was made available, it was justtoo complicated. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on November 8 appears to me to bewritten by people who have very little Idea of the issues landlords face. They will be particularly hard onmom and pop owners. These proposals if passed with make it very difficult on myself and my family and I believe is unnecessary. Noone came to me to ask for my input. The State of California and County already have rent control ordinances. I am not sure what the City ofPalo Alto sees as a problem beyond what is being addressed by the current rent control ordinance. I cansee that some of these new proposals will make it difficult for tenants as well as landlords. I urge you to reject the recommendation before you, Sincerely, David and MaryEllen Bena.4124 Dake Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Lau, Julie To:Council, City Subject:letter to Palo Alto City Council re expanded rental control Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:52:38 AM Attachments:Letter to Palo Alto City Council, Nov. 2021.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from jlau@cbnorcal.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sincerely, Julie LauColdwell Banker BRE#01052924 *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does nothave authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. From:Beverly BROCKWAY To:Council, City Subject:Additional rent control and regulations Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 8:03:28 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from grannyb6@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPad From:fran turano To:Council, City Subject:No to added rent control Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 6:31:22 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from franturano2100@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financialassistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by manyhousing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rentalhousing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that havebeen working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by these policies in advance of these recommendations going to thecity commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the variousrecommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom- • • and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, Marie Turano • • • • • • From:Jeanne Cox LeVett To:Council, City Subject:Just Like Many Other Cities in California, Your Extreme Controls on Housing Are Another Step in Driving Out Solid Working Landlord Citizens...We Will Sell Our Holdings and Leave...Just Like Everyone Else...Then See What Kindof State California Turns Into Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 5:11:33 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jeanne@levettproperties.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Subject: Just Like Many Other Cities in California, Your Extreme Controls on Housing Are Another Step in Driving Out Solid Working Landlord Citizens...We Will Sell Our Holdings and Leave...Just Like Everyone Else...Then See What Kind of State California Turns Into Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’sbeen challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who trulyneed housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’thappen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rentalhousing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by these policies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and- pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is noguarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, Regards, Jeanne President P.O Box 6286 Carmel CA 93921 (Monte Verde, Three Southeast of Ocean) Phone: (831) 624-4115 502 Waverley St. Palo Alto CA 94301 • • • • • • • • LEVETT PR P RTIE Phone: (650) 321-0440 From:Mary Buxton To:Council, City Subject:Subject line: Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing - Nov. 8 City Council meeting Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 4:54:49 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mary.buxton@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Los Gatos residents. I am writing because I am alarmed at the potential for a trend that could be established by the proposed Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8. These proposals are unnecessary and would only make it more challenging to provide quality rental housing in our area. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. Yet, it is my understanding that the Palo Alto city staff failed to reach out to property owners prior to drafting their report. Hearing the perspective of the property owners would have been fair and added perspective. On Monday, staff will urge council to: 1. Create a rental registry 2. Increase relocation fees 3. Expand just cause to more units 4. Lower the rent cap 5. Lower the security deposit cap 6. Limit the use of criminal background checks7. Provide tenants with the right to legal representation 8. Establish a tenant opportunity to purchase 9. Impose proactive rental inspections The costs for implementing this package of policies would likely be passed on toproperty owners through new fees. Please vote against these proposals. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary Buxton From:Peter Brewer To:Council, City Subject:Enough "tenant protection" !!! Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 4:26:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Enough "tenant protection" ordinances!!! These only serve to artificially redistribute wealth indiscriminately. Let a free economy find its own balance. Governmental interference with a free economy is almost never a good idea. Disincentivizing landlords will only acerbate the housing crisis and the plight of renters. Don’t shrink the rental pool by ill-conceived tenant protection ordinances. Landlords vote too. Peter N. Brewer, Esq. Brewer Offord & Pedersen LLP 2225 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 327-2900 ext’n 11 www.BrewerFirm.com BayAreaRealEstateLawyers.comReal Estate Law – From the Ground Up® From:Maryannenicolas To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme controls on housing Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 3:57:44 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from maryannenicolas@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8are alarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s rentersmake more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail toinclude any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came fromPolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted bythese policies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you wouldbenefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and- pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not • • • help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, MaryAnne Nicolas Sent from my iPad • • • • • From:James Chang To:Council, City Subject:Oppose Extreme Controls on Housing Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 3:39:57 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jcusa168@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up with expenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees. While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 arealarming. The proposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics of Palo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Alto renter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of the city’s rentersmake more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time. I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail toinclude any record of meaningful or solicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came fromPolicyLink and the Partnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposals that have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach to Palo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted bythese policies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you wouldbenefit from hearing a balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and- pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would • • • not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help those families most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Sincerely, James Chang • • • • • From:Seema Lindskog To:Council, City Subject:I oppose extreme controls on housing Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 3:38:16 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from seema3366@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members: I provide quality rental housing for Palo Alto residents. The past 18 months have been difficult. Debt has accumulated from many months of unpaid or late-paid rent. It’s been challenging to keep up withexpenses such as property taxes and utility bills while ensuring that I pay my vendors and employees.While financial assistance is available, it requires a long, complicated application process. The Renter Protection Policy Package recommendations before you on Nov. 8 are alarming. Theproposal fails to consider the hardships endured by many housing providers and the demographics ofPalo Alto. The report does not demonstrate that these policies and programs would benefit the Palo Altorenter households who truly need housing assistance. The city’s own report indicates that 52% of thecity’s renters make more than $100,000 per year. Palo Alto is known for robust community and stakeholder engagement. But that didn’t happen this time.I'm alarmed that the nine proposals outlined before you fail to include any record of meaningful orsolicited input from the city’s rental housing providers. The staff report mentions that much of the information presented came from PolicyLink and thePartnership for the Bay’s Future, two organizations that have been working for years on policy proposalsthat have specifically targeted the rental housing industry. There was no mention of any direct outreach toPalo Alto rental housing providers, REALTORS, or other stakeholders who would be impacted by thesepolicies in advance of these recommendations going to the city commissions or council. Had the city discussed these proposals with us prior to drafting its report, you would benefit from hearinga balanced perspective on the various recommendations. For instance: The rental survey program would come at a great cost to the city; The expanded relocation program would put a financial strain on mom-and-pop owners; The eviction reduction program and the rent stabilization program would not help those struggling to pay rent and would cost millions annually to administer; The security deposit limit creates greater uncertainty for owners and may intensify the review given to prospective tenants; The fair chance ordinance would put the other tenants in the building at risk; The right-to-counsel policy would cost millions of dollars to administer; none of those dollars would go to the tenant to clear back rent; The community opportunity-to-purchase proposal would discourage investment in the city; and • • • • • • • Proactive rental inspections would only slow down an already overburdened code enforcement department. It’s clear these programs lack sufficient analysis and stakeholder engagement. It’s unclear what defined problem the city of Palo Alto aims to solve. And, recognizing that more than half of the city’s renters make over $100,000 per year, there is no guarantee that any of the policy recommendations would help thosefamilies most in need of housing assistance. I urge you to reject the recommendations before you. Thank you for your hard work and everything you do for the city. Regards, Seema Lindskog ___________________________________________________________________ "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi From:David Gray To:Council, City Subject:Please don"t let this happen to our city Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 2:20:01 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from d.gray@ggsir.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, As a REALTOR® based in Palo Alto, I can assure you that the proposed expansion of rent control and tenant protections will be costly to enforce and burdensome on small mom-and-pop landlords. Existing state law, ongoing COVID-19 protections, and Palo Alto's current ordinance already protect tenants. Further restricting the property rights of small property owners will only incentivize them to get out of the rental market and sell to large developers. Please think twice before expanding expensive and burdensome regulations that further take away our property rights. Sincerely, David David Gray Realtor Golden Gate Sotheby's International Realty d.gray@ggsir.com 650-773-1271BRE Lic # 01363266 I have not verified any information from third party senders. From:Sanjeet Thadani To:Council, City Subject:No more Rent control Date:Thursday, November 4, 2021 1:57:42 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sanjeet_thadani@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, As a REALTOR® based in Palo Alto, I can assure you that the proposed expansion of rent control and tenant protections will be costly to enforce and burdensome on small mom-and-pop landlords. Existing state law, ongoing COVID-19 protections, and Palo Alto's current ordinance already protect tenants. Further restricting the property rights of small property owners will only incentivize them to get out of the rental market and sell to large developers. Please think twice before expanding expensive and burdensome regulations that further take away our property rights. Sincerely, Sanjeet Sanjeet Thadani Keller Williams 505 Hamilton Ave #100 Palo Alto Ca 94301 BRE# 01938671 650-704-6506 From:Ruth Robertson To:Council, City Subject:Renters need your consideration... Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 2:36:57 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rwsrobertson@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council: My husband and I have lived in Palo Alto close to 30 years now and raised our children here. Both have excellent careers, one in tech, yet both remain renters, and not by choice. It is easy for those of us who bought homes in Palo Alto decades ago to forget that we benefitted from moving here at a time when housing costs were a small fraction of what they are today. Renters are less secure than homeowners for so many reasons. They suffer under the weight of high housing prices and ever increasing rental costs. Evictions and landlord harassment are a reality, yes, even in Palo Alto! These are some of the things I would like to see happen. First of all, a rental survey program would help identify renter needs. I would like to see a limit put on security deposits, a right to counsel established and an eviction reduction program put in place. As a community we need to protect longtime renters, some of whom have lived in Palo Alto for decades, as well as new tenants who want to live in/near the city where they work. Thank you, Ruth RobertsonSouthampton Dr., Palo Alto From:M. Gallagher To:Council, City Subject:Housing, Renters, Public Health Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 3:03:24 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from writing2win@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council: Our housing crisis is a public health issue. Without housing and too often with housing such as Alma Place or poorly maintained housing, the health of residents and our community has been and continues to be profoundly and adversely affected. I join the chorus of housing activists to ask the Council to please meet the complex housing needs of ALL Palo Alto Residents by expanding renter protections. To begin, let us be aware of the renter and homeless landscape in Palo Alto with a robust rental survey program. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic that increased the precarity of housing, the Bay Area suffered from a significant housing crisis with insufficient units, lack of access to affordable housing, looming evictions, actual evictions, and landlord harassment. Especially after the end of renter protections like the eviction moratorium, we are hearing story after story of renters facing eviction, being evicted, and suffering under the overwhelming weight of high housing costs. We call on you to protect and grow access to safe, affordable housing through enhanced renter protections, including the following: A Rental Survey Program Expanded tenant relocation assistance An eviction reduction program Anti-rent gouging Security Deposit Limits • • • • • • Fair Chance Ordinance Right to Counsel If the City Council hopes to protect longtime renters who have lived in Palo Alto for decades - and new tenants with ties to the community - it must enhance protections for the 46% of Palo Altans who rent. It is our responsibility to care for one another at our most vulnerable. Thank you, Mary Gallagher, B.Sc. Content Strategist 650-683-7102 Copyright 2021 Security Alert Notice The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free, and intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the responsibility of the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, dissemination or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the material from your computer. Thank you. • From:Carol Lamont To:Council, City Subject:Renter Protections Needed for Palo Alto Residents Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 1:53:41 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from carol@lamont.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. October 23, 2021 Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council: Please meet the complex housing needs of ALL Palo Alto Residents, including the 46% thatare renters, by expanding renter protections. We need a robust rental survey program - but that’s just the start! Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic that increased the precarity of housing, the Bay Areasuffered from a significant housing crisis with insufficient units, lack of access to affordable housing, looming evictions, and landlord harassment. Especially after the end of renterprotections like the eviction moratorium, we are hearing story after story of renters facing eviction and suffering under the overwhelming weight of high housing costs. We call on you to protect and grow access to safe, affordable housing through enhancedrenter protections, including the following:A Rental Survey Program Expanded tenant relocation assistance Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance Security Deposit Limits Fair Chance Ordinance Right to Counsel If the City Council hopes to protect longtime renters who have lived in Palo Alto for decades - and new tenants with ties to the community - it must enhance protections for the 46% of PaloAltans who rent. It is our responsibility to care for one another at our most vulnerable. Thank you, Carol Lamont • • • • • • From:pol1@rosenblums.us To:Council, City Cc:"Mark Grossman"; "Mel Liu" Subject:Meeting of November 8, 2021, Agenda item 15 Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 7:27:10 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from pol1@rosenblums.us. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Councilmembers: With regard to city investments, I suggest that you add a condition to the investment criteria that no funds should be invested in the state of Texas because its government insists on passing laws which violate people’s rights to vote and to have abortions. There are plenty of other places to invest our money that do not support evil governments. I suggest that you divest the investments that the city already has there. Stephen Rosenblum Santa Rita Ave