HomeMy Public PortalAbout20191202plCC 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: 12/2/2019
Document dates: 11/13/2019 – 11/20/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kate Ham <kateaham@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, November 11, 2019 4:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Angie Evans
Subject:Re: Support for Angie Miller to PA Planning & Transportation Commission
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I apologize for the typo in Angie's last name. I'd like to clarify my support for Angie Evans, despite my email's
subject line!
Regards,
Kate Ham
From: Kate Ham
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 4:08 PM
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com>
Subject: Support for Angie Miller to PA Planning & Transportation Commission
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Kate Ham, and I am a senior in Urban Studies at Stanford University. I am writing in support of
appointing Angie Miller to the Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission.
I've known Angie since this summer when she worked for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo. She
has a long history as an organizer and is a fiery housing advocate that represents community voices with great
intentionality. As a colleague pointed out to me, our local politicians need not be managers but leaders, and I
believe Angie is a passionate leader.
In addition, Angie's presence on the planning commission is an important step for diversity. Two years ago I
took a small class on the planning process in Palo Alto, and my classmates and I were astounded by how
politicians and staff skew old, wealthy, White, male, and homeowner. This hurts our democracy, especially for
renters, young families, and women in Palo Alto. Please explicitly consider diversity, the first step of DEI, in the
planning commission appointment process.
Last but not least, Angie has specifically been an advocate for renters, which are disproportionately cost‐
burdened and vulnerable to displacement amidst our region's incredible housing crisis. I know Angie will
always hold the interests of renters close in decisions as a planning commissioner.
2
Thank you for your time. Please email me if you have any questions about my letter in support for Angie on
the PA planning commission.
Best regards,
Kate Ham (they/them)
Stanford University | Class of 2020
B.A. Candidate | Urban Studies
kateaham@stanford.edu | (832)‐205‐3969
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Brynn Thomas Harrington <brynnharrington@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 12, 2019 10:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Angie Holman - Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Palo Alto City Council!
I'm sending a quick note to share my confidence that Angie Holman will bring a a clear point‐of‐view, policy acumen, a
spirit of partnership, and a commitment to the community to the Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission. I
hope she will be part of the Commission to help tackle the critical issues facing our community today.
Thanks!
Brynn
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Dennis Murphy <dmurphy@sustainablesv.org>
Sent:Friday, November 8, 2019 4:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Recycled Water Expansion in Palo Alto and Mountain View
Attachments:SSV_VWPAMV_110819.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Enclosed please find our letter of support.
Thank you,
Dennis
‐‐
Dennis Murphy
Water Director
Sustainable Silicon Valley
408.930.5744
http://www.sustainablesv.org
Schedule a Meeting
Mail: 720 South Wolfe Road #215, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Office: 155 San Lazaro Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 | www.sustainablesv.org
SSV is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Donations are tax deductible. Tax ID: 56-2464045
The City Council of Palo Alto November 8, 2019
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: Recycled Water Expansion in Palo Alto and Mountain View
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine & Council Members Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou & Tanaka,
On behalf of Sustainable Silicon Valley, I would like to express our strong support for the proposed
agreement between Valley Water, the City of Mountain View, the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto
Regional Water Quality Control Plant and other local partners. SSV has long championed
innovative approaches to water use and reuse, regional cooperation and smart efforts to ensure
adequate water supply.
We urge approval of the agreement pending before the Council.
Now is the time for sensible investment in a reliable, localized recycled water infrastructure. This
partnership takes advantage of scale economies, stable technologies and strong domain
experience delivering “purified” water. In addition to strengthening regional supply capacity,
increasing water reuse will reduce treated wastewater discharge to our Bay and will benefit the
Tuolumne River and the San Joaquin-Sacramento Bay Delta.
Across the Bay Area, we share the sense of living in increasingly interesting times. We breath the
smoke from an ever-lengthening fire season, we see the flood effects of rising Bay tides and we
experience increasingly shorter, more intense and disruptive rainy seasons. The test before us is how
well we adapt, as a civil society, to the challenges of our changing world. Among other impacts, a
warming climate places greater stress upon our water resources as demand grows and traditional
sources of supply become less reliable. When dependability of the mountain snowpack yields to
the prospect of snow droughts, a resilient, forward-thinking city needs a sustainable plan like the
one before you.
As an organization focused on monitoring, measuring and improving Bay Area air and water
quality, Sustainable Silicon Valley supports the Council moving forward with this novel
arrangement. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dennis Murphy
Water Director
Sustainable Silicon Valley
dmurphy@sustainablesv.org
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, November 15, 2019 2:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Adobe pedestrian/bicycle bridge contracts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Honorable City Council Members,
I am delighted to see the contracts for the Adobe pedestrian/bicycle bridge on Council's agenda for Monday evening.
Thank you for bringing this important project along. Many people look forward to this long‐awaited, year‐round
connection to recreational destinations in the bay lands and regional pedestrian/bicycle off‐road trails.
I remember writing letters of support for BPAC funding for this project
more than 15 years ago. It's time to move it forward! Please approve
these contracts.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Penny Ellson
Palo Alto resident
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Robert Neff <robert@neffs.net>
Sent:Sunday, November 17, 2019 10:25 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike/Ped Bridge over 101 at Adobe Creek
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am so glad to see that the bike/ped bridge over 101 has moved forward to the point that it can now be funded for
construction and built. I think the design is terrific, especially with the creative sidewalk addition on the Palo Alto side,
the inclusion of the creekside trail to Meadow, and the overlook and integration with the baylands and bike path on E
Bayshore.
I encourage you to vote to pass this funding resolution, so this project can continue to move forward to completion. I
wish this were less expensive, but, between the complications of the location, the length of the bridge, and the
increasing cost of construction, this looks like a fair cost for today. There is no lower cost alternative that would provide
year‐round, low stress Pedestrian and Bicycle crossing of Highway 101.
‐‐
‐‐ Robert Neff
robert@neffs.net
Bike/Ped Advisory Commission (PABAC) member.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Arnout Boelens <a.m.p.boelens@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 17, 2019 5:16 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:nicole.zoeller@gmail.com
Subject:101 Bike Bridge funding
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear members of the city council,
First of all, we would like to thank you for all the work you have done already to improve walking and cycling in Palo
Alto. We are sure projects like the Charleston / Arastradero Corridor and the bicycle boulevards help many people to
ride and walk more instead of driving, thus lowering congestion in the area and reducing CO2 emissions.
We would hereby like to voice our support for the Adobe Creek bike bridge. San Antonio Rd is a very stressful location to
cross the 101 and having a permanent crossing would greatly improve accessibility to the Bay lands and companies like
Google, Intuit, and Space Systems Loral. It would be a great improvement to the current cycling infrastructure and we
hope you will vote to approve its funding.
Kind regards,
Arnout Boelens & Nicole Zoeller Boelens
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 9:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please approve 101 bike bridge at Adobe Creek
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Please approve the budget increase for the proposed bicycle bridge across 101 at Adobe Creek.
As housing and population densities increase, alternative modes of transportation will be critical to
our infrastructure. Access to the bike paths that run along the bay will become more important for
commuting. Electric bikes are making commuting by bicycle more viable and popular.
The project has been on the books since 2010, so the increased budget should be expected.
Regards,
Jim Poppy
Melville Ave.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kat Busch <katherinebusch@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 11:13 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support bike/ped 101 overpass
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I just want to let you know, as somebody who has been biking around Palo Alto for over 10 years now, I strongly support
the bike bridge over 101. This is a great way to make biking safer and more convenient so that it will encourage more
people to choose this healthy, green form of transportation and get cars off the road.
Thanks,
Kat
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 1:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please approve the 101 Bike/Ped overpass
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor and Council members,
Please approve the contract to build the 101 bike/pedestrian overpass at Adobe Creek. This is long over due and is both
a local and regional connection that will make biking and walking in the area safer and more accessible.
When I was working at the Peninsula Conservation Center on East Bayshore rd, lots of people would ride their bikes
there. When the under crossing would close in the wintertime, I was the only one that would continue to ride as most
considered the alternatives too far or not safe (San Antonio over pass is not bike friendly).
This is more then a local issue, it is also a regional connection. When I ride to San Jose, the Bay Trail is the safest way to
get there. When the under crossing is closed, the over crossing at San Antonio is the most dangerous part of my trip.
This also allows easy access to the Mt. View north 101 business park including many large employers; Google, Intuit and
others.
This project is way over due. With the Palo Alto Process, East Palo Alto has designed and built a great overpass at
University Ave and now has a new safe crossing for almost 30% less! It is way past time to get this project going before
it gets any more expensive.
This project is in line with the Comp plan and the SIP, and should proceed as soon as possible.
Thank you,
David Coale
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Tenants of Sheridan <tenantsof200sheridan@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 10, 2019 3:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In Support of Emergency Ordinance and Sustainable Living
Attachments:Dear Palo Alto City Consuls_Nov 2019.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Palo Alto City Council members,
As you discuss and deliberate this week about the emergency ordinance, we would like to share at a more material level
what kind of ripple it will have on the constituents of Palo Alto who rent. (See attached) The landlord-tenant tension is
symbolic of a more universal issue of living. It extends beyond affordability, but sustainability.
We need your help, your justice, your voice to help those who are afraid to "speak." Here are to the teachers, the
researchers, the entrepreneurs, the immigrants, the small business owners, the citizens whose livelihood are challenged if
left unchecked by unsustainable livings. We always have the choice to move, but our choice is to live here. We need
your help to create new ordinances to protect all Palo Alto in the same way other adjacent cities have done it in the last
weeks. We need our City Lawyer to advocate for what is fair and reasonable. We need the Palo Alto mediation group to
help Hohbach Management understand that abuse and perversion of tenant rights cannot be infringed, that inaction is
unacceptable, that aggression will not be welcomed.
Best,
The Hohbach Tenants
TENANTS OF HOHBACH REALTY PROPERTIES
Palo Alto, Nov 11, 2019
Honorable City Council: Eric Filseth, Alison Cormack, Tom DuBois, Adrian Fine, Liz Kniss, Lydia Kou,
& Greg Tanaka.
We need your help to protect Palo Alto.
We are tenants of the Hohbach Realty Property buildings, composed of Entrepreneurs,
Academics, Lawyers, and other Silicon Valley professionals and leaders. These buildings are a legacy
and testament of the remarkable Mr. Harold Hohbach and family. His well-known generosity and charity
span from their recent $25M donation to Stanford University to maintaining affordable livings in Palo
Alto to allow first-time entrepreneurs and businessmen to prosper, to give new citizens of Palo Alto an
opportunity to live, to encourage new emigres their first new venture into this country. I am one of such
people.
As tenants, we have enjoyed decades living in these properties which we call home. With the
passing of Harold Hohbach, we also witnessed the changing of the guards. The new Management bear
real-estate licenses, but operate with impure intents, poor faith, unlawful breaches, gross negligence,
deceptive actions. The rise in complaints with the Palo Alto City unilaterally across all Hohbach
properties coincide around the time of the new Management control.
We need your help, your justice, your voice to help those who are unable to protect themselves.
We have now a well documented long list of problems and concerns to help direct our plea. We need
your help to create new ordinances to protect all Palo Alto in the same way other adjacent cities have
done it in the last weeks. We need you to call the appropriate city departments to ensure proper legal
and safety compliance to Palo Alto municipal codes. There are concerning health and safety hazards.
We need our City Lawyer to advocate for what is fair and reasonable. We need the Palo Alto mediation
group to help Hohbach Management understand that abuse and perversion of tenant rights cannot be
infringed, that inaction is unacceptable, that bullying aggression will not be welcomed.
The following list is a short sample of what we have documented: (Work in progress)
• Attempts to intimidate and produce fear and inject illegal fees.
• A compelling list of “Landlord” Harassment divided in more than ten categories.
• Failure to disclosure documented serious life hazards that are known by the City to cause
cancer.
• Rent increase of 2.7X~4.5X .
• Violation of city and state ordinances with the intent to “make money.”
• Modification of lease agreement with questionable illegal breaches and mistakes.
• Cosmetic changes in buildings to “upscale” properties, while concealing years of dangerous
negligence.
• The misuse of the Harold’s family name to intimidate, justify, confuse long-term tenants.
• Discrimination against the vulnerable families under BMR.
• Misappropriation of Public spaces and common areas for their personal financial benefits.
• Refuse for years to provide services paid, while giving us the option to “leave.”
• Lack of prevention and planning towards the inevitable natural disasters we are all expecting.
• Entering into the apartments without legal cause, advanced notice, or permission.
• Changing buildings’ front door’locks without advanced notice and at the last hour of the
business week
• Lack of elevator maintenance, as can be seen in the certificates on the elevators’ walls.
The effects of irresponsible real-estate practices produced the economic collapse of 2009, which
continues as of today with more than 25 million default cases in the USA; leaving lenders, citizens,
authorities and our cities dealing with the devastation of such whims. We respect Mr. Harold Hohbach’s
legacy, and it is very painful to see his spirit die and be misused in the name of greed and abuse.
We need your help to stop this cancer before is too late again.
Respectfully;
Tenants of the Holbach’s Reality Buildings
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Marcus Wood <marcus@kylixus.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2019 11:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Renter Protections ID 10844
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Ladies and Gentleman‐This ordinance is prompted by false information and is totally unnecessary given the current state
rent control laws. All rent increases issued conform to the new State Rent Control Law and none of our tenants who are
performing under their lease agreement have been given a 3 Day notice
Marcus Wood
SVP Kylix Enterprises
650 328‐2300 x3
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2019 5:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:support for AB1482 urgency ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Honorable City Council:
I write to you to support the proposal for an urgency ordinance on renter protections that is on the agenda (item #19)
for the City Council meeting on Monday, November 18.
The state legislature has passed and the governor has signed AB 1482 [1], which implements statewide just‐cause
eviction and anti‐rent‐gouging law (limiting rent increases to 5% more than cost of living). There are reports from
different parts of California of landlords evicting tenants in advance of this law taking effect on January 1. Renters are a
part of our community, and, if evicted, face the struggle of finding a home to rent in a very difficult housing market that
is largely the result of restrictions on supply created by a combination of state and local laws and regulations.
Many would be unlikely to be able to stay in their communities.
Like many other cities in the Bay Area, Palo Alto should pass an urgency ordinance making these protections take effect
sooner, and filling the gap left by the state legislature.
This has already been done by the nearby cities of Menlo Park [2], Redwood City [3], San Carlos [4], San Mateo [5], and
Milpitas [6], all by unanimous decisions of their city councils.
‐David
[1] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1482
[2] Menlo Park on November 12
https://www.menlopark.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_11122019‐3355
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/23409/E1‐20191112‐CC‐Adopting‐Urgency‐Ordinance‐Tenant‐
Protections
https://menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/23430/E1‐20191112‐CC‐Adopting‐Urgency‐Ordinance‐Tenant‐
Protections‐‐‐supplemental‐report
[3] Redwood City on October 28
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/redwood‐city‐stops‐large‐rent‐increases/article_823732d0‐facb‐11e9‐
b0fd‐87f036620fe7.html
https://meetings.redwoodcity.org/AgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=2048&doctype=1
http://redwoodcity‐ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=redwoodcity‐
ca_9aff25a7cdb0ca8fef95863910b22792.pdf&view=1
https://meetings.redwoodcity.org/AgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/ATTACHMENT%20B%20‐
%20URGENCY%20ORDINANCE.pdf?meetingId=2048&documentType=Agenda&itemId=2741&publishId=4267&isSection=
false
2
[4] San Carlos on November 12
https://twitter.com/DavidMPollack/status/1194498644289843200
http://sancarlosca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2992&Inline=True
[5] San Mateo on November 4
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/78367/Ord‐2019‐12‐EMERGENCY‐Tenant‐conformed
[6] Milpitas on October 15
(items 14 and 15)
http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2019/101519/Agenda.pdf
http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2019/101519/attachments.pdf
http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2019/101519/SA.pdf
‐‐
L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
‐ Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kevin Ma <kevinma.sd@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, November 16, 2019 3:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comment on Action Item 19 for Nov 18 Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Councilmembers,
As a member of this community, I am disappointed to hear that people are getting driven out of their homes because
their landlords raised rents in a bid against the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. This is a place that is 45% renters and in
the midst of a housing crisis, and we should do our utmost best to prevent those who favor greed over people from
inflicting such callousness on our neighbors.
As such, I strongly request the council to pass the draft Urgent Ordinance, though do change Sec 1 Part E to be regarding
our city. Let us join our neighbors like Redwood City and Menlo Park and do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Kevin
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 17, 2019 5:52 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Furman, Sheri
Subject:PAN urges - Please pass the emergency ordinance
Attachments:FINAL_Collegaues Memo Letter Nov 18 2019.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Re: City Council November 18 Meeting – Agenda Item 19
November 15, 2019
Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members:
At its November 14 meeting, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) voted unanimously to support the Colleagues’ Memo put
forth by Councilmembers Kou and DuBois and to ask Council to adopt the emergency ordinance put forth by staff.
We thank Councilmembers Kou and DuBois for their recognition of this important stopgap measure needed until the
state bill takes effect January 1.
We thank staff for redirecting time and resources in order to prepare the ordinance for consideration by Council as soon
as possible.
Adopting this ordinance sends a clear signal to our community that the Council is serious about housing and will use the
tools at its disposal to encourage the retention of low and middle income housing.
We believe this ordinance is an important step toward addressing the lack of housing for middle and low income
residents.
We look forward to your decision on Monday night, and urge you to make it a unanimous one. Unanimity will
demonstrate that all Councilmembers realize the importance of preserving affordable homes for our friends and
neighbors to live.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sheri Furman, Co‐Chair PAN
Rebecca Sanders, Co‐Chair PAN
PS We noticed in Section 1E the staff refer to the City of Redwood City, and perhaps they intended to refer to the City of
Palo Alto.
Re: City Council November 18 Meeting – Agenda Item 19
November 15, 2019
Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members,
At its November 14 meeting, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) voted unanimously to support the Colleagues’ Memo put forth by Councilmembers Kou and DuBois and to ask Council to adopt the emergency ordinance put forth by staff.
We thank Councilmembers Kou and DuBois for their recognition of this important stopgap measure needed until the state bill takes effect January 1.
We thank staff for redirecting time and resources in order to prepare the ordinance for consideration by Council as soon as possible.
Adopting this ordinance sends a clear signal to our community that the Council is serious about housing and will use the tools at its disposal to encourage the retention of low and middle income housing.
We believe this ordinance is an important step toward addressing the lack of housing for middle and low income residents.
We look forward to your decision on Monday night, and urge you to make it a unanimous one. Unanimity will demonstrate that all Councilmembers realize the importance of preserving affordable homes for our friends and neighbors to live.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sheri Furman, Co-Chair PAN Rebecca Sanders, Co-Chair PAN PS We noticed in Section 1E the staff refer to the City of Redwood City, and perhaps they intended to refer to the City of Palo Alto.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Helen <skybluelinen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 1:50 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: [Rent cap law]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Should also read:
prevent terminations* without just cause
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:24 PM Helen <skybluelinen@gmail.com> wrote:
Should read:
Thank you for your* time and consideration,
Helen Kim
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:15 PM Helen <skybluelinen@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Council Member,
I'm appealing to you to pass the "urgency ordinance" to prevent evictions without just cause.
Let me briefly describe my situation. I am a city employee currently supporting myself and my mother in a one‐
bedroom multi‐unit rental whose lease is about to expire on December 1st.
In previous years, I have received my lease renewal notification a month or two in advance. This year, I have not yet
received anything with only two weeks remaining on my lease.
My fear is that either my residency will be terminated or there will be a drastic increase in my monthly rate. I would
be forced to relocate from a town that I have lived and worked in for 11 years.
The timing of the state bill's effective date of January 1st leaves me and possibly many others like myself vulnerable.
Thank you for time and consideration,
Helen Kim
{REDACTED}
Palo Alto, CA
94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mitch Mankin <mitch@siliconvalleyathome.org>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 9:06 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; David Meyer
Subject:Re: Tenant Protection Urgency Ordinance
Attachments:SV@Home Letter Re Urgency AB 1482 Tenant Protection Ordinance.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka,
Please find attached our letter on suggested additions to the tenant protection urgency ordinance. The letter text is
included below as well.
Best,
Mitch Mankin
Policy and Advocacy Associate
Pronouns: he/him
(408) 780‐8915
mitch@siliconvalleyathome.org
TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
Honorable Mayor Filseth and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka,
Re: Colleagues' Memo – Just Cause Urgency Ordinance
SV@Home strongly supports the proposed urgency ordinance to prevent unjust evictions or excessive rent hikes aimed
at circumventing the restrictions established in AB 1482. AB 1482 was passed by the state legislature in recognition of
the extraordinary housing crisis and ballooning rents that we are experiencing in the Bay Area. These protections are a
key piece of the 3Ps strategy to address the housing crisis that comprises promoting renter protection, affordable
housing preservation, and housing production. Palo Alto’s Just Cause urgency ordinance is a needed step to eliminate
any potentially harmful effects of the delay in AB 1482’s implementation.
In addition to a Just Cause ordinance, we highly recommend that the City Council pass an additional urgency ordinance
that applies AB 1482’s rent cap provisions from October 8th through December 31st, 2019. While AB 1482 regulates
rents beginning on January 1st, 2020, it does not control what rents can be charged during the remainder of 2019. Thus
tenants could effectively be evicted by receiving excessive rent increases before the end of the year. We recommend
that the city cap rents at March 2019 rent plus 5% of that rent plus the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the remainder of
2019 in AB 1482‐eligible units, including for tenants who have already received rent increase notices. This is equivalent
to the rent cap requirements that begin in January 2020.
2
Thank you to Councilmembers Kou and DuBois for recognizing the importance of this issue. We hope that the full council
will support the memo and an urgency rent cap, especially since a 4/5ths majority, or 6 of 7 councilmembers, is
necessary to pass the urgency ordinance.
Sincerely,
David K Meyer
Director of Strategic Initiatives
SV@Home invites you to REGISTER TODAY for our Member Holiday Party!
Interested in solving the housing crisis? Be a part of the solution. Join as a member today!
Check out our Resource Hub for all your housing data needs.
350 W Julian St. #5, San Jose, CA 95110
Website I Facebook I Twitter I Newsletter I LinkedIn I Become a Member!
Board of Directors
Ron Gonzales, Chair
Hispanic Foundation
of Silicon Valley
Janice Jensen, Vice Chair
Habitat for Humanity
East Bay/Silicon Valley
Kevin Zwick, Treasurer
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary
KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC
Shiloh Ballard
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Bob Brownstein
Working Partnerships USA
Gina Dalma
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Katie Ferrick
LinkedIn
Amie Fishman
Non-Profit Housing Association of
Northern California
Javier Gonzalez
Google
Poncho Guevara
Sacred Heart Community Service
Janikke Klem
Technology Credit Union
Jan Lindenthal
MidPen Housing
Jennifer Loving
Destination: Home
Mary Murtagh
EAH Housing
Chris Neale
The Core Companies
Andrea Osgood
Eden Housing
Kelly Snider
Kelly Snider Consulting
Jennifer Van Every
The Van Every Group
Staff
Leslye Corsiglia
Executive Director
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
Honorable Mayor Filseth and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss,
Kou, and Tanaka,
Re: Colleagues' Memo – Just Cause Urgency Ordinance
SV@Home strongly supports the proposed urgency ordinance to prevent unjust
evictions or excessive rent hikes aimed at circumventing the restrictions
established in AB 1482. AB 1482 was passed by the state legislature in recognition
of the extraordinary housing crisis and ballooning rents that we are experiencing in
the Bay Area. These protections are a key piece of the 3Ps strategy to address the
housing crisis that comprises promoting renter protection, affordable housing
preservation, and housing production. Palo Alto’s Just Cause urgency ordinance is a
needed step to eliminate any potentially harmful effects of the delay in AB 1482’s
implementation.
In addition to a Just Cause ordinance, we highly recommend that the City Council
pass an additional urgency ordinance that applies AB 1482’s rent cap provisions
from October 8th through December 31st, 2019. While AB 1482 regulates rents
beginning on January 1st, 2020, it does not control what rents can be charged
during the remainder of 2019. Thus tenants could effectively be evicted by
receiving excessive rent increases before the end of the year. We recommend that
the city cap rents at March 2019 rent plus 5% of that rent plus the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the remainder of 2019 in AB 1482-eligible units, including for
tenants who have already received rent increase notices. This is equivalent to the
rent cap requirements that begin in January 2020.
Thank you to Councilmembers Kou and DuBois for recognizing the importance of
this issue. We hope that the full council will support the memo and an urgency rent
cap, especially since a 4/5ths majority, or 6 of 7 councilmembers, is necessary to
pass the urgency ordinance.
Sincerely,
David K Meyer
Director of Strategic Initiatives
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 3:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda item 19
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members;
I am writing to ask you to approve the Colleagues’ memo submitted by Council members Kou and Dubois which
temporarily prohibits no‐fault evictions for all residential real property through December 31, 2019 that will be covered
by Assembly Bill 1482 beginning on January 1, 2020. Those individuals covered by this proposal are often people without
political clout or financial wherewithal to be heard or to protect their own interests. My concern is that this population
may have a fragile safety net keeping them housed. Any additional unplanned expenses in regard to their cost of living
may add them to the growing population of homelessin our community and across the state. I urge the Council to adopt
the Colleagues’ Memo.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mitch Mankin <mitch@siliconvalleyathome.org>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 3:53 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; David Meyer
Subject:RE: Re: Tenant Protection Urgency Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka,
As an update to our letter: after further conversation with city staff and tenant organizations, we have determined that
it is not necessary to include an urgency rent cap ordinance, since the California state of emergency due to wildfires
declared on 10/27 already prohibits rent increases greater than 10%.
See this press release from the attorney general’s office for details about the price‐gouging provisions of the state of
emergency declaration: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press‐releases/attorney‐general‐becerra‐issues‐statewide‐consumer‐
alert‐price‐gouging‐following
We intend to attend the council meeting tonight in support of the colleagues’ memo and Just Cause urgency ordinance,
and are happy to provide information about the anti‐rent gounging provisions of the state of emergency as well.
Best,
Mitch Mankin
Policy and Advocacy Associate
Pronouns: he/him
(408) 780‐8915
mitch@siliconvalleyathome.org
From: Mitch Mankin
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 9:06 AM
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; David Meyer <david@siliconvalleyathome.org>
Subject: Re: Tenant Protection Urgency Ordinance
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka,
Please find attached our letter on suggested additions to the tenant protection urgency ordinance. The letter text is
included below as well.
Best,
Mitch Mankin
Policy and Advocacy Associate
Pronouns: he/him
(408) 780‐8915
mitch@siliconvalleyathome.org
TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
2
Honorable Mayor Filseth and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka,
Re: Colleagues' Memo – Just Cause Urgency Ordinance
SV@Home strongly supports the proposed urgency ordinance to prevent unjust evictions or excessive rent hikes aimed
at circumventing the restrictions established in AB 1482. AB 1482 was passed by the state legislature in recognition of
the extraordinary housing crisis and ballooning rents that we are experiencing in the Bay Area. These protections are a
key piece of the 3Ps strategy to address the housing crisis that comprises promoting renter protection, affordable
housing preservation, and housing production. Palo Alto’s Just Cause urgency ordinance is a needed step to eliminate
any potentially harmful effects of the delay in AB 1482’s implementation.
In addition to a Just Cause ordinance, we highly recommend that the City Council pass an additional urgency ordinance
that applies AB 1482’s rent cap provisions from October 8th through December 31st, 2019. While AB 1482 regulates
rents beginning on January 1st, 2020, it does not control what rents can be charged during the remainder of 2019. Thus
tenants could effectively be evicted by receiving excessive rent increases before the end of the year. We recommend
that the city cap rents at March 2019 rent plus 5% of that rent plus the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the remainder of
2019 in AB 1482‐eligible units, including for tenants who have already received rent increase notices. This is equivalent
to the rent cap requirements that begin in January 2020.
Thank you to Councilmembers Kou and DuBois for recognizing the importance of this issue. We hope that the full council
will support the memo and an urgency rent cap, especially since a 4/5ths majority, or 6 of 7 councilmembers, is
necessary to pass the urgency ordinance.
Sincerely,
David K Meyer
Director of Strategic Initiatives
SV@Home invites you to REGISTER TODAY for our Member Holiday Party!
Interested in solving the housing crisis? Be a part of the solution. Join as a member today!
Check out our Resource Hub for all your housing data needs.
350 W Julian St. #5, San Jose, CA 95110
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Matt Dolan <Matt.Dolan@hilton.com>
Sent:Saturday, November 9, 2019 2:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: ACTION to WITHDRAW from SMCCVB
Attachments:2019_2_San Jose-Santa Cruz.pdf; SMCSVCVB Palo Alto Presentation 8-29-19.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Council Members,
As this conversation regarding Barbara Gross, a hospitality consultant, requesting an action to withdraw from
the agreement between City of Palo Alto and SMCSVCVB no doubt updates will be forthcoming from all concerned. I
have noted the tentative December 2nd and will continue watch for updates and confirmations. In advance of those
updates I thought it may be helpful to share my request to Barbara Gross about what she and PAHC propose for
replacing the benefits of the existing relationship if the agreement is terminated. Also, it may be worth confirming my
POV to ensure the narrative remains focused and does not become distracted by any one personality.
The PAHC initially formed to resist the TOT increase that went into effect April 1st 2019. My perception was
effort spent fighting the increase were not best use of my time and resources. That does not reflect on the
merits of the issue but my response to issue. Additionally, I had concerns about PAHC that remain unresolved. I
removed myself from participation with the group.
PAHC directed by Barbara Gross aggressively moves toward the goal of terminating the agreement with
SMCSVCVB. Participating in this endeavor in my view is ill‐advised, incorrectly aligned with resentment of TOT
increases and counter intuitive considering the downward economic indicators. This is the period of time when
robust marketing and sales efforts are necessary. I am not in favor of terminating the agreement and for
whatever flaws may exist it is far more valuable than not
Most importantly I want to confirm the narrative remains focused on the issue at hand and not be perceived as
the opposite view points of individuals regarding the renewal or termination. My perspective is based on
continuing with a reputable, known entity operating within industry standards for a CVB or terminating the
agreement with no discernable replacement for the benefits provided. SMCSVCVB provides resources and
expertise in attracting conventions and actively promoting Silicon Valley as a destination. Certainly there are
improvements needed but nothing remotely approaching termination.
I am advocating for continuing with the agreement not in opposition to any one individual but in support of the
resources and benefits I need and utilize to reach my properties financial performance. Equally so, I am
advocating for continuing as it benefits the entire Palo Alto hotel industry, ancillary goods and services providers
along with restaurants, retailers and social venues that thrive providing services for residents and visitors alike.
My priority is to maintain the connection to a strategic hospitality/tourism partner and if PAHC presents a
marketing plan, destination marketing strategy, budget guidelines and effective cost control I am more than
agreeable to evaluating and would fully support the transition if their plans are equal to SMCSVCVB.
I am available to review this topic as needed and appreciate your time in considering this matter and what is the best
option for Palo Alto hospitality!
Best,
2
‐Matt
From: Matt Dolan
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 9:41 PM
To: 'Barbara Gross' <barbara.ellen.gross@gmail.com>; Sean Brender <sean@seanbrender.com>; Ella Herman
<ella@gardencourt.com>; Anand Karsan <akarsan@gmail.com>; Manix Patel <manix@carrasco.com>; Christopher
Custer <christophercuster@cardinalhotel.com>; Luis Carreno <lcarreno@creekside‐inn.com>; Brian Fox
<bfox@dinahshotel.com>; Eric Rivera <gmcountryinn4345@gmail.com>; Sundip Karsan <sskarsan@gmail.com>; Sophia
Huang <sti9119@gmail.com>; Ben Robledo <brobledo@thenestpaloalto.com>; Vik Patel
<travelodgepaloalto@gmail.com>; Neal Nair <nealnair@aol.com>; Hemant Mistry <hrmistry@hotmail.com>; Marlon
Smith <marlon.smith@bprproperties.com>; Grace Juan <gracejuan1@yahoo.com>; Heidi May
<reservations@coronetmotel.net>; Denise Wallace <gm.ca610@yahoo.com>; Sebastien Stacey
<sstacey@theclementpaloalto.com>; Julie Handley <jhandley@dinahshotel.com>; 'John Hutar' <john@smccvb.com>;
Alyssa Robin <alyssa.robin@cabanapaloalto.com>; B.B. Patel <bbp1944@gmail.com>; Tom McEvoy
<Tom.McEvoy@Hilton.com>; Cc: Hugo Santos <reservations@cowperinn.com>; Stephanie Wansek
<stephanie@cardinalhotel.com>; Jim Rebosio <jrebosio@sheratonpaloalto.com>; Yatin Patel <info@hotelparmani.com>
Cc: Judy Kleinberg <judy@paloaltochamber.com>; Flaherty, Michelle <Michelle.Flaherty@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: ACTION to WITHDRAW from SMCCVB
Hi Barbara,
Thank you for sharing this update. As the Palo Alto hoteliers consider this action evaluate the decision to support or
oppose the requested action some additional information may be helpful.
Is this an official Palo Alto Hotel Council email and distribution list? If this is a personal email, are you agreeable
receiving communication regarding PAHC matters?
On the request for action to withdraw the Garden Court, with approximately 60 hotel rooms, is listed as a large
hotel supporting termination of the agreement. Is that a correct identification of the hotels status as “large?”
If the agreement is terminated what strategies and action plans can we expect from Palo Alto Hotel Council to
replace this lost resource? Would it be possible to see a PAHC presentation deck outlining the council’s
priorities and action plans?
If the agreement were terminated, neighboring communities and markets would change from cooperative
Silicon Valley attractions to direct competitors. What strategies are in place to respond to the disadvantage of
not being included in destination marketing for Silicon Valley? Is that included in your marketing and strategy
deck?
With Palo Alto Hotel Council acting as an industry, voice what action plans are in place to advocate for hotels
and hospitality businesses regarding Palo Alto’s proposed business tax? Does PAHC have a deck available
outlining these action steps?
Understanding the legal jeopardy of anti‐trust violations and previous lack of compliance with PAHC
documents/communications has this been effectively addressed and is PAHC membership fully informed of the
necessary steps to maintain compliance?
If the agreement is terminated and access to SMCSVCVB resources are no longer available, for Palo Alto hotels,
what is the expected PAHC funding source, vehicle for collection, compliance requirements to support PAHC
marketing endeavors and is this planned as an expense or pass through fee? Can PAHC share an operational
budget outlining projected expenditures for print, trade show, direct selling and associated travel and
accommodation expenses for PAHC sales, marketing and promotional efforts?
3
As we review this action to withdraw, it is wise to keep in mind outlying indicators that will have downward pressure
nationally, in the Bay Area and specifically Palo Alto. I know we have all felt the impact of International inbound travel
contracting 0.4 percent in September, marking the fifth negative month in 2019 while outbound international travel and
global international travel for non‐American destinations continues to grow. Additional hotel supply in our market is
affecting occupancy numbers as these events occur (think Nia, Hyatt and an endless list along 101.) The United States
Travel Association is pushing Congress to renew the Brand USA program, a destination marketing organization tasked
with promoting travel to the U.S. The USTA has argued before Congress that Brand USA helps keep the U.S. competitive
in the global travel market and could prevent the U.S. slide in the global travel market from being worse. For political
reasons Congress is failing to act. Just as the lack of destination, marketing has negatively affected the hotel industry on
the national level the same would apply to Palo Alto without destination marketing from SMCSVCVB.
Considering the agreement is an annual renewal it seems prudent to approve the agreement for 2020. Having the
agreement in force for 12 months is not an excessive commitment and provides Palo Alto hotels the opportunity to
focus more on the benefits of participation, could lessen the impact of downward economic indicators in Palo Alto and
provides a specific time period to evaluate if continuing is worthwhile. Of course, the PAHC may have strategy, action
plans and financial resources that are equal to SMCSVCVB. If we could review PAHC material prior to the decision date
that could change the conversation entirely. As I believe, we all understand this is more than just a conversation
between two individuals and must be evaluated in terms of the benefits and risks to the whole. The outcome of this
decision has the potential to impact hotels, restaurants, venues and ancillary service providers such as rental cars, dry
cleaners, the mall and retailers who rely on tourism to achieve their business goals. The wrong decision would negatively
affect overall business revenues and reduce tax revenues in Palo Alto thereby diminishing their efforts to operate
effectively operate city services.
Barbara, would it be possible to distribute PAHC marketing plan, sales/marketing materials and budget plans so we have
adequate time to compare with SMCSVCVB organizational structure. Even if it is not final drafts that information would
be extremely helpful to the hotels and would be a benefit to the city of Palo Alto as they budget for expected TOT
revenues in 2020.
Thanks so much for following up on this important topic. While hotel operators are required to make the best decision
for their stakeholders I think we can all agree the best decision for Palo Alto benefits the whole. I look forward to
reviewing the PAHC materials.
Best,
‐Matt
P.S I have attached two documents. The economic report reads San Jose‐Santa Cruz but the information applies to Palo
Alto. The second document is from SMCSVCVB and attached for convenience when reviewing PAHC marketing and
budget plans.
From: Barbara Gross [mailto:barbara.ellen.gross@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 3:10 PM
To: Sean Brender <sean@seanbrender.com>; Ella Herman <ella@gardencourt.com>; Anand Karsan
<akarsan@gmail.com>; Manix Patel <manix@carrasco.com>; Christopher Custer
<christophercuster@cardinalhotel.com>; Luis Carreno <lcarreno@creekside‐inn.com>; Brian Fox
<bfox@dinahshotel.com>; Eric Rivera <gmcountryinn4345@gmail.com>; Sundip Karsan <sskarsan@gmail.com>; Sophia
Huang <sti9119@gmail.com>; Ben Robledo <brobledo@thenestpaloalto.com>; Vik Patel
<travelodgepaloalto@gmail.com>; Neal Nair <nealnair@aol.com>; Hemant Mistry <hrmistry@hotmail.com>; Marlon
Smith <marlon.smith@bprproperties.com>; Grace Juan <gracejuan1@yahoo.com>; Heidi May
<reservations@coronetmotel.net>; Denise Wallace <gm.ca610@yahoo.com>; Sebastien Stacey
<sstacey@theclementpaloalto.com>; Julie Handley <jhandley@dinahshotel.com>; Alyssa Robin
<alyssa.robin@cabanapaloalto.com>; B.B. Patel <bbp1944@gmail.com>; Tom McEvoy <Tom.McEvoy@Hilton.com>; Cc:
4
Hugo Santos <reservations@cowperinn.com>; Stephanie Wansek <stephanie@cardinalhotel.com>; Jim Rebosio
<jrebosio@sheratonpaloalto.com>; Yatin Patel <info@hotelparmani.com>; Matt Dolan <Matt.Dolan@hilton.com>
Cc: Judy Kleinberg <judy@paloaltochamber.com>; Flaherty, Michelle <Michelle.Flaherty@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: ACTION to WITHDRAW from SMCCVB
Importance: High
Dear Hoteliers,
Following the discussion regarding the value of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau (SMCCVB) and
Palo Alto Hotels, Motels and Inns at the PAHC meeting on September 18th, the following progress has been made:
Attached please find the email sent to City Staff and City Council outlining the request for Palo Alto Hotels, Motels and
Inns to withdraw from the SMCCVB by year-end 2019. You will notice the request is accompanied by City Manager’s
Reports documenting the origins of the relationship, the signatures of those operators and/or owners in support of the
withdrawal and the fee structure currently in place.
We have just been notified that the tentative date for council to address the withdrawal request is December 2, 2019.
Please mark your calendars to attend this council meeting to express your opinions and urge action. Future reminders will
be forwarded to keep you informed.
Additionally, Matt Dolan has sent emails to the group expressing his opinion regarding this action. Everyone is
encouraged to share his or her thoughts and experiences.
Please contact us for further information and questions:
Barbara Gross – Barbara.ellen.gross@gmail.com
Jim Rebosio – jrebosio@pahotel.com
This transmission is not a digital or electronic signature and cannot be used to form, document, or authenticate a contract. Hilton and its affiliates accept no liability
arising in connection with this transmission. Copyright 2019 Hilton Proprietary and Confidential
REGIONAL ECONOMIC SUMMARY HOTEL MARKET SUMMARY
San Jose-Santa Cruz Forecast Summary
YEAR OCC Δ OCC ADR Δ ADR REVPAR Δ REVPAR
2014 75.8% 2.3% $148.74 13.0% $112.68 15.7%
2015 77.3% 2.1% $170.30 14.5% $131.70 16.9%
2016 76.5% -1.1% $181.47 6.6% $138.78 5.4%
2017 76.7% 0.3% $186.54 2.8% $143.09 3.1%
2018 76.9% 0.2% $196.25 5.2% $150.85 5.4%
2019F 73.3% -4.6% $200.49 2.2% $146.97 -2.6%
2020F 71.8% -2.1% $204.40 2.0% $146.71 -0.2%
2021F 72.4% 0.9% $208.11 1.8% $150.76 2.8%
2022F 72.7% 0.4% $211.80 1.8% $154.05 2.2%
2023F 73.6% 1.2% $217.28 2.6% $159.97 3.8%
Source: CBRE Hotels Research, STR, Q2 2019
EXHIBIT 1**: Performance Grade vs. Long Run Average
Source: CBRE Hotels Research, STR, Q2 2019
Source: CBRE Hotels Research, Q2 2019 **See Appendix for exhibit descriptions
SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 2019 EDITION
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
'14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19F '20F '21F '22F '23F
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
Occupancy ADR Change RevPAR Change
HOTEL MARKET SUMMARYREGIONAL ECONOMIC SUMMARY
SAN JOSE-SANTA CRUZ
San Jose-Santa Cruz: Next 4 Quarters
EXHIBIT 1**: Performance Grade vs. Long Run Average
The arrows show the forecast direction of change over the next 4 quarters vs. the
previous 4 quarters. Green indicates the change will be above the long run average,
yellow indicates it will be the same, and orange indicates it will be below.
San Jose-Santa Cruz Forecast Summary
Long Run Averages 1988 to 2018
Occupancy: 68.7%, ADR Change: 4.3%, RevPAR Change: 5.3%
SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 2019 EDITION PRICE: $545VOLUME XIII - ISSUE III
Occupancy
Average Daily Rate
Revenue Per Available Room
Supply (orange indicates above long-term average)
Demand
SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 2019 EDITION PRICE: $545VOLUME XIII - ISSUE III
“Economic activity in the Twelfth District continued to
expand at a moderate pace during the reporting period of
mid-November through December. Conditions in the labor
market remained tight, and wage growth was moderate. Price
inflation was flat. Sales of retail goods expanded moderately,
while activity in consumer and business services was solid.
Conditions in the manufacturing sector strengthened
modestly, and conditions in agriculture deteriorated slightly.
On balance, contacts reported that residential and
commercial real estate market activity expanded at a solid
pace. Lending activity ticked down.
Overall, price inflation was flat over the reporting period.
Contacts in manufacturing and utilities observed upward
pricing pressures due mainly to a further moderate pickup in
the cost of metal inputs and higher financing costs for
capital-intensive production. Food and beverage prices
increased somewhat, reflecting higher labor costs at
producers. The growth of building material prices slowed a
bit, due in part to noticeably lower lumber costs, which fell
because of the moderation in the housing market. Lower oil
prices resulted in reduced fuel surcharges at shipping and
logistics businesses and a modest decline in the price of
some petroleum-based inputs to manufacturing. In the
agriculture sector, prices declined modestly as demand from
abroad weakened in response to trade policy changes and
the stronger dollar."
Federal Reserve Bank Beige Book, July 2019
By year-end 2019, San Jose-Santa Cruz hotels are forecast to
see a RevPAR decrease of 2.6%. This is the result of an
estimated decline in occupancy of 4.6% and a 2.2% gain in
average daily room rates (ADR). The 2.6% decline in San Jose-
Santa Cruz RevPAR is less than the national projection of a
0.9% increase.
Both the upper and lower-priced segments of San Jose-Santa
Cruz are expected to show negative RevPAR change by year
end. Lower-priced hotels are forecast to attain a 1.7% gain in
ADR, but suffer a 4.3% decrease in occupancy, resulting in a
2.6% RevPAR decline. Upper-priced hotels are projected to
experience an ADR growth rate of 1.9%, along with a 5.0%
loss in occupancy, resulting in a 3.2% RevPAR decline.
Looking towards 2020, San Jose-Santa Cruz RevPAR is
expected to decline 0.2%. This is better than the decline in
2019. Prospects for RevPAR growth in the upper-priced
segment (positive 0.2%) are better than in the lower-priced
segment (negative 2.0%). San Jose-Santa Cruz market
occupancy levels are expected to range from 71.8% to 73.6%
during the 5-year forecast period.
Occupancy will decrease to 71.9%, a decline over the past 4 quarters'
rate of 75.2%, but above the long run average of 68.7%
ADR growth expectations are weakening, 1.5% vs. the past 4 quarters'
rate of 4.2%, and are below the long run average of 4.3%
RevPAR change projections are falling to negative 3.0% as compared to
the past 4 quarters' rate of positive 1.7%, and are lower than the long
run average of positive 5.3%
Supply growth is climbing, 8.9% vs. the past 4 quarters' rate of 1.0%,
and greater than the long run average of 1.9%
Forecast demand growth is climbing, positive 4.1% vs. the past 4
quarters' rate of negative 1.4%, and is greater than the long run average
of positive 2.6%
Se
e
u
s
e
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
p
a
g
e
o
f
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
E
l
e
n
a
Q
u
a
c
h
,
C
B
R
E
H
o
t
e
l
s
San Jose-Santa Cruz Economic Summary
*See Appendix for exhibit descriptions
P. 2 / CBRE HOTELS RESEARCH
Below are a select number of variables that drive the CBRE Hotels | Research econometric forecasts contained in this report. Income
and employment are important barometers of economic health and are used in every Hotel Horizons® forecast model. The lodging
market is part of the larger economy, and the forces that affect us nationally also affect lodging, but in different magnitudes and
time periods (see Exhibits 4 and 5 below). Exhibits 2 - 6 provide an overview of current economic history and forecast, and provide
explanation of what to expect in the future, and how that affects the lodging industry.
1.3%
2.6%
4.9%
3.7%
0.7%
1.7%
2.5%2.8%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Change in Total Employment Change in Consumer Price Index Change in Gross Metro Product Change in Real Personal Income
San Jose-Santa Cruz 1988 to 2018 San Jose-Santa Cruz 2019 to 2023
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
'01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11 '13 '15 '17 '19 '21 '23
Real Personal Income
-14.0%
-12.0%
-10.0%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
'01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11 '13 '15 '17 '19 '21 '23
Total Payroll Employment
Employment (Left)Demand (Right)
Source: CBRE EA, Moody's Analytics, Q2 2019
Source: CBRE EA, Q2 2019 Source: CBRE EA, Q2 2019
Income (Left)RevPAR (Right)
Source: CBRE EA, CBRE Hotels, STR, Q2 2019 Source: CBRE EA, CBRE Hotels, STR, Q2 2019
Exhibit 3*: Employment ChangeExhibit 2*: Income Change
Exhibit 4*: Quarterly Income vs. RevPAR Change Exhibit 5*: Quarterly Employment vs. Demand Change
Exhibit 6*: Average Annual Growth Rates
See graph below See graph below
SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 2019 EDITION SAN JOSE / SANTA CRUZHOTEL HORIZONS®
San Jose-Santa Cruz Hotel Summary
The graphs on the left illustrate the magnitude of change in performance during the historical and forecasted period 2014 to 2023.
Used as a relative benchmark, each market segment is plotted against a common index value of 2014 = 100. This method provides
clear insight of how each market segment performed and is expected to perform in relation to others in the specified period. The
charts on the right compare near-term historical compound annual growth rates (CAGR) to the CAGRs for the forecast period.
P. 3 / CBRE HOTELS RESEARCH
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
All U.S.Upper-Priced Hotels
Lower-Priced Hotels All Hotels
100105110115120125130135140145150
All U.S.Upper-Priced Hotels
Lower-Priced Hotels All Hotels
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
All U.S.Upper-Priced Hotels
Lower-Priced Hotels All Hotels
0.9%
2.8%
-1.2%
4.2%
4.9%
3.2%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
All Hotels Upper-Priced Lower-Priced
Past 5 Years Next 5 Years
Source: CBRE Hotels, STR, Q2 2019
7.6%
6.7%
7.7%
2.1%2.4%
0.9%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
All Hotels Upper-Priced Lower-Priced
Past 5 Years Next 5 Years
1.2%
3.0%
-0.9%
4.3%
5.2%
2.9%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
All Hotels Upper-Priced Lower-Priced
Past 5 Years Next 5 Years
Exhibit 8*: ADR Change
Exhibit 10*: Compound Average Annual Supply Change
Exhibit 11*: Compound Average Annual Demand Change
Exhibit 9*: RevPAR Change Exhibit 12*: Compound Average Annual RevPAR Change
Exhibit 7*: Occupancy Change
SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 2019 EDITION SAN JOSE / SANTA CRUZHOTEL HORIZONS®
*See Appendix for exhibit descriptions
Source: CBRE Hotels, STR, Q2 2019
Source: CBRE Hotels, STR, Q2 2019
*See Appendix for exhibit descriptions
Source: CBRE Hotels, STR, Q2 2019
Source: CBRE Hotels, STR, Q2 2019
Source: CBRE Hotels, STR, Q2 2019
San Jose-Santa Cruz Forecast - All Hotels
YEAR PERIOD OCC Δ OCC ADR Δ ADR REVPAR Δ REVPAR Δ SUPPLY Δ DEMAND
2014 Annual 75.8% 2.3% $148.74 13.0% $112.68 15.7% 1.0% 3.4%
2015 Annual 77.3% 2.1% $170.30 14.5% $131.70 16.9% 0.9% 3.0%
2016 1 72.5% -3.6% $184.84 12.3% $133.97 8.2% 1.2% -2.5%
2016 2 80.3% -0.4% $182.08 6.2% $146.29 5.8% 0.4% 0.0%
2016 3 81.7% -1.2% $183.23 5.0% $149.63 3.8% -0.2% -1.4%
2016 4 71.4% 0.8% $175.37 3.1% $125.25 3.9% -0.2% 0.6%
2016 Annual 76.5% -1.1% $181.47 6.6% $138.78 5.4% 0.3% -0.8%
2017 1 72.6% 0.2% $184.50 -0.2% $133.97 0.0% 0.9% 1.1%
2017 2 80.0% -0.4% $188.20 3.4% $150.65 3.0% 0.8% 0.4%
2017 3 82.5% 1.1% $189.07 3.2% $156.06 4.3% 1.0% 2.1%
2017 4 71.7% 0.4% $183.86 4.8% $131.78 5.2% 2.1% 2.4%
2017 Annual 76.7% 0.3% $186.54 2.8% $143.09 3.1% 1.2% 1.5%
2018 1 73.3% 1.0% $191.87 4.0% $140.73 5.0% 1.4% 2.5%
2018 2 80.5% 0.6% $200.15 6.3% $161.12 6.9% 1.5% 2.0%
2018 3 82.4% -0.2% $199.62 5.6% $164.48 5.4% 1.2% 1.0%
2018 4 71.2% -0.6% $192.45 4.7% $137.10 4.0% 0.4% -0.2%
2018 Annual 76.9% 0.2% $196.25 5.2% $150.85 5.4% 1.1% 1.3%
2019 1 71.0% -3.3% $202.32 5.4% $143.57 2.0% 1.1% -2.2%
2019 2 76.1% -5.5% $202.77 1.3% $154.31 -4.2% 1.5% -4.0%
2019F 3 78.2% -5.1% $202.26 1.3% $158.11 -3.9% 6.1% 0.6%
2019F 4 68.1% -4.4% $194.36 1.0% $132.42 -3.4% 8.5% 3.8%
2019F Annual 73.3% -4.6% $200.49 2.2% $146.97 -2.6% 4.3% -0.5%
2020F Annual 71.8% -2.1% $204.40 2.0% $146.71 -0.2% 9.2% 7.0%
2021F Annual 72.4% 0.9% $208.11 1.8% $150.76 2.8% 4.3% 5.3%
2022F Annual 72.7% 0.4% $211.80 1.8% $154.05 2.2% 2.0% 2.4%
2023F Annual 73.6% 1.2% $217.28 2.6% $159.97 3.8% 1.3% 2.5%
2018 2Q Year to Date 76.9% 0.8% $196.20 5.2% $150.92 6.1% 1.5% 2.2%
2019 2Q Year to Date 73.5% -4.4% $202.56 3.2% $148.95 -1.3% 1.3% -3.2%
2019 2Q Trailing 4 Qtrs 75.2% -2.4% $199.37 4.2% $149.86 1.7% 1.0% -1.4%
Source: CBRE Hotels Research, STR, Q2 2019
Exhibit 13*: San Jose-Santa Cruz Standardized Changes in Real RevPAR Movements Over Time
Source: CBRE Hotels Research, STR, Q2 2019
*See Appendix for exhibit description
P. 4 / CBRE HOTELS RESEARCH
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019F 2021F 2023F
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
U.S.San Jose-Santa Cruz
Exhibit 13*: San Jose-Santa Cruz Standardized Changes in Real RevPAR Movements Over Time
SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 2019 EDITION SAN JOSE / SANTA CRUZHOTEL HORIZONS®
San Jose-Santa Cruz Forecast - Upper-Priced Hotels
YEAR PERIOD OCC Δ OCC ADR Δ ADR REVPAR Δ REVPAR Δ SUPPLY Δ DEMAND
2014 Annual 77.9% 1.7% $180.48 12.0% $140.58 13.9% 2.1% 3.8%
2015 Annual 78.1% 0.2% $205.25 13.7% $160.23 14.0% 4.3% 4.5%
2016 1 74.6% -2.3% $224.53 10.9% $167.42 8.3% 5.5% 3.0%
2016 2 82.2% 1.2% $216.87 5.1% $178.35 6.4% 3.5% 4.8%
2016 3 83.0% 0.5% $215.04 3.8% $178.45 4.3% 1.9% 2.4%
2016 4 73.1% 1.3% $210.03 2.7% $153.57 4.0% 1.1% 2.4%
2016 Annual 78.2% 0.2% $216.61 5.5% $169.44 5.7% 3.0% 3.2%
2017 1 75.4% 1.1% $222.38 -1.0% $167.63 0.1% 1.4% 2.5%
2017 2 81.7% -0.7% $223.80 3.2% $182.77 2.5% 1.3% 0.6%
2017 3 83.4% 0.6% $220.57 2.6% $184.05 3.1% 1.9% 2.4%
2017 4 72.9% -0.4% $217.89 3.7% $158.75 3.4% 3.6% 3.2%
2017 Annual 78.3% 0.1% $221.20 2.1% $173.23 2.2% 2.0% 2.2%
2018 1 75.8% 0.6% $229.37 3.1% $173.92 3.8% 2.4% 3.0%
2018 2 82.5% 1.0% $236.58 5.7% $195.13 6.8% 2.4% 3.4%
2018 3 83.6% 0.2% $232.84 5.6% $194.76 5.8% 1.8% 2.1%
2018 4 72.7% -0.3% $228.31 4.8% $165.88 4.5% 0.5% 0.2%
2018 Annual 78.6% 0.4% $231.93 4.9% $182.40 5.3% 1.8% 2.2%
2019 1 73.3% -3.4% $242.70 5.8% $177.79 2.2% 1.6% -1.8%
2019 2 77.7% -5.8% $239.15 1.1% $185.81 -4.8% 2.5% -3.4%
2019F 3 78.7% -5.9% $234.57 0.7% $184.68 -5.2% 8.7% 2.3%
2019F 4 69.5% -4.4% $229.10 0.3% $159.19 -4.0% 11.5% 6.7%
2019F Annual 74.7% -5.0% $236.28 1.9% $176.58 -3.2% 6.1% 0.8%
2020F Annual 73.9% -1.1% $239.26 1.3% $176.86 0.2% 10.8% 9.6%
2021F Annual 74.7% 1.1% $243.96 2.0% $182.24 3.0% 5.1% 6.2%
2022F Annual 75.0% 0.4% $249.35 2.2% $187.04 2.6% 2.4% 2.9%
2023F Annual 75.8% 1.0% $256.47 2.9% $194.29 3.9% 1.5% 2.5%
2018 2Q Year to Date 79.2% 0.8% $233.13 4.5% $184.53 5.3% 2.4% 3.2%
2019 2Q Year to Date 75.5% -4.6% $240.87 3.3% $181.82 -1.5% 2.1% -2.7%
2019 2Q Trailing 4 Qtrs 76.8% -2.3% $235.75 4.2% $181.05 1.8% 1.6% -0.7%
Source: CBRE Hotels Research, STR, Q2 2019
FULL-SERVICE HOTELS - PERCENT OF TOTAL REVENUE - 2018
Financial Line Item Mountain / Pacific Region ADR Between $125 & $250†150 to 300 Rooms‡
Rooms Revenue 72.1%73.8%75.3%
Food and Beverage Revenue 22.2%21.8%20.1%
Total Departmental Expenses 37.6%34.3%35.6%
Total Departmental Profit 62.4%65.7%64.4%
Total Undistributed Expenses 24.0%25.8%26.3%
Gross Operating Profit**38.4%39.8%38.2%
*Data from 2019 Trends ® in the Hotel Industry report †San Jose-Santa Cruz Upper-Price Average ADR: $231.93
**Before deductions for management fees and non-operating income and expenses.‡San Jose-Santa Cruz Upper-Price Average Size: 164 Rooms
Source: CBRE Hotels Research, 2018
For a more comparable and detailed financial comparison, we recommend a BenchmarkerSM report.
Please contact Viet Vo at +1 404 812 5112 for more information.
P. 5 / CBRE HOTELS RESEARCH
San Jose-Santa Cruz Financial Benchmarks* - Full-Service Hotels
HOTEL HORIZONS®SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 2019 EDITION SAN JOSE / SANTA CRUZ
San Jose-Santa Cruz Forecast - Lower-Priced Hotels
YEAR PERIOD OCC Δ OCC ADR Δ ADR REVPAR Δ REVPAR Δ SUPPLY Δ DEMAND
2014 Annual 73.5% 3.0% $113.18 14.5% $83.18 17.9% -0.1% 2.8%
2015 Annual 76.5% 4.1% $129.90 14.8% $99.39 19.5% -2.7% 1.3%
2016 1 70.0% -5.3% $133.99 10.1% $93.75 4.3% -3.6% -8.7%
2016 2 78.1% -2.5% $138.07 5.0% $107.79 2.4% -3.1% -5.5%
2016 3 80.1% -3.1% $143.81 4.8% $115.16 1.6% -2.7% -5.7%
2016 4 69.4% 0.0% $131.56 2.6% $91.28 2.6% -1.7% -1.7%
2016 Annual 74.4% -2.8% $137.14 5.6% $102.00 2.6% -2.8% -5.5%
2017 1 69.3% -1.0% $134.42 0.3% $93.09 -0.7% 0.4% -0.6%
2017 2 78.1% 0.0% $142.96 3.5% $111.62 3.5% 0.2% 0.2%
2017 3 81.4% 1.7% $149.71 4.1% $121.93 5.9% -0.1% 1.6%
2017 4 70.2% 1.2% $140.11 6.5% $98.38 7.8% 0.3% 1.5%
2017 Annual 74.7% 0.5% $142.15 3.7% $106.25 4.2% 0.2% 0.7%
2018 1 70.3% 1.5% $141.67 5.4% $99.54 6.9% 0.3% 1.7%
2018 2 78.0% 0.0% $152.43 6.6% $118.96 6.6% 0.4% 0.3%
2018 3 80.9% -0.7% $157.12 4.9% $127.04 4.2% 0.4% -0.3%
2018 4 69.5% -1.0% $145.84 4.1% $101.34 3.0% 0.2% -0.9%
2018 Annual 74.7% -0.1% $149.64 5.3% $111.73 5.2% 0.3% 0.2%
2019 1 68.1% -3.1% $147.76 4.3% $100.59 1.1% 0.4% -2.8%
2019 2 74.1% -5.1% $154.42 1.3% $114.40 -3.8% 0.2% -4.8%
2019F 3 77.4% -4.2% $159.30 1.4% $123.37 -2.9% 2.8% -1.5%
2019F 4 66.3% -4.5% $146.23 0.3% $97.01 -4.3% 4.8% 0.1%
2019F Annual 71.5% -4.3% $152.24 1.7% $108.80 -2.6% 2.1% -2.3%
2020F Annual 68.9% -3.6% $154.66 1.6% $106.60 -2.0% 7.3% 3.5%
2021F Annual 69.4% 0.7% $155.90 0.8% $108.17 1.5% 3.3% 4.0%
2022F Annual 69.6% 0.3% $156.55 0.4% $109.00 0.8% 1.4% 1.8%
2023F Annual 70.7% 1.5% $159.58 1.9% $112.82 3.5% 0.9% 2.5%
2018 2Q Year to Date 74.2% 0.7% $147.34 6.0% $109.26 6.7% 0.3% 1.0%
2019 2Q Year to Date 71.1% -4.1% $151.23 2.6% $107.49 -1.6% 0.3% -3.9%
2019 2Q Trailing 4 Qtrs 73.1% -2.5% $151.58 3.6% $110.84 1.0% 0.3% -2.2%
Source: CBRE Hotels Research, STR, Q2 2019
LIMITED-SERVICE HOTELS - PERCENT OF TOTAL REVENUE - 2018
Financial Line Item Mountain / Pacific Region ADR Over $115†Under 100 Rooms‡
Rooms Revenue 96.8%96.5%98.2%
Food and Beverage Revenue 0.0%0.0%0.0%
Total Departmental Expenses 27.6%24.7%27.3%
Total Departmental Profit 72.4%75.3%72.7%
Total Undistributed Expenses 28.0%28.0%31.7%
Gross Operating Profit**44.4%47.3%41.0%
*Data from 2019 Trends ® in the Hotel Industry report †San Jose-Santa Cruz Lower-Price Average ADR: $149.64
**Before deductions for management fees and non-operating income and expenses.‡San Jose-Santa Cruz Lower-Price Average Size: 69 Rooms
Source: CBRE Hotels Research, 2018
For a more comparable and detailed financial comparison, we recommend a BenchmarkerSM report.
Please contact Viet Vo at +1 404 812 5112 for more information.
P. 6 / CBRE HOTELS RESEARCH
San Jose-Santa Cruz Financial Benchmarks* - Limited-Service Hotels
SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 2019 EDITION SAN JOSE / SANTA CRUZHOTEL HORIZONS®
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2019 4:30 PM
To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Sheryl Klein
Subject:ADU event in Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/much-ado-about-adus-planning-and-pitfalls-tickets-82007571855?utm-
medium=discovery&utm-campaign=social&utm-content=attendeeshare&aff=escb&utm-source=cp&utm-
term=eventcard
This event, which includes a representative of the Silicon Valley Housing Trust, supports the city's efforts
to make ADUs easier to build.
Please share the invitation.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan
Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2019 11:40 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly
Subject:FW: Media Statement: City Approves Legal Settlement in Police-Related Incident
FYI
Meghan Horrigan‐Taylor
Chief Communications Officer
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329‐2607 | Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org
From: City of Palo Alto <Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 11:38 AM
To: Horrigan‐Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Media Statement: City Approves Legal Settlement in Police‐Related Incident
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
MEDIA STATEMENT
For Immediate Release
November 20, 2019
2
CITY APPROVES LEGAL SETTLEMENT IN POLICE-RELATED
INCIDENT
Settlement terms include a monetary settlement and public apology from former
City police sergeant
PALO ALTO, CA.--- The City Council approved a settlement on Monday that resolves a lawsuit
arising out of a police-related incident.
To minimize the burden and expense of federal litigation, the City Council has elected to settle
the claims of Plaintiff Gustavo Alvarez arising out of a police-related incident which occurred in
February 2018. While the City and Police Department sharply dispute the vast majority of Mr.
Alvarez’ claims and have deep concerns about Mr. Alvarez’ continuing criminal behavior, the
City believes that this resolution is in the best interests of all involved – including the Police
Department, its police officers, and Mr. Alvarez.
Key settlement terms including a monetary settlement of $572,500 to Mr. Alvarez and his
attorneys, a public apology from Mr. Benitez (former sergeant with the Palo Alto Police
Department) and sworn police officer training scheduled for January 2020.
The Police Department is continuing its own internal investigation of the incident and since that
investigation remains pending, the City cannot comment further at this time.
For more about the City of Palo Alto, go to www.cityofpaloalto.org
ABOUT THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
3
Palo Alto, known as the “Birthplace of Silicon Valley,” is home to 69,700 residents and nearly
100,000 jobs. Unique among city organizations, the City of Palo Alto operates a full-array of
services including its own gas, electric, water, sewer, refuse and storm drainage provided at
very competitive rates for its customers. The City of Palo Alto offers robust community
amenities including 36 parks, 39 playgrounds, five community and youth centers, 41 miles of
walking/biking trails and five libraries. The City also manages a regional airport and provides
fire, police and emergency services. Palo Alto is an award-winning City recognized nationally
as innovative and well-managed, one of a small number of California cities with a AAA bond
rating. City services and performance also receive high marks from community members in the
annual citizen survey conducted by the National Research Center.
As the global center of technology and innovation, Palo Alto is the corporate headquarters for
many world-class companies and research facilities such as VMWare, Hewlett-Packard, IDEO,
Tesla, and Skype. Home to Stanford University and a top-ranked public school system, Palo
Alto also features beautiful and historic residential neighborhoods, vibrant shopping and retail
districts. Palo Alto has a highly educated and culturally sophisticated citizenry that is actively
engaged in making a difference both locally and globally.
For more information, visit the City of Palo Alto’s website at www.cityofpaloalto.org, or follow
the City on Twitter, Facebook, Medium, Next Door and Instagram, by going to
www.cityofpaloalto.org/connect. Sign-up for City newsletters by going to
www.cityofpaloalto.org/newslettersignup.
Sent By:
Meghan Horrigan-Taylor
Chief Communications Officer
City Manager's Office
Office Phone: 650-329-2607
Email: Meghan.Horrigan-Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, November 16, 2019 3:21 PM
To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Mayor;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; vallesR1969@att.net;
nick yovino; Cathy Lewis; terry; bballpod; beachrides; Irv Weissman; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu;
yicui@stanford.edu; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; Chris Field; hennessy; Council, City;
huidentalsanmateo; becerra.bere11@gmail.com; grinellelake@yahoo.com;
mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; margaret-
sasaki@live.com; Mark Waldrep; Kirk Sorensen; kclark; newsdesk; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com;
robert.andersen; Leodies Buchanan; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; Steven Feinstein;
fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; steve.hogg; jerry ruopoli;
leager; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; Joel Stiner;
toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; boardmembers
Subject:Fwd: DW "Clean Air- A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 2:39 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 2:06 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 3:06 AM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Sunday, November 17, 2019 1:47 AM
To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Mayor;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; vallesR1969@att.net;
nick yovino; Cathy Lewis; terry; bballpod; beachrides; Irv Weissman; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu;
yicui@stanford.edu; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; Chris Field; hennessy; Council, City;
huidentalsanmateo; becerra.bere11@gmail.com; grinellelake@yahoo.com;
mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; margaret-
sasaki@live.com; Mark Waldrep; Kirk Sorensen; kclark; newsdesk; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com;
robert.andersen; Leodies Buchanan; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; Steven Feinstein;
fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; steve.hogg; jerry ruopoli;
leager; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; Joel Stiner;
toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; boardmembers
Subject:Fwd: DW "Clean Air- A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 3:20 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David
Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>,
Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Mark
Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, <vallesR1969@att.net>, nick yovino
<npyovino@gmail.com>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, bballpod
<bballpod@aol.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>,
<shanhui.fan@stanford.edu>, <yicui@stanford.edu>, <diffenbaugh@stanford.edu>, Chris Field <cfield@ciw.edu>,
hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, huidentalsanmateo
<huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, <becerra.bere11@gmail.com>, <grinellelake@yahoo.com>,
<mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>, <info@superide1.com>, <midge@thebarretts.com>, <margaret‐
sasaki@live.com>, Mark Waldrep <mwaldrep@aixmediagroup.com>, Kirk Sorensen <kirkfsorensen@gmail.com>, kclark
<kclark@westlandswater.org>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>,
<kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, robert.andersen <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, Leodies Buchanan
<leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, Steven
Feinstein <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>, <fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net>, Raymond Rivas
<financialadvisor007@gmail.com>, <fmerlo@wildelectric.net>, steve.hogg <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, jerry ruopoli
<jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>, <pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com>, popoff
<popoff@pbworld.com>, <russ@topperjewelers.com>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, <toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov>,
boardmembers <boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
2
Date: Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 2:39 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 2:06 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 3:06 AM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 2:20 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 1:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:47 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
3
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:47 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
4
Date: Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:20 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 3:43 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 3:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 3:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:31 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
5
Date: Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:57 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:35 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:09 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:08 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:30 AM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
6
Date: Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 3:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 3:08 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 12:38 PM
Subject: DW "Clean Air‐ A Human Right". Excellent. Damage from PM 2.5. I opener
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sun. Nov. 3, 2019
To all‐ Important.
Last night DW ran this documentary on air pollution, "Clean Air, A Human Right". They have bad air pollution in
Deutschland, as do many parts of the U.S. The air in the Central Valley of California is often terrible, especially when
wildfires are putting smoke in here. I have been emailing about our breathing wildfire smoke for months every year (I
am in Fresno, Ca.) and so this documentary on DW caught my attention. It deals with particulate matter from cattle
production, power plants, woodfires, vehicle emissions, brake and tire wear in Germany. In Fresno, we get it from
engines, tires and brakes, people burning their fireplaces, farmers burning ag waste, ammonia from cattle manure
reacting with NOX from vehicle emissions, AND, for sure, from the huge wildfires which the authorities cannot fight
very effectively at present. Climate change has come on fast with 129 million dead trees in the Sierra, dry trees and
brush, low humidty and high winds. Gov. Newsom seems stunned by it all. He's had 100 National Guardsmen trimming
brush during 2019 (not 1,000). He has authorized more fire fighting rigs and teams, and CalFire has received the first of
seven C‐130s repurposed as tankers, with 4,000 gal. capacity each. The one 747 "Global Super Tanker" available to rent
drops 19,000 gal per pass. It is privately owned in Colorado. I want 50 of those for CalFire. They could form a national
fire fighting fleet, available for the entire U.S. They might cost $5 billion total to buy and convert but Trump and
Congress will spend $738 billion this year to defend poverty‐stricken Germany, Japan, S. Korea, all of poverty‐stricken
Europe, and the rest of the world. "Those poor people. We defeated them in WWII and ruined their countries 75 years
ago (and then we re‐built them)". And their commitment to the American people: "Let 'em hang". "We can always
balance the books on the backs of the ignorant, non‐voting American people". I keep urging them all to read history.
Here is the DW documentary on air pollution. 42:36.
https://www.dw.com/en/clean‐air‐a‐human‐right/av‐48647373
One weather‐man in Fresno likes to encourage people to burn. "No restrictions on burning tonight" he says with a
big smile. "Burning only with registered devices" he said last night for some counties here.
7
It should be criminal conduct to burn a fireplace in California's Central Valley at any time. Sometimes on winter
nights I walk down to the mailbox and the air is thick with chimney smoke. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District is just killing people here. AND THEN, they do zero monitoring of the air at the neighborhood level. You don't see
trucks with sensors or lasers or something coming down the street on heavily polluted nights. Apparently no
enforcement of the no‐burn rules, when they are in place. No fines. The morons who just have to have a roaring fire 200
nights per year just ignore the rules and damage their neighbors health. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District should be heavily penalized by the State and feds for failing to enforce its no‐burn rules if they law says they
should enforce them. If they go out and fine fireplace polluters, they should say so. Let's see the records. Do these Air
Pollution Control Districts in California have the legal authority to fine residents burning on no‐burn nights? If not, they
should have.
How to detect chimney violators? The police helicopter is in the sky over Fresno every night. Infra‐red cameras on
it would surely pick up heat coming from a chimney. GPS would tell them where the offending home is. Since they can
see heat emitted by a person on the ground, why not from a hot chimney? If we need a No‐burn monitoring helicopter
to do this, it should be obtained. It seems to me that with the police helicopter flying around Fresno every night
recording infra‐red images and GPS data, the air pollution authorities should be able to determine from that who is
burning their fireplace on no‐burn nights.
Child's play for Silicon Valley: A helicopter‐mounted infra‐red camera which stamps the date and time and the
GPS location on images of residential neighborhoods. The exact location of the hot chimney could be determined: GPS
co‐ordinates of the helicopter, altitude of the hilo, angle down to the house, get GPS co‐ordinates of the house. With
that recorded data, the air pollution control district coud go out and cite the offender. There is no excuse for not fining
people burning on no‐burn nights. Go 37 mph in a 35 mile‐zone in Fresno and the Fresno PD will issue you an expensive
ticket.
This documentary deals with air pollution in Germany from coal‐fired and other power plants, from industry, from
vehicle emissions, from tire and brake wear, from wood burning in homes and in fields, and from industrial farming‐ i.e.
from cows. Nothing about smoke from wildfires, but we know that it is a serious health hazard if inhaled, and how do
you avoid inhaling it? Since California will not obtain the 50 747 retardant tankers I want, we can all keep breathing
wildfire smoke. Those 747s could suppress wildfires much better than the little planes and hilos they use now.
Here is the one available 747‐400 Global Supertanker in Nov. 2018. Here it was dropping on the remnants of the
Camp Fire in 2018. 19,200 gal. per drop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW0XQI525UE
Here is more vid. showing the plane: The audio starts here at 38 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygXto9jdQP0
Governor Newsom is still asleep at the switch. Because he has been, he keeps blaming the wildfires on 100 years of
negligence by PG&E in maintaining their electric infrastructure, but climate change has come on with a vengeance in
recent years, and that is the root cause of these horrific wildfires in California. There are 129 million dead trees just in
the Sierra, killed largely by a five year drought, and they burn great. More elsewhere in the State. Kindling‐dry trees and
brush, and then 80 mph off‐shore winds make for disastrous wildfires. Gov. Newsom has had 100 National Guardsmen
trimming brush since he took office earlier this year. I wrote this in the AM today. Tonight the ABC network news
reported that Trump is excoriating Newsom for his "terrible forest management practices". He is threatening to cut off
money to Calif. to deal with the wildfires. I'm not sure I follow his logic there. Trump knows he did not and will not carry
California, so, "Let them hang", I guess. A let 'em hang attitude to 40 million Americans should produce a strong
reaction, and strong revulsion, by most Americans. Trump is telling Californians that he is damaging their health and that
they can all go to hell. I'm really starting to warm to Trump.
8
KCBS‐SF said the following in the past few days: These fires are not all forest fires. Brush is more involved in the
Kincaid fire in Sonoma Co. than are trees. A CalFire expert said that that fire was "un‐fightable" for much of the time.
"You try to start back‐fires or cut fire lines, but those are not effective in such a fast moving fire". It is 80% contained by
Nov. 4, 2019. The issues are heat, low humidity, dry vegetation, and then 60‐80 mph winds. He said that the Kincaid fire
was a wind‐driven fire.
It is common knowledge and oft repeated that huge amounts of fuel have been allowed to accumulate in the
forests over 100 years. We have jumped on every small fire and put them out. Now we pay the price with higher temps,
lower humidity and high winds, and especially with 129 million dead trees in the Sierra. Maybe that is what Trump
meant about forest management practices‐ letting all of that fuel accumulate. Hard to lay 100 years of that on Newsom.
Since entering office, Newsom has had 100 Guardsmen trimming brush in Orinda, Los Gatos and Woodside, Ca.,
KCBS said. He has authorized new, additional fire‐fighting apparatus and crews. He and Gov. Swarzenegger received at a
ceremony the first of the seven C‐130s that Diane Feinstein obtained for CalFire from the Coast Guard. These have a
4,000 gal. capacity.
Last night the news showed many video cameras that have been installed in the wilds of Calif. to detect fires at
their outset. I recommended a year ago that devices including video cameras, thermometers, smoke detectors, and
wind and humidity measuring devices be placed all over California in fire‐prone areas. PG&E has been installing weather
stations. Probably about what I have suggested. We need lots of those. The PUC should order them installed.
So, KCBS asked, "What can be done, given the limited resources California has". "Clear a defensible space around
your home and have a go‐bag ready", were the answers.
.
Trump could provide the $5 billion needed to buy and convert 50 747s to tanker duty by an executive order, but
we will spend $738 billion this f.y., to defend the entire world. He won't lift a finger to help California with these fires,
and Californians should respond in kind, sort of. We should not be defending Germany and Japan, the two richest
countries after the U.S. See vids of Germany and Japan. Happy, relaxed, prosperous people with high speed rail and
magnificent national health care. If anyone threatens them, they just call the White House.
Robert Reich was interviewed the other night. He and others are saying that PG&E has put profits ahead of safety
in not making their infrastructure more resistant to failure. What those making that argument fail to recognize is that
climate change has come on fast, faster than anyone expected. Rising sea levels by 2100 was the thought, not vast areas
of dead trees and brush, and higher termperatures and lower humidity. That is important. It has happened faster than
anyone expected and it will keep getting worse. PG&E is heavily regulated by the California PUC. Where were they in
ordering PG&E to harden its electric infrastructure in past decades? Let's see the transcripts of their meetings where
that was often considered and voted upon. I think that PG&E has been a good utility, and has served California well.
There is plenty of blame to go around for not preparing earlier for climate change.
I lived in Santa Clara, Calif. from 1995 to 2000. That city operates a municipal electric utility, and the rates were dirt
cheap. Turbines and generators‐ Santa Clara makes its own e‐. Perhaps in any consideration of making PG&E a
customer‐owned or publicly‐owned utility operated by the State or municipalities, the people who run the Santa Clara,
Ca. electric utility should be consulted as to how they do it. Would the State of California or 58 counties really run PG&E
better than it is run now? Maybe we should reform the Calif. PUC first. I have heard that they can be unduly influenced.
This DW documentary covers the chemistry of air pollution better than any others I have seen. Note the
pathologist near the start at Cologne (Koln) University Hospital, Dr. Marcus Rothschild, examining a human lung. Note
the black spots on the lung from the 50 year‐old non‐smoking victim having inhaled PM 2.5 particles. Rothschild says
that inhaling these particles over time "can lead to fibrosis in the lungs and to anthracosis" (black lung). "Fibrosis results
from chronic inflammation caused by particulate matter entering the alvioli. It is a proliferation of connective tissue
9
which results in reduced elasticity of the lung. The patient experiences shortness of breath, a hunger for air that is not
curable". Does having that sound alright for you and yours? Note again that it is not curable.
Munchen, Stuttgart, Koln‐ terrible air. Ich war in Koln in 1973, und die Luft scheint OK, aber jetzt ich weiss dass
es war gefahrlich. Note all of the NOX from diesel engines in the documentary. This reacts with ammonia in the air to
produce particulate matter. Diesel powered cars can now be retrofitted to reduce the nitrous oxide emissions. No
wonder VW got into some emissions cheating. They are discussing a ban on diesel cars in some cities in Germany. I
wonder if the retrofit technology shown should be required for older diesel cars in California. Does California currently
require that new diesel vehicles sold here be a lot cleaner than the diesels sold in Germany? Hard to believe that we do.
In Germany, some diesel manufacturers are going to pay 80% of the cost of retrofits for their cars in some cities.
Technology now permits reducing both NOX and particulate emmissions from cars. It used to be one or the other.
Germany is one thing, but see in the documentary the situation in India. Horrific air pollution. It has even made
the network news here in the past few nights‐ pollution in Delhi. People use coal‐fired irons to iron clothes and wood
stoves to cook in India. Farmers burn stubble. In Germany, more and more people are using wood stoves for heat.
Be it wood stoves in India and Germany or brush and forest fires in California, or morons in Fresno burning their
fireplaces, it is the burning of wood, the impact of cattle, combined with pollution from vehicles that puts much of our
horrific pollution into the air. Remember CBS's Dr. John LaPook's statement about a year ago: "Smoke from wildfires
contains thousands of compounds". That would be true especially when towns are being burned with their cadmium,
mercury, lead and other heavy metals, their asbestos, acids, pesticides and herbicides, paint, plastics, building materials,
tires, petroleum, fertilizers and other organic materials. And we are breathing that!
Atmete ein und atmete aus. Breath in and out. It's a tough habit to give up.
Now some passages from the DW documentary that really caught my attention. Note these as you watch it again:
1) Particulate matter is: PM 10 10 microns in dia.
PM 2.5 microns and less.
PM 0.1 really fine particles.
The small particles pass through the lungs and get into the bloodstream, the documentary says. They impact
the immune system. They inflame and block arteries and cause heart attacks and strokes. They can cause asthma,
bronchitis and pneumonia. They can cause fibrosis in the lungs and anthracosis (black lung). Note Dr. Marcus Rothschild
at University Hospitall in Koln showing us a lung covered with black spots. I notice that all of this medical horror from
breathing polluted air is not prominently discussed in California by elected officials, by the California Air Resources
Board, by the local air polution control districts, like the one in the San Joaquin Valley, and certainly not by local TV news
in the Central Valley. Mum's the word. Governor Newsom is not all over TV during these weeks‐long wildfires detailing
all of this for the people of Calfornia. He does not appear with a pathologist like Dr. Rothschild in Koln, or pathologists
and pulmonologists from Stanford and UCSF, e.g., who could raise the alarm as to what air pollution, and especially
wildfire smoke, is doing to us. That's what Newsom should be doing. He's asleep at the switch on getting the 747
tankers, and he's AWOL on raising the alarm about the health impact of breathing wildfire smoke. He has the health
experts at his disposal.
WRT traffic, REGARDING TRAFFIC, in Germany, 63% of PRIMARY particulate matter is from brakes and tires.
37% is from engines. Surprising, no? Read on, though, to see what the NOX from engines does when it reacts chemically
in the atmosphere with ammonia from cattle manure. It creates secondary particulate matter.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Daligga, Teddy <Edward.Daligga@PHD.SCCGOV.ORG>
Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2019 5:16 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Shikada, Ed
Cc:Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Cormack, Alison; Council,
City; Flores, Jaime (PHD); Daligga, Teddy
Subject:City Funding Opportunity - SCCPHD Healthy Cities Program - Applications Due December 4, 2019
Attachments:HEALTHY CITIES Funding Announcement - 2020-21.pdf; HEALTHY CITIES Funding Application -
2020-21.pdf; Healthy Cities 2020-21 Budget Form.xlsx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Honorable Mayor Filseth and Mr. Shikada,
The Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPHD) is pleased to inform you that funding resources are
available to all cities in Santa Clara County pursuing chronic disease and injury prevention strategies known to increase
access to safe opportunities to engage in physical activity and access to healthy food and beverage environments. Cities
and towns within the County are invited to submit an application to support work that helps achieve any/all of the
following:
1. Adopt and implement comprehensive healthy nutrition and procurement standards and policies for all city
vending machines and food provided in government buildings, meetings, events, celebrations, programming,
and by subcontractors.
2. Adopt and implement Transportation Demand Management policies that encourage mode shift among
employees and/or city residents.
3. Participate in SCCPHD’s Healthy Worksite Award Program and adopt worksite policies that support healthy
environments and healthy behaviors.
The SCCPHD has up to $40,000 available to fund cities to participate in this effort. Applications and budget forms must
be submitted to Jaime Flores by 5pm December 4, 2019. For additional details please see the attached announcement,
application, and budget form. If you or your staff have any questions related to the funding application, please direct
them to me by November 27.
In partnership,
Teddy
Teddy Daligga, MPH
Health Program Specialist
Healthy Cities Program
County of Santa Clara, Public Health Department
1775 Story Rd, Ste 120, San José, CA 95122
Office: 408‐817‐6846
Pronouns: He, Him, His
2
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is
intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are
prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must
delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return
email.
County of Santa Clara
Public Health Department
Public Health Administration
976 Lenzen Avenue, 2nd Floor
San José, CA 95126
408.792.5040
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian
County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
November 13, 2019
Funding opportunity to implement transportation mode shift, healthy nutrition, and
healthy worksite strategies in Santa Clara County jurisdictions
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Manager,
In November 2016, the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department launched
the Healthy Cities Program, to both recognize cities for their work to reduce chronic
disease and injury, and to encourage cities to adopt evidence-based policies to
improve the health of their residents and employees.
The Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPHD) is pleased to inform
you that funding resources are available to all cities in Santa Clara County pursuing
chronic disease and injury prevention strategies known to increase access to safe
opportunities to engage in physical activity and access to healthy food and
beverage environments. Cities and towns within the County are invited to submit an
application to support work that helps achieve any/all of the following:
1. Adopt and implement comprehensive healthy nutrition and procurement
standards and policies for all city vending machines and food provided in
government buildings, meetings, events, celebrations, programming, and by
subcontractors.
2. Adopt and implement Transportation Demand Management policies that
encourage mode shift among employees and/or city residents.
3. Participate in SCCPHD’s Healthy Worksite Award Program and adopt worksite
policies that support healthy environments and healthy behaviors.
The SCCPHD has up to $40,000 available to fund cities to participate in this effort.
Funding awards could range from $5,000-$25,000. The amount each city is awarded
will be negotiable and determined based on the proposed strategies, quality of
responses, and total number of responses from cities. It is possible that not all cities
that apply will be awarded funding.
If your City is interested in participating in the 2020-2021 funding cycle, please
observe the timeline below:
Action Date
Healthy Cities Application and Budget
Form completed and submitted to:
Jaime.Flores@phd.sccgov.org
December 4, 2019 by 5:00 pm
Award Notification December 19, 2019
Scope of Work and Final Budget
Negotiations and Contract Signing
January 2, 2020 – January 17, 2020
Project Period February 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020
For additional information or if you have questions related to the application, please
contact Teddy Daligga at 408-817-6846 or edward.daligga@phd.sccgov.org.
Sincerely,
Teddy Daligga
Program Lead, Healthy Cities Program
Santa Clara County Public Health Department
CC:
City Councilmembers
Santa Clara County Public Health Department
Healthy Cities Program
FY 2020 – 2021 Funding Application
The Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCCPHD) is pleased to inform you that
funding resources are available to all cities in Santa Clara County pursuing chronic disease and
injury prevention strategies known to promote health equity and increase access to safe
opportunities to engage in physical activity and access to healthy food and beverage
environments. Cities and towns within the County are invited to submit an application to
support work that helps achieve the following:
1. Adopt and implement comprehensive healthy nutrition and procurement standards and
policies for all city vending machines and food provided in government buildings,
meetings, events, celebrations, programming, and by subcontractors.
2. Adopt and implement Transportation Demand Management policies that encourage
mode shift among employees and/or city residents.
3. Participate in SCCPHD’s Healthy Worksite Award Program and adopt worksite policies
that support healthy environments and healthy behaviors.
The SCCPHD has up to $40,000 available to fund cities and towns within Santa Clara County to
participate in this effort. In addition to funding resources, cities and their staff may elect to
access SCCPHD’s Registered Dietitians and other staff with expertise on procurement standards,
transportation demand management, and worksite wellness programs. The amount each city is
awarded will be negotiable and determined based on the proposed strategies, quality of
responses, and total number of responses from cities. It is possible that not all cities that apply
will be awarded funding. Award amounts could range from $5,000 to $25,000.
How to Apply
Please complete the following sections:
I. Contact Information
II. Priority Areas and Anticipated Reach
III. Budget Justification
This completed funding application, along with the budget justification, must be submitted by:
Wednesday, December 4, 2019, 5:00 pm
To Jaime Flores at Jaime.Flores@PHD.SCCGOV.ORG
Please submit questions related to the application to Teddy Daligga at
edward.daligga@phd.sccgov.org by Wednesday, November 27. Applications submitted by the
December 4, 2019 5pm deadline will be evaluated and decisions will be made by December
20, 2019. Negotiations on Scope of Work, final budget, and contract signing will occur between
January 2, 2020 and January 17, 2020, with a targeted start date in February 2020.
Santa Clara County Public Health Department
Healthy Cities Program
Evaluation criteria include:
• Priorities – Totality of the proposed work (including number of strategies selected)
• Reach – Number of individuals affected and impacting those who will benefit most
• Equity – Strategies selected and reach of strategies will have a significant effect on
populations disproportionately impacted by lack of access to physical activity
opportunities and healthy food
• Impact – Anticipated long-term or sustained changes
• Budget – Alignment of costs in budget to proposed priority areas and strategies
• Previous Contract Performance (if applicable) – Evaluation of previous performance
related to meeting project deliverables and adhering to project budget and spending to-
date
I. Contact Information
Date:
City Name:
Contact Personnel
Name:
Title:
City Department:
Phone: Alt. Phone:
Email:
Address:
Santa Clara County Public Health Department
Healthy Cities Program
II. Priority Areas and Anticipated Reach
Cities and towns may choose to apply to implement one or more priority areas by November 1,
2020. Please indicate which priority or priorities the City or Town is applying for by checking the
priority area box and any strategies within that priority area that the city would utilize funding to
implement.
Priority 1: Adopt and implement comprehensive Nutrition and Food Procurement Standards
Adopt and implement a citywide policy to require 100% of beverages and no less than
50% of food served and sold at city meetings, celebrations, events, as part of city-
sponsored programming, and at city-run food establishments (if applicable) to be
healthy, and that 100% of all food and beverages sold in vending on city property be
healthy.
Priority 2: Adopt, implement and pilot comprehensive Transportation Demand
Management policies.
Adopt and pilot new policies to encourage city employees to walk and bike to work, or
use alternate forms of transportation (other than driving alone to/from work). Policies
include offering employees secure bike parking, providing shower facilities, providing
flexible scheduling, providing preferred parking to employees that carpool, providing
commuter benefits to employees that walk or bike, offering employees who walk or bike
to work a guaranteed ride home in the event of emergencies, and providing employees
who walk, bike, or take transit to work access to a city vehicle for work-related meetings.
Priority 3: Participate in the County’s Healthy Worksite Award Program.
Access the Public Health Department’s cadre of experts on promoting workplace
environments that support healthy behaviors and choices. Public Health staff will provide
cities with technical assistance in assessing existing wellness policies, provide
recommendations for improvements, provide policies for cities to adopt, and support
cities in establishing a Wellness Committee.
III. Budget Justification
Please complete the attached budget form and detail the expenses the City will incur for the
priority areas being applied for. Include Personnel and other costs (supplies, printing, etc.) that
the city would be reimbursed for.
Tobacco Free Communities - Budget for Cities
A.
$ -
B.
XX% x G18
$ -
C..
$ -
D.
$ -
Operating Expenses [Office Supplies; Printing (external vendor)- factsheets, etc.; Postage; Duplicating (internal small jobs)]
For expense categories C-F, please provide a short narrative of the expense details that makes clear the expense and the purpose in
general. In those cases where expenses may be siginificantly different, you may enter multiple expenses for that category. For example,
category E could use seperate lines for local mileage, costs to travel to a meeting or conference and the expenses related to hosting a
conference or meeting, if applicable.
Travel/Mileage will include...
Example: Fringe benefits are calculated at XX% of
Fringe Benefits Subtotal:
Travel/Mileage (no out-of-state travel)
FRINGE BENEFITS
Position Name 3
Staff person
Operating Subtotal:
$ -
Salary Subtotal:
If hiring a consultant, list Consultant here
Consultant (if applicable) -
Position 2 -
Position 3 -
JOB DESCRIPTIONS:
Consultant Name
Write a brief job description for each of the postions/titles listed above. The descriptions should correspond to the scope of work/workplan task and goals. It
is not necessary to repeat descriptions for duplicated positions except for those positions whose work differs from the others of the same title/position. If
hiring a consultant, list the purpose for hiring the consultant and the specific tasks and deliverables they will accomplish - these should align with the scope of
work/workplan task and goals.
Position 1 -
$ - Staff person
Position Name 2
Position Name 1
Santa Clara County Healthy Cities Program
Upon Execution - January 31, 2021
Budget and Justification Worksheet
City Name:
Salary Amount
=(Salary x
FTE%)/Months First & Last Name
BUDGET CATEGORY
SALARIES (No payment for worker's comp)
Months Requested Annual Salary (Full Time
Basis)
$ - Staff person
Position/Title % of Full Time (FTE)
Assigned to TFC
Step 1‐ Please indicate type of budget desired: Reimbursable
TFC Budget 1 of 2 11/20/2019
Tobacco Free Communities - Budget for Cities
$ -
E.
$ -
$ -
$ -
F.
$ -
$ -
$ -
G.
$ -
BUDGET
TOTAL: $ -
Travel/Mileage Subtotal:
Subcontracts/Consultants
INDIRECTS/Administrative Overhead
INDIRECTS MAY NOT EXCEED 10% OF SALARIES (salary subtotal from above). If indirects are claimed as an expense please indicate the basis for
the charge. For example 5% of salaries would be 5% x 131 = 7.
Indirects Subtotal:
If a Subcontractor is part of this budget, please complete the second tab of this sheet, labeled "Subcontractor Detail". List here the
Subcontractor/Conosultant Name and deliverable.
Contracts
Subcontractor/Consultant Subtotal:
Other Costs (Educational Materials- signage, training guides, posters, etc.)
TFC Budget 2 of 2 11/20/2019
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 5:52 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:November 18, 2019 Council Meeting, Items #9 and #17
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
November 18, 2019
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
NOVEMBER 18, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #9: STATE REVOVLING FUND APPLICATION
AGENDA ITEM #17: (a) APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM TO RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACE REPORT; AND (b) APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH MOUNTAIN
VIEW AND VALLEY WATER
Dear City Council:
I urge you to remove both of these items from your agenda, because the
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not adequate to
evaluate significant effects related to sea level rise that were not
discussed in the previous EIR, and you are prohibited from approving the
State Revolving Fund Agreement and the Agreement with Mountain View and
Valley Water until you abide by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
CEQA requires you to prepare a Subsequent EIR due the significant
environmental effects regarding sea level rise, and CEQA prohibits you
from approving a project that violates adopted the City Council adopted
Seal Level Rise Policy.
You recently adopted a Sea Level Rise Policy based on a presentation that
showed the path of any new recycled water pipeline being inundated by sea
water during the term of the agreement discussed in the staff reports for
these agenda items.
At the March 18, 2019 City Council meeting the Council unanimously adopted
the following Sea Level Rise Adaption Policy:
2
MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to:
A. Accept the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy, which will serve as a
guide for the development of a subsequent Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan.
This Plan will serve as the Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan-Sea Level Rise chapter; and
B. Direct Staff to return to Council with a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan
by December 2020.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
The Policy includes the following item #2:
"2. For critical development and infrastructure (e.g., wastewater
treatment facility or utilities that are essential to public health and
safety), a risk assessment should be completed based on the SLR
projections to 2100 and to include the lifetime of the building using the
Medium-high or Extreme Risk Aversion Projections[.]"
See Power Point slides 24-26 at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=72191.97&
BlobID=69942 that accompanied staff's presentation of the agenda item on
Seal Level Rise.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, November 16, 2019 10:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Idea about charging toll on University Avenue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To all:
I wanted to flag this article and ask you to discard the notion that was raised exploring cities,
including Palo Alto, charging tolls on major streets.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/10/29/berman-expects-big-legislative-push-on-
boosting-housing-supply
While Berman said he will continue to fight for grant funding for grade separation (a
realignment of the rail corridor so that train tracks would not intersect with local roads), he was
less assertive when Fine asked him about the prospect of allowing cities to charge tolls on
major streets. Fine pointed to East Palo Alto, which has floated the idea of turning University
Avenue into a tolled road.
While East Palo Alto has raised this idea, I hope that Palo Alto would not consider following suit.
If Palo Alto were to charge a toll to access Palo Alto on University Avenue from 101 or elsewhere, for
example, traffic would then shift to free access points, placing a greater burden on already congested
corridors and adjacent residents.
A toll would also impact residents, local business, employees and service providers entering through
tolled access points, a cost which would quickly get passed on to local residents and consumers
as 'the cost of doing business in Palo Alto.' Thus an entry toll becomes a tax on Palo Alto residents,
one which they haven't voted on.
Please place this idea on the discard pile where it belongs.
Thank you.
Best,
Kathy Jordan
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
16
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 18, 2019
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 16-Selection of Applicants to Interview for the Historic
Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Planning and
Transportation Commission
The City Clerk's Office has learned that Sally Tomlinson has removed her name from
consideration for the Parks and Recreation Commission.
The revised list of Applicants to consider for an interview are as follows:
Historic Resources Board (Three Positions)
1. David Bower {Incumbent)
2. Valerie Driscoll
3. Christian Pease
4. Deborah Shepherd {Incumbent)
Parks and Recreation Commission (Four Positions)
1. Amanda Brown
2. Adrianne Chang
3. Jeff LaMere (Incumbent)
4. Ryan McCauley {Incumbent)
5. Jackie Olson
6. Keith Reckdahl {Incumbent)
7. Mark Robinson
8. Curtis Smolar
9. Brent Kevin Yamashita
I of2
Planning and Transportation Commission (One Position)
1. Doug Burns
2. Rebecca Eisenberg
3. Angela Evans
4. Barton Hechtman
5. Karl Matzke
6. Randolph Tsien
7. Asher Waldfogel (Incumbent)
8. Christopher Kan
Beth Minor
City Clerk
2 of2
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
17
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
DEAN BATCHELOR, DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
NOVEMBER 18, 2019
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 17 -Approval of the Addendum to the 2015
Environmer:ital Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Program,
and Approval of an Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto, City of Mountain
View, and Santa Clara Valley Water District to Advance Resilient Water Reuse
Programs in Santa Clara County, Including Funding for an Advanced Water
Purification Facility in Palo Alto, a Long-Term Transfer of Effluent from the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant to Valley Water, and Related Commitments
The attached Agreement replaces Attachment A to CMR 10627. Section 1 (Term) of the
Agreement has been revised to clarify the provision after further discussion with the other
parties Valley Water Board and City of Mountain View. The attached Agreement also includes
Appendix 1 which was unintentionally omitted from the version distributed with the original
Council packet. No other changes were made to the Agreement.
Staff requests that Council approve the Agreement and delegate to the City Manager
the authority to execute the Agreement in substantially the form attached, subject to minor
non-substantive changes approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney. Two other
governing boards (the Valley Water Board and Mountain View City Council) will be considering
and approving this Agreement after or at the same time as the Palo Alto City Council, and it is
possible that minor changes may be requested as a result of one or both of those governing
boards' actions. The limited flexibility requested will allow the City Manager to execute the
Agreement with non-substantive changes, so that the Agreement may be fully executed this
calendar year in time to include it with the City of Palo Alto's State Revolving Fund {SRF) loan
application package for the Local Plant design and construction.
I of2
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
'~~(]$ Dean Batchelor
Director of Utilities
&d_f75~1t.-
Brad Egglesto~ 1
Director of Public Works
2 of2
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT TO ADVANCE RESILIENT WATER REUSE
PROGRAMS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
This Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilient Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County
(Agreement) effective December 10, 2019, is entered into by and between the City of Palo Alto,
a California chartered municipal corporation (Palo Alto), the City of Mountain View, a California
charter city and municipal corporation (Mountain View), and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, a Special District created by the California Legislature (Valley Water). Palo Alto,
Mountain View, and Valley Water are referred to herein collectively as "Parties" or individually
as "Party".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Valley Water have
established policy goals for long term sustainability, which include maintaining effective use
of existing infrastructure, lowering the carbon footprint of energy use, deploying water use
efficiency programs, capturing local storm water, managing groundwater basins, and
expanding use of recycled water; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have long-standing responsibilities and services to supply water to
their customers in Santa Clara County (County) under both normal and drought conditions;
and
WHEREAS, Valley Water and Palo Alto executed a Memorandum of Understanding on
August 28, 2017, for the purpose of developing plans and studies to expand the production
and use of recycled and purified water within the County; and
WHEREAS, Valley Water and Mountain View executed an agreement on October 11, 2017,
to Assess the Feasibility of Water Reuse Alternatives, by working together and with other
government agencies to expand production and use of recycled and purified water within
the County; and
WHEREAS, the Parties seek to develop locally reliable water supply sources to offset
supplies of water that would otherwise be imported via the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta and its tributaries, including the Tuolumne River and other mountain streams; and
WHEREAS, the Parties together are finalizing the Northwest County Recycled Water
Strategic Plan to inform their respective policy makers of opportunities in the north-west
portion of the County, including Palo Alto and Mountain View, for groundwater recharge,
1
Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilient
Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County
2019111401
further recycled water development, and deployment of highly purified wastewater to
supplement drinking water; and
WHEREAS, increasing the use of recycled water decreases the volume of wastewater
effluent discharged to San Francisco Bay where harm to aquatic life can occur; and
WHEREAS, Valley Water has established a goal that at least 10 percent of total County
water demands be supplied by recycled water by 2025; and
WHEREAS, decreasing the salinity of the treated wastewater from the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant {RWQCP) through further treatment will allow it to be used on more
types of flora, especially redwood trees, thereby increasing its overall use; and
WHEREAS, Palo Alto and Mountain View benefit from the improved recycled water quality,
which will facilitate use of recycled water on a wider range of landscaping and allow the
Cities to expand their recycled water distribution infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the Parties recognize the importance of source control for water reuse and are
studying measures to address the issue; and
WHEREAS Valley Water is currently researching and piloting both indirect and direct potable
reuse technologies within the County; and
WHEREAS, decreasing the salinity in Recycled Water used for irrigation keeps that salt and
other constituents out of the soil and ultimately out of the groundwater; and
WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that well-purposed and managed partnerships can serve
the public interest more effectively than individual efforts to develop and manage water
supplies; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to cooperate to achieve the most cost effective,
environmentally beneficial utilization of treated wastewater in the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, and for other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
Parties hereby agree as follows.
AGREEMENT
ARTICLE A. Definitions
As used in this Agreement, the following terms have the following meanings.
2
Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilient
Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County
2019111401
(a) Agreement: The December 10, 2019, Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilient
Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County between Palo Alto, Mountain View,
and Valley Water.
(b) ~California Environmental Quality Act.
(c) Designated Representatives: Employees or officials designated in writing by each of
the respective Parties to serve as representatives for purposes of this Agreement. In
the absence of such written notice, the Designated Representatives shall be the
Valley Water Chief Executive Officer, the Mountain View City Manager, and the Palo
Alto City Manager.
(d) Dispute Resolution Procedure: The alternative dispute resolution process to be used
for disputes arising out of this Agreement. The procedure is set forth in more detail
in Section 23 below.
(e) Effective Date: December 10, 2019 shall be the date this Agreement is effective.
(f) Effluent: Tertiary treated wastewater from the RWQCP that meets National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements.
(g) Effluent Transfer Option: Valley Water's option to secure Effluent, as described in
Section 11 of this Agreement.
(h) Enhanced Recycled Water: Non-potable water produced by the Local Plant which is
blended with Recycled Water from the RWQCP.
(i) Local Plant: A salinity removal unit to produce 1.25 MGD Enhanced Recycled Water
for the RWQCP Service Area.
0) MGD: Million gallons per day, expressed as an annual average, unless otherwise
noted.
(k) Minimum Flow Deliverv: An annual average of 9 MGD of Effluent to be supplied by
the RWQCP to Valley Water, consistent with Appendix 1.
(I) NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act.
(m) O&M: Operation and maintenance.
3
Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilient
Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County
2019111401
(n) Parties: The City of Palo Alto ("Palo Alto"), the City of Mountain View ("Mountain
View"), and the Santa Clara Valley Water District ("Valley Water'').
(o) Recycled Water: Effluent that is treated to meet California Code of Regulations Title
22 requirements for non-potable water.
(p) Regional Plant: A purification treatment facility capable of treating Effluent flows of
9 MGD or greater for the purpose of regional water supply benefit.
(q) Regional Program: Valley Water's program to derive benefits from the Effluent
under the terms of this Agreement.
(r) Remaining Funds: Funds available for use by the RWQCP Partners pursuant to
Section S(f).
(s) Responsible Agencies: Responsible Agencies are agencies other than the lead
agency, that have some discretionary authority for carrying out or approving a
project, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act and its associated
regulations.
(t) RWQCP: The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
(u) RWQCP Partners: The cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos; the Town of
Los Altos Hills; the East Palo Alto Sanitary District and Stanford University.
(v) RWQCP Service Area: RWQCP Service Area includes the service areas of the RWQCP
Partners.
(w) Startup: The point in time when Valley Water begins to receive Effluent, following
initial testing and commissioning, or the point in time when Valley Water begins to
pay for the Effluent as part of its Regional Program, pursuant to this Agreement,
whichever is earlier.
(x) Term: The total duration of the Agreement as described in Section 1 of this
Agreement.
(y) Water Supply Option: Palo Alto's and Mountain View's option to secure additional
water supply as described in Section 19 of this Agreement.
ARTICLE B -General Provisions
4
Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilient
Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County
2019111401
1. Term.
This Agreement shall be in effect on December 10, 2019. The Term of the Agreement
shall be dependent upon the actions of the Parties pursuant to Articles C and D as set forth
more particularly below:
a. If Valley Water exercises its Effluent Transfer Option within 13 years of the
Effective Date and the Local Plant~ constructed in accordance with Section 5, then the
Term of this Agreement shall be for as long as Valley Water is required to or elects to
make annual payments for the Effluent (pursuant to Section 12, Section 17 and Section
20), up to a maximum of 63 years from Startup (not to exceed 76 years from the
Effective Date). If Valley Water exercises its rights under Section 20, then the Term shall
expire 30 years after the commencement date of operation of the Local Plant or the
actual date of termination under Section 20 if later.
b. If Valley Water exercises its Effluent Transfer Option within 13 years of the Effective
Date and the Local Plant is not constructed in accordance with Section 5, then the Term
of this Agreement shall be for as long as Valley Water is required to or elects to make
annual payments for the Effluent (pursuant to Section 12, Section 17 and Section 20}, up
to a maximum of 63 years from Startup (not to exceed 76 years from the Effective
Date). If Valley Water exercises its rights under Section 20, then the Term shall expire
18 years after the Effective Date or the actual date of termination under Section 20 if
later.
c. If Valley Water does not exercise the Effluent Transfer Option and the Local Plant is
constructed in accordance with Section 5, the Term shall expire 30 years after the
commencement date of operation of the Local Plant.
d. If Valley Water does not exercise the Effluent Transfer Option and the Local Plant is not
constructed in accordance with Section 5, the Term of this Agreement shall expire 18
years after the Effective Date.
2. Governance.
A joint committee comprised of elected officials from Valley Water, Palo Alto and Mountain
View will be established to review and accept updates on the design, construction, operation
and regulatory compliance of the Local Plant and the Regional Plant if the Regional Plant is
located in Palo Alto. If the Regional Plant is not located in Palo Alto then the aforementioned
committee will operate only with respect to the Local Plant. The committee's role will be
advisory to staff and governing bodies of the Parties.
ARTICLE C -Local Plant
5
Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilient
Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County
2019111401
3. Local Plant Beneficiaries
The Parties agree that the Local Plant will be developed by Palo Alto and operated for the
benefit of Recycled Water customers of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and potentially other
RWQCP Partners. However, Palo Alto and Mountain View shall ensure that funding from Valley
Water shall only be used to benefit users in Santa Clara County.
4. Local Plant Ownership, Operation and Maintenance, and Location
The Parties agree that Palo Alto shall own the Local Plant and be responsible for its design,
construction, operation, maintenance, ultimate decommissioning, and site restoration. The
Local Plant shall be located within the RWQCP site.
Palo Alto, as the Lead Agency under CEQA for the Local Plant, has prepared an Addendum to
the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Environmental Impact Report certified and
adopted in 2015 evaluating the environmental impacts of the Local Plant.
5. Local Plant Capital Costs
a. Valley Water's Contribution. The Local Plant capital cost is estimated to be $20 Million
(2019 dollars). Valley Water's contribution shall be $16 Million (2019 dollars), escalated
annually based on Valley Water's Yield-to-Maturity Rate as published in Valley Water's
Quarterly Performance Reports to the Board of Directors for the fourth quarter of each
fiscal year (hereinafter referred to as "$16 Million Contribution"). Valley Water's $16
Million Contribution towards the Local Plant and, if applicable, other projects described
in Section S(f), in conjunction with the Annual Option Payments set forth in Section 6,
shall constitute full and final consideration for its right to secure the Minimum Flow
Delivery.
b. Palo Alto and Mountain View's Contribution. Subject to Section S(d), Palo Alto's and
Mountain View's combined capital contribution shall be the difference between the
actual cost of the Local Plant and Valley Water's $16 Million Contribution.
c. Benefits of Grant Funding. Any federal grant funding sought by Palo Alto or Mountain
View, or both, for the Local Plant shall not include the San Jose Area Water Reclamation
and Reuse Program under the Title XVI Program. The benefits of any grant funding for
the Local Plant shall be split by Palo Alto and Mountain View as determined in and
through a separate agreement between Palo Alto and Mountain View.
6
Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilient
Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County
2019111401
d. In the Event of Elevated Costs. Should the lowest responsible construction bid, or any
other circumstance, result in a Local Plant total project cost above the $20 Million (2019
dollars) estimate, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View may elect to cover the increase
(above Valley Water's $16 Million contribution) independently, without an additional
contribution from Valley Water. If Palo Alto and/or Mountain View are unable to
identify a funding source or secure low interest rate loans to sufficiently cover costs
above the $20 Million total project cost estimate, Palo Alto or Mountain View or both
may request to meet and confer with Valley Water to potentially modify this
Agreement. However, absent such a modification to the Agreement, Vailey Water's
contribution shall be limited to the $16 Million Contribution.
e. In the Event of No Local Plant. If Palo Alto and Mountain View elect not to proceed with
or complete construction of the Local Plant within 13 years of the Effective Date, they
shall provide written notice to Valley Water within this 13-year period and they shall still
receive the $16 Million Contribution from Valley Water so long as such funds are
allocated and utilized consistent with the provisions of Sections S(f) and S{g).
f. Possible Alternative to Local Plant. If the Local Plant is not constructed, any portion of
Valley Water's $16 Million Contribution not utilized for the capital of the Local Plant,
defined as Remaining Funds, will be available for other projects, specified below. Palo
Alto and Mountain View will consult with all RWQCP Partners to develop a plan for
expending the Remaining Funds and notify Valley Water prior to expenditure of
Remaining Funds. Remaining Funds will be allocated by Palo Alto for projects specified
below that benefit all RWQCP Partners that have committed their Effluent to Valley
Water for the Term of this Agreement. However, the projects specified below must be
located within Santa Clara County. Eligible projects for receipt of the Remaining Funds
shall be, in order of preference:
i. Recycled Water facilities at the RWQCP owned and operated by one or more
RWQCP Partners.
ii. Other water supply projects, including but not limited to water conservation
capital projects, owned and operated by a RWQCP Partner.
g. Time Frame for Expenditure of Funds. The time frame for any expenditure of funds for
reimbursement pursuant to this Section 5 shall extend from the Effective Date to
eighteen (18) years from the Effective Date. Within this time frame, Palo Alto must
present to Valley Water all invoices for expenditure of funds by itself and other RWQCP
Partners pursuant to this Section. Valley Water shall not reimburse any invoices
presented beyond 18 years from the Effective Date. Palo Alto's failure to seek
7
Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilient
Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County
2019111401
reimbursement within this timeframe shall not extinguish or otherwise impact Palo
Alto's and Mountain View's obligations under Article D herein.
h. Invoicing and Payments. Monthly, Palo Alto shall invoice Valley Water for project costs
expended pursuant to this Section 5, including documentation of work performed by
itself and any other RWQCP Partner. Invoices shall not include RWQCP Partners' staff
costs and administrative overhead. Valley Water shall pay such valid Palo Alto invoices
within thirty days of receipt.
6. Annual Option Payments Prior to Startup of Regional Plant
a. Amount of Payment. Valley Water agrees to pay to Palo Alto $200,000 per year (2019
dollars) ("Annual Option Payment") from the Effective Date, until (a) June 1, 2033, or (b)
at Startup, whichever occurs first. The amount of the Annual Option Payment shall be
increased annually based on the annual average (previous twelve months) of the CPI-All
Items for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California area published by the United
States Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics
(https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/cu), beginning on the first anniversary of the Effective
Date.
b. Timing of Payment. Valley Water shall provide the Annual Option Payment to Palo Alto
by June 1 of each year beginning June 1, 2020.
c. Allocation of Payment.
i. Fifty percent (50%) of the Annual Option Payment will be allocated to Palo Alto
and Mountain View.
ii. Palo Alto will distribute the remaining 50% of the Annual Option Payment to the
RWQCP Partners (other than Palo Alto and Mountain View) that have
committed their Effluent for the Term of this Agreement by January 31 of the
year that the Annual Option Payment is made. These funds will be distributed
proportionally by the amount of Effluent to be contributed. If no other RWQCP
Partners commit their Effluent by January 31 of that year, this 50% of the
Annual Option Payment will be allocated to Palo Alto and Mountain View.
iii. Palo Alto shall ensure that the Annual Option Payments are utilized for water
supply or water reuse related projects in the RWQCP Service Area.
7. Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Produced by the Local Plant
8
Partnership Agreement to Advance Resilient
Water Reuse Programs in Santa Clara County
2019111401
Q . .
19
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
MOLLY STUMP, CITY ATTORNEY
NOVEMBER 18, 2019
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 19-COLLEAGUES' MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
DUBOIS AND KOU AND POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE
TO PROVIDE JUST CAUSE EVICTION PROTECTIONS TO TENANTS UNTIL
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 1482 TAKES EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2020
Attached is a potential urgency ordinance for the Council's consideration, as proposed by the
authors of the Colleagues Memo. Adoption of an urgency ordinance requires a 4/S's majority,
or 6 votes.
/19&-
Molly Stump
City Attorney
I of I
Not Yet Approved
Ordinance No.
Urgency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Temporarily Prohibiting Evictions without Just Cause through
December 31, 2019, for Residential Real Property Built Prior to
January 1, 2005
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. The "Tenant Protection Act of 2019" (Assembly Bill ["AB"] 1482) was
approved by the California Legislature on September 11, 2019 and signed by the
Governor on October 8, 2019; and
B. Effective January 1, 2020 the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 codified
as California Civil Code sections 1946.2 (Just Cause Eviction) and 1947.12 (Rent Caps)
will provide eviction protections and limits on rent increases in the State of California; and
C. The City Council, pursuant to its police powers, has broad authority to
maintain public peace, health, and safety of its community and preserving the quality of
life for its residents; and
D. Housing instability threatens the public peace, health, and safety as
eviction from one's home can lead to prolonged homelessness; increased residential
mobility; loss of community; strain on household finances due to the necessity of paying
rental application fees and security deposits; stress and anxiety experienced by those
displaced; increased commute times and traffic impacts if displaced workers cannot find
affordable housing within the city in which they work; and interruption of the education of
children in the home; and
E. Eviction creates particular hardships for individuals and households
of limited means, given the shortage of housing, particularly affordable housing, within
the City of Redwood City and the San Francisco Bay Area region generally; and
F. As AB 1482 does not go into effect until January 1, 2020, landlords could seek to evict
tenants without cause in order to implement rent increases that would not otherwise be possible
after the effective date; and
G. The City desires to prohibit evictions without just cause during this transition period; and
H. The City Council finds and determines that regulating the relations between
residential landlords and tenants will increase certainty and fairness within the residential
Not Yet Approved
rental market in the City and thereby serve the public peace, health, and safety; and
I. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 authorizes the adoption of an urgency
ordinance to protect the public peace, health or safety, where there is a declaration of the facts
constituting the urgency and the ordinance is adopted by four-fifths of the Council; and
J. This urgency ordinance would essentially establish the just cause eviction protections that
will go into effect on January 1, 2020 under AB 1482 immediately within the City of Palo Alto; and
K. An urgency ordinance that is effective immediately is necessary to avoid the immediate
threat to public peace, health, and safety as failure to adopt this urgency ordinance could result
in the displacement of the City's residents and community members.
SECTION 2. Just Cause Eviction Protections.
This urgency ordinance shall be known as the "Just Cause Eviction Protection Ordinance."
(a) Notwithstanding any other law, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a
residential real property for 12 months, the owner of the residential real property shall
not terminate the tenancy without j ust cause, which shall be stated in the written notice
to terminate tenancy.
(b) For purposes of this Ordinance, just cause includes either of the following:
191114smOIO
1. At-fault just cause, which is any of the following:
(A) Default in the payment of rent.
(B) A breach of a material term of the lease, as described in paragraph (3) of
Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to,
violation of a provision of the lease after being issued a written notice to
correct the violation.
(C) Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a
nuisance as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
(D) Committing waste as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
(E) Criminal activity by the tenant on the residential real property, including any
common areas, or any criminal activity or criminal threat, as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 422 of the Penal Code, on or off the residential real
2
... _
t.
-··
191114 sm 010
Not Yet Approved
property, that is directed at any owner or agent of the owner of the residential
real property.
(F) Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the tenant's lease, as
described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(G) The tenant's refusal to allow the owner to enter the residential real property
as authorized by Sections 1101.5 and 1954 of the Civil Code, and Sections
13113.7 and 17926.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
(H) Using the premises for an unlawful purpose as described in paragraph (4) of
Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(I) The employee, agent, or licensee's failure to vacate after their termination as
an employee, agent, or a licensee as described in paragraph (1) of Section 1161
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(J) When the tenant fails to deliver possession of the residential real property
after providing the owner written notice as provided in Section 1946 of the
Civil Code of the tenant's intention to terminate the hiring of the real property,
or makes a written offer to surrender that is accepted in writing by the
landlord, but fails to deliver possession at the time specified in that written
notice as described in paragraph (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civi1
Procedure.
2. No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(A) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse,
domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents.
(B) Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market.
(C) The owner complying with any of the following:
(i) An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability
that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
(ii) An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the residential
real property.
(iii) A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
(D) Intent to demolish or substantially remodel the residential real property. For
purposes of this subparagraph, "substantially remodel" means the
replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing,
or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency, or
3
Not Yet Approved
the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or
asbestos, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, that
cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with the tenant in place
and that requires the tenant to vacate the residential real property for at least
30 days. Cosmetic improvements alone, including painting, decorating, and
minor repairs, or other work that can be performed safely without having the
residential real property vacated, do not qualify as substantial rehabilitation.
(E) Before an owner of residential real property issues a notice to terminate a
tenancy for just cause that is a curable lease violation, the owner shall first give
notice of the violation to the tenant with an opportunity to cure the violation
pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the
violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, a three-
day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure may thereafter be served to
terminate the tenancy.
(c) This section shall not apply to the following types of residentia l real properties or
residential circumstances:
191114 sm 010
1. Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1940
of the Civil Code.
2. Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care
facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, as defined in Section
1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code, or an adult residential facility, as defined in
Chapter 6 of Division 6 of Title 22 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures
published by the State Department of Social Services.
3. Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a
kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school.
4. Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen
facilities with the owner who maintains their principal residence at the residential
real property.
5. Single-family owner-occupied residences, including a residence in which the
owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including,
but not limited to, an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
6. A duplex in which the owner occupied one of the units as the owner's principal
place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy, so long as the owner continues
in occupancy.
7. Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15
years.
8. Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other
dwelling unit, provided that the owner is not any of the following:
(A) A real estate investment trust, as defined in Section 856 of the Internal
Revenue Code.
(B) A corporation.
4
·-
\
)
Not Yet Approved
(C) A limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.
9. Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with
a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for
persons and families of very low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093
of the Health and Safety Code, or subject to an agreement that provides housing
subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or
moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code or
comparable federal statutes.
(d) Any waiver of the rights under this section shall be void as contrary to public policy.
(e) For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following definitions shall apply:
1. "Owner" and "residential real property" have the same meaning as those terms
are defined in Civil Code Section 1954.51.
2. "Tenancy" means the lawful occupation of residential real property and includes
a lease or sublease.
(f) Applicability. This Ordinance shall apply to tenancies where the tenant remains in
possession of the residential real property and an eviction lawsuit, if any, has not been
finally adjudicated.
(g) Statement of Urgency. The City Council finds and declares that this Ordinance is required
for the immediate protection of the public peace, health and safety as failure to adopt
this urgency ordinance could result in irreversible displacement of residents resulting
from no-fault evictions during the period before AB1482 becomes effective. The Council,
therefore, adopts this Ordinance to become effective immediately upon adoption.
(h) Enforcement. An owner's failure to comply with any requirement of this Ordinance shall
render any notice of termination of tenancy void. A tenant may assert this Ordinance as
a complete affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer or other action brought by the
owner to recover possession of the residential real property. A tenant may bring a civil
suit in the courts of the state alleging that an owner has violated any of the provisions of
this ordinance. An owner's failure to comply with this Ordinance does not constitute a
criminal offense.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections
of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and
each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one
or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
191114sm010 5
Not Yet Approved
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption and shall remain
in effect until December 31, 2019. On January 1, 2020, this ordinance shall be repealed and shall
be of no further force and effect.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
City Attorney City Manager
Director of Administrative Services
191114 sm 010 6
•.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan
Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2019 1:33 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Minor, Beth
Subject:RE: MEDIA INQUIRY - Safe Parking Program
Good Afternoon Council Members,
I will connect with this reporter.
Thanks,
Meghan
Meghan Horrigan‐Taylor
Chief Communications Officer
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329‐2607 | Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org
From: Rasta, Anoushah (NBCUniversal) <anoushah.rasta@nbcuni.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 1:08 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Horrigan‐Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: MEDIA INQUIRY ‐ Safe Parking Program
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon,
My name is Anoushah Rasta and I’m a reporter with NBC Bay Area News.
We’re working on a story today about the proposed “safe parking program” in partnership with religious institutions. I
understand the new program is supported by council members Tom DuBois and Lydia Kou,
and Chairwoman Liz Kniss, Councilman Greg Tanaka.
I’d like to do an interview today with one of the aforementioned council members about
this issue.
Please give me a call at (408) 655-6109.
2
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you soon!
Sincerely,
Anoushah Rasta
NBC Bay Area News Reporter
Cell: (408) 655-6109
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 17, 2019 8:43 PM
To:lisabjobs@gmail.com
Subject:Mishnah
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
In looking at Kodashim the Fifth Section of the Mishnah with respect to Tractate Kerithoth "Extirpation" where for Thirty
Six Transgressions Extirpation is prescribed by the Law and Extirpation is Local Extinction and so Extirpation is prescribed
if a Man has Connexion with his Mother, his Father's Wife, his Daughter in Law. Okay this makes sense except what if
the Son is Dead and there are No Near of Kin? We know Judah gave Seed of Leviration to Tamar and this in this Lineage
of Joseph from whose House the Messiah is Raised as the Temple Incarnate. Is the Daughter‐in‐Law still the Daughter‐in‐
Law if the Son is Dead? Thereafter we find if a Man has Connexion "With a Male or a Beast." Um, okay. The Beast makes
sense, but Male? What do they mean? Father, Brother? Something else? There seems to have been something between
David and Jonathan yet David wrote Psalms by Inspiration. Is the Translator (Danby) harmonizing the English Translation
with the Altered Scripture? What about the Printed Hebrew Text the Translator used? Are the Printers of Hebrew
Mishnah's Harmonizing the Printed Hebrew Text with the Altered Hebrew Torah? Then we read if a Man has Connexion
with "his Wife's Sister." Shut the Fuck Up. Are they trying to Destroy the Foundation of Israel? The Septuagint in my
Understanding says a Man is not to Marry a Rival Sister. Why not? Will the Rival Sister isolate her Sister from All
Relations with her Husband? So how are we to Partake of the Mishnah in Concentrated Study if All of the Publishers
mangle the Text? Why are People so Dedicated to Distorting the Truth? Do they think the Truth is a Fucking Joke? What
in God's Name is Wrong with Everyone? They won't say his Name for Starters. Oh well then Good Luck in the Flaming
Fire. Daniel's Friends were thrown in the Fire. The Same happened to Avram. There is No Hell? Then I guess there is
Nothing to Learn from Daniel's Three Friends. Apparently People believe that they won't ever need to say the Name of
God because there is No Fire of Hell. Good Luck with that Fantasy. Germans roasted Hebrews in the Holocaust for a
Reason. Nothing happens without Authorization from Elohim. So what's the Lesson here? You wanna help those who
died in the Holocaust? Then Campaign to compel Israel to legalize Multiple Spouse Marriage and start having lots of
Babies. Those Souls can be reborn and Men need to Stop Playing the Games of Serial Monogamy and Closeted
Secondary Relations so the Formative Years of their Children are not Ruined. Then when the Children are growing then
Teach them Unaltered Scripture so they don't die in a Holocaust. You don't know what Unaltered Scripture is? Do you
still have a Mind operational in the Warehouse of your Skull? Have you ever used it? Responsibility?
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Sara Cohen <scohen@altshulerberzon.com>
Sent:Friday, November 15, 2019 1:22 PM
Cc:BJ Chisholm
Subject:Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance – Failure to submit reports
Attachments:Emailed letter from NRDC.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Public Officials,
Please find the attached correspondence from Barbara J. Chisholm on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Sincerely,
Sara Cohen
Legal Administrative Assistant
Altshuler Berzon LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 421‐7151 (telephone)
(415) 362‐8064 (facsimile)
_____________________
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
November 15, 2019
Re: Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance – Failure to submit reports on
implementation and enforcement, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23, §495
Dear Public Official(s),
I write on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which is a nonprofit
public interest organization with more than 3 million members and activists, more than 400,000
of whom are Californians. We are writing to advise you that, based on our review of reports
filed with the Department of Water Resources (DWR), your city or county has failed to comply
with state regulations requiring the submission of annual reports to DWR regarding your
jurisdiction’s permit program for irrigated landscaping.
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, Gov’t Code §§65591-65599, requires all
cities and counties in California to adopt and enforce either the state’s Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23 §490 et seq, or a local Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (WELO) that is at least as effective in conserving water as MWELO. See
Gov’t Code §65597. Additionally, every city and county is required to file annual reports with
DWR describing implementation and enforcement of either the MWELO or its WELO (as
applicable). The requirements for these annual reports are set forth in Cal. Code Regs. tit. 23,
§495(b)(1)-(12). DWR has sent letters reminding covered jurisdictions of these reporting
requirements, including in November 2018 and June 2019.
NRDC has reviewed the reports that have been filed with DWR. This publicly available
information1 indicates that your city or county is out of compliance with the reporting
requirements for one or more of the years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. We urge you to prepare
and submit complete and accurate reports to DWR regarding your jurisdiction’s landscaping
1 See https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-
Efficiency/Model-Water-Efficient-Landscape-Ordinance
permitting program. Please submit all missing reports to DWR by no later than Monday,
December 9 through the department’s official email portal at <WELO@water.ca.gov>, and
concurrently provide a copy of the completed report(s) to NRDC at the following email address:
<mweloreport@nrdc.org>.
Approximately half of California’s drinking water is used outdoors, most for irrigating
urban landscapes. Complete and accurate information on landscape permitting is important for
maintaining reliable water supplies and planning for future needs. It also permits interested
members of the public and organizations like NRDC to evaluate the potential need for additional
water-saving measures. We urge you to file all missing annual reports without further delay.
Sincerely,
Barbara J. Chisholm
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Manchi S Colah <mscolah@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 9:02 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ACCIDENT MOND 18 NOV
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
hi, THE TRAGIC ACCIDENT WAS INEVITABLE... THE STATE OF ELEC POWER POLES IN THE CITY IS
LAMENTABLE, LIKE A 3rd OR
4th WORLD COUNTRY VILLAGE !! POLES W/ HEAVY TRANSFORMERS ARE LEANING AT 30
DEGREE ANGLES, READY TO FALL !!
WHILE THE ADMINS ARE EARNING HUGE SALARIES, [??} WHY NOT PUT THE $$ TO GOOD
USE, ATTEND TO REPAIRS, PUT ELEC LINES &
FIBRE OPTICS UNDERGROUND !! MANCHI S COLAH, 3217 KIPLG ST
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2019 1:21 PM
To:Council, City; Bonilla, Robert
Cc:Mike Bechler; klnordman54@gmail.com; Dorian Manke
Subject:Need full traffic calming !
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi, this is just one of my council meeting live drawings.
Please remember your homeowners who have
NO safety from speeding
In Midtown between Moreno and Marion.
It sounds like Bayshore our there.
PLEASE RESTORE OUT SPEED METER at Walgreens.
We need our FULL traffic division. There were 8 instead of one or two. We had almost no crime.
Thank you.
2
Geri mcgilvray,
EVERY DAY SFAETY AND WALKABILITY, everywhere in Palo Alto
650‐328‐2416
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:25 PM
To:Patrick.reilly@siriusxm.com
Subject:Nephilim
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Is Patrick Reilly ready to be lifted up into the Sky to be Eaten alive by Nephilim in the Rapture? Just as Cats play with
their Prey before Killing the Prey do Nephilim as the Natural Predator of Man do the same thing? How long would an
Intelligent Being extend the Game? You have to make it interesting. Right? Have you looked at the Chess Board?
When they suddenly show up after having been absent for a long time regardless of how this happens whether they
arrive in the Sky or else by their Reemergence from the Wombs of the Daughters of Men from Hybrid Marriages then
those who have committed Unaltered Scripture to Memory might find the Recitation of the 23rd Psalms appropriate as
they walk past Mountains of Leftover Carcasses of the Dead Humans,
The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall want nothing. In a Verdant Pasture he hath fixed my Abode. He hath fed me by gently
flowing Water and restored my Soul. He hath led me in Paths of Righteousness for his Name's Sake. For though I walk
amidst the Shades of Death : I will fear no ills, because thou art with me ; Thy Rod and thy Staff have been my comfort.
Thou hast spread a Table before me ; In the Presence of them who afflict me. With Oil thou hast anointed my Head ; And
thine exhilarating Cup is the very Best. Thy Mercy will surely follow me All the Days of my Life ; And my Dwelling shall be
in the House of the Lord to length of Days.
Will the Flesh and Blood of Cultic Organized Crime Embedded Units be regarded as Delicacies? Has anyone had a chance
to interview Nephilim to see what their Human Prey Preferences are? Skinny. Fat. Fast Runners. Couch Potatoes. Night
Capture; Day Capture. Just like Humans have Preferences. Nephilim will have Preferences. "Hey Gabby. Can you pass me
Patrick's Leg?" "Hold on Sulky. I'm not done tearing it off."
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:10 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission
Subject:Re: City says "no" to Downtown North cell towers
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka,
I was pleased when, in October, City Planning Director Jonathan Lait denied approval to the six cell
towers Verizon has applied to install on utility poles in the Downtown North neighborhood. In doing
so, he took note of both design and siting inadequacies, and found —as did the Architectural Review
Board—that what Verizon has proposed is “not architecturally compatible with the existing sites.” He
is right! The ugly towers Verizon proposed have no place in any Palo Alto neighborhood.
It is my understanding that Verizon has appealed Mr. Lait’s decision. I am writing to you to ask
you to deny that appeal.
It’s time for Verizon to start designing cell towers and choosing cell tower locations that meet our
City’s aesthetic standards. And, as the Architectural Review Board has repeatedly told this company,
slapping hundreds of pounds of unsightly equipment on utility poles in residential areas does not
meet our City's aesthetic standards.
Please deny Verizon’s appeal. And please tell Verizon that your strong preference, as you
expressed in unanimously approving Mr. DuBois’s April 15th amendment, is for
undergrounded ancillary equipment and for siting that is respectful of the character of our
beautiful neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Barbara Kelly
Washington Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Drew Maran <drew@drewmaran.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2019 9:18 AM
To:Greg Bell; Council, City
Subject:Re: Palo Alto to ban natural gas in new buildings
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I second Greg’s note! It’s a really important tool in convincing new home owners in other cities to delete natural gas
from their home plans.
Regards,
Drew
DREWmaran
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
drewmaran.com
(650) 400-8336
From: Greg Bell <gxbell@hea.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 6:49 AM
To: Palo Alto Council Members <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Palo Alto to ban natural gas in new buildings
My congratulations to Palo Atlo City Council, City Managers and Staff for their wise action to ban natural gas lines to
new residences. It’s a forward‐thinking move we’ll all appreciate into our eco‐green future. I am so pleased to live in our
progressive city.
Best Regards,
Greg M. Bell
Home Energy Advisor
Home Energy Analytics
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2019 12:17 PM
To:jd@howardstern.com
Subject:Pa'tah (i)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Read the Hieroglyphic from Right to Left : Pa'tah : the Patron God of Memphis in Ancient Egypt : Pa'tah the Creator Diety
the Father God and this Points to the Full Canon of Sacred Writing with the Criterion of the Unaltered Mishnah and the
Unaltered Gemara in the Center, the Unaltered Torah as the Foundation with the Unaltered Prophets Right of Center,
the Unaltered Gospels Left of Center, the Hieroglyphic Writings as the Womb to the Torah on the Far Right, and the
Whole Quran on the Far Left by the Water Symbol with that which is to Come with Avraám's Fourth Life by the
Levitating Lamp when the Flocks of Sheep will be Fed Unaltered Grass of Truth. Life Three of Avraám is Muhammad for
Avraám is the Seal of the Covenant that is Cut by Male Circumcision. Life Two of Avraám is Peter feeding the Lambs the
Milk of the Gospels for the Father of Nations feeds the Flocks who are the Children of the Promise to Avraám. Who is
Avraám? My suspicion is that Avraám is Able whose Seed was levirated by Cain when Cain married Able's Wife and that
the Desire to Take Able's Wife was the Motivation of the Cain's Murder of his Brother Able for Able had a Wife while
Cain did Not have a Wife because Cain did Not Rightly Divide even as Adam's Levirated Phallic Bone and Foreskin was
used as to Create Adam's Wife Eve hence Conjugation is putting the Wedding Ring Back On to become One Flesh that is
Male and Female and this is the Basis of the Statement of Adam, "Bone of my Bones and Flesh of My Flesh." Compare
the Anatomy of Humans with Other Primates and you see that Other Primates retain the Phallic Bone that makes them
Beasts. And this is why there is a Whirling Flame of Fire to Keep the Way to the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life is in the
Center of the Garden. The Tree for the Purpose of Knowing Good and Evil was not said to be at the Middle of the Garden
though Eve refers to the Prohibition of the Fruit of the Tree in the Middle of the Garden yet Everything Eve says in her
Citation is Mixed Up into a Different Version. Therefore the Tree for the Purpose of Knowing Good and Evil could be at
the Top of the Garden which would correspond to the Power of the Tongue to Bless and to Curse for we were
Graduated into the Image of Elohim yet this Ability should not be used in an Immature State just like you don't Allow
Children to take Buckets of Money and Lethal Weapons to Elementary School for they are Not yet in the Mature State to
Use these Correctly. What's the Lesson Here? Don't Skip Over the Continued Recitation of Unaltered Scripture because
otherwise is to be Vulnerable to Devious Deception by a "Friend." Their Fault in their Behavior led to their Obligation to
Give Birth to Humanity to Allow the the Prodigal Children their Opportunity to Exercise the Grace of the Right of Return.
HAT'AP —>
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gloria Wang Wang <wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2019 12:38 AM
To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion
Subject:Please Support Castilleja
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor Filseth and members of City Council,
My name is Gloria Wang Wang and I live in Los Altos, California. I am writing to express my support for Castilleja School’s
new Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit application.
I am very happy that the DEIR found Castilleja’s proposal to be 100% compliant with Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan.
The school and the City predate all of us and have a rich history together. Through this proposal, we hope to create the
best possible future for the school, the neighborhood, and the City.
The DEIR supports Castilleja’s project in many important and exciting ways, including a new campus design that is more
compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood; LEED Platinum Environmental measures that surpass Palo
Alto’s sustainability goals; a Traffic Demand Management Program that could allow for increased enrollment without
increasing daily trips to campus; and an underground garage that is preferred over surface parking.
Castilleja was founded 112 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. I support Castilleja because I
believe so strongly in their mission to educate young women to become confident thinkers and compassionate leaders
in the world. Castilleja is a diverse and inclusive environment that provides a safe environment for girls to learn and
develop into honest, curious, and respectful members of our society..
I hope you will support Castilleja as it seeks to modernize its campus and gradually increase high school enrollment while
minimizing its impact on the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Gloria Wang
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Helen <skybluelinen@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: [Rent cap law]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello! I'm glad this was not a part of yesterday's meeting. I wrote the incorrect date. My lease expires on the 31st.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:50 AM Helen <skybluelinen@gmail.com> wrote:
Should also read:
prevent terminations* without just cause
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:24 PM Helen <skybluelinen@gmail.com> wrote:
Should read:
Thank you for your* time and consideration,
Helen Kim
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 10:15 PM Helen <skybluelinen@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Council Member,
I'm appealing to you to pass the "urgency ordinance" to prevent evictions without just cause.
Let me briefly describe my situation. I am a city employee currently supporting myself and my mother in a one‐
bedroom multi‐unit rental whose lease is about to expire on December 1st.
In previous years, I have received my lease renewal notification a month or two in advance. This year, I have not yet
received anything with only two weeks remaining on my lease.
My fear is that either my residency will be terminated or there will be a drastic increase in my monthly rate. I would
be forced to relocate from a town that I have lived and worked in for 11 years.
The timing of the state bill's effective date of January 1st leaves me and possibly many others like myself vulnerable.
Thank you for time and consideration,
Helen Kim
657 Everett Ave. #1
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2019 4:54 PM
To:French, Amy
Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Architectural Review Board; Planning
Commission; UAC; board@pausd.org
Subject:RE: November 12, 2019 Request for Wireless Update
Dear Ms. French,
Thank you for your prompt reply and for the update.
I have one question and two requests:
1. Have there been any changes with respect to Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 (Barron Park) or
with respect to Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 3 (Old Palo Alto)? You do not mention either of
these Clusters in your letter, and I want to make sure that nothing has changed since
September 30th.
2. To answer your question, yes, I would like to see the tolling agreement with respect to Crown
Castle Cluster 3 (Downtown North), and I would appreciate it if you would send it to me; and
finally
3. I do receive Building Eye notifications, but I have not received—and in fact have never
received—notification of anything related to cell towers. Hence I would appreciate it if you
would provide me with whatever the relevant information is to which you are alluding. (Please
rest assured that I understand that cell tower notifications appear under the address “250
Hamilton,” and that I look at every 250 Hamilton notification that I receive.)
As always, thank you for your help. I trust you are well aware that I am not asking you for
information because that’s what’s easiest for me—it is not—I am asking you for information because
the City Manager’s office no longer maintains the Wireless Communications Hot Topics webpage.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
For United Neighbors
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 2:14 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
2
Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: November 12, 2019 Request for Wireless Update
Hello Ms. Fleming,
For the Crown Castle applications:
The Tolling Agreement was extended to January 31, 2020 for Crown Castle Clusters 2 and 3.
The Director’s denial decision on Cluster 3 was appealed by the applicant.
Given the extension, the appeal hearing before City Council was removed from the tentative agenda for
November 18.
You may request related documents to Crown Castle (tolling agreement and appeal letter).
I saw Jonathan responded to you about the December 16th Council agenda date targeted for the wireless standards
discussion.
For other applications filed, the City’s building eye should reflect these. I wanted to get the above information to you
now rather than more research that is already available to the general public.
Amy French| Chief Planning Official
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2336| E: amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email –Thank you!
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 9:18 AM
To: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada, Ed
<Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Architectural Review Board
<arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; UAC
<UAC@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org
Subject: November 12, 2019 Request for Wireless Update
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Ms. French,
First, thank you for sending me Planning Director Lait’s decision to deny approval to Verizon’s
application to install six cell towers in the Downtown North neighborhood.
Second, you have told me that the cluster of Verizon cell towers in the University South
neighborhood— which Planning Director Lait approved in January of this year—was put on hold until
November 18, 2019. That date is fast approaching. I would appreciate it if you would tell me where
things stand on this application.
Finally, I would appreciate it if you would tell me what else, if anything, has occurred with respect to
small cell node wireless installations in Palo Alto since you last answered that question on September
30th, 2019. As always, please consider this a formal request.
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
3
To be clear, I am asking specifically for information about cell tower application submissions,
resubmissions, reviews, approvals, appeals, hearings, permits, installations, compliance reports,
tolling agreements, shot clock extensions and the like.
Thank you for your help. And, of course, please let me know if you have any questions
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
For United Neighbors
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
No~eMe9l1#~1~7?i·c1tA
To: Palo Alto City Manager and Council 19 NOV 15 AH 11: 35
From: Residents of San Alma HOA and neighbors
Petition
We, the 75+ residents of the San Alma HOA and surrounding neighborhoods, are submitting this petition
to request that the City of Palo Alto:
• Enforce Municipal Code 10.36.030 that mandates all parked vehicles move every 72 hours;
• Install "No RV Parking" signs along San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood
Way;
• Extend the "No Parking From Here to Corner" zone along the west side of San Antonio
Ave between Alma St and Ponce Dr to improve sight lines, and refresh red-color curbs and
install additional signs;
• Create bike lanes on both sides of the San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood
Way to improve bike and pedestrian safety;
• Consider installing "No Parking" signs on designated days and times of the week, to allow
a sweeping vehicle to clean pavement and remove trash from both sides of San Antonio
Ave.
In the last few years the short stretch of San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood Way has
experienced a sharp increase in traffic, littering, and illegal dumping including human waste. The
increase in commuter traffic, parking for the train station, 'Waymo' car tests, heavy construction trucks,
and special equipment have all contributed to these conditions. This entire stretch of San Antonio Ave is
always full of RVs and cars used as sleeping accommodations; there are frequently abandoned vehicles
as well, and often used for storage of construction equipment.
The oversized vehicles parked along this street block visibility when exiting Ponce Drive, especially
concerning because this stretch of San Antonio Ave is very busy with bicyclists and pedestrians traveling
to and from the Caltrain station. It is currently very hazardous for bicycles and pedestrians: bicyclists are
forced onto the sidewalk for safety, jeopardizing the pedestrians and creating hazardous driving
conditions for vehicles.
We have observed that the fire hydrant is often blocked which causes even more of a safety concern for
the residents in the area.
There is a large amount of trash along both sides of San Antonio Ave because the individuals residing in
RVs leave bagged trash directly on the street or in nearby areas. The area on the east side of San
Antonio Ave is used as a bathroom and human fecal matter and other trash has been observed; the
residents of the homes behind these walls have complained of strong human waste odors often coming
from San Antonio Ave. The parked RVs and other vehicles prevent the sweeping truck from cleaning the
streets. All of these bio-hazardous conditions in this area are unsanitary and unsafe for the community in
general affecting the quality of life of our residents in particular.
When the weather gets colder, the RVs and other vehicles that are used as living accommodations run
generators for heat, which pollutes the air and creates loud sounds which violate city noise ordinances.
This has been a problem for our community for several years, and many of our residents have filed
numerous reports.
Despite our efforts, there are several RVs that are here many days and weeks with no discernible
movement. One particular RV has been parking here for over three years. This lack of enforcement has
attracted more RVs and cars that are used as residences.
We ask for code enforcement and "No Overnight Parking" signs placement for safety, security
and sanitation reasons. Our Residents require a safe and sanitary neighborhood to be maintained
for all.
We understand that many individuals and their families have circumstances causing them to reside in
RV's and other vehicles. While we empathize with with these individuals, we request the City of Palo Alto
take immediate actions to protect our residents by enforcing the municipal codes and increasing signage.
We are aware of measures taken by the City in other locations, and we request the same consideration
from the City.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the residents of the San Alma HOA and surrounding neighborhood.
Simon Gleyzer, President of San Alma HOA
4214 Ponce Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
gasimon mail.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Catherine Martineau <catherine@canopy.org>
Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2019 2:43 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Passmore, Walter; Clerk, City; Minor, Beth
Subject:Save the Date! Mayor's Tree Planting - Thursday January 30 - 5 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, and members of the City Council,
We look forward to the 24th annual Palo Alto Mayor's Tree Planting & Awards Ceremony.
Please mark you calendars:
Thursday January 30, 5:00 PM in Mitchell Park
Followed by Canopy’s Annual Party at the Mitchell Park Community Center. During the party Tree Awards will be
presented to those who have made significant contribution to the urban forest, through volunteer work, tree protection
design, etc.
I will send more information closer to the date. Meanwhile, do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Many thanks,
Catherine
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Catherine Martineau
Executive Director
Canopy
www.canopy.org
650‐964‐6110 ext. 2
Out of office heads‐up:
November 18 to 22
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Flickr
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Great Nonprofits
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Guidestar
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Youtube
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2019 12:19 PM
To:Trustees; Mvla Webmaster; Administration
Cc:Gary Wesley
Subject:Shootings - install Cameras
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
School District Trustees: i emailed you last August in the aftermath of the Gilroy shooting (below). I
received an acknowledgment from each the MVLA and the MV-Whisman districts - nothing from the
Los Altos District. This morning, there was a shooting at a public high school in LA County. While
cameras did not deter and discover the 16-year old shooter before he started shooting, the quad
camera did enable the police to identify that there was one shooter who had turned his gun on
himself. So, I continue to advocate cameras strictly under the control, of course, of school officials
and perhaps the local police. Gary Wesley
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com>
To: Mvla Webmaster <webmaster@mvla.net>; Trustees <trustees@mvwsd.org>; Ayindé Rudolph
<arudolph@mvwsd.org>; trusrees@lasdschools.org <trusrees@lasdschools.org>
Cc: Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019, 12:01:25 PM PDT
Subject: Shootings - install Cameras
School DistrictTrustees: While it is too soon (at noon on Sunday, August 4) to determine everything that motivated and
assisted shooters in Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton, it does appear that (1) the shooters wished to live - at least long enough
to kill more persons, and (2) everyone needs to know if a shooter is acting alone. For both reasons, schools should have
cameras. Indeed, the presence of cameras should be posted. Bad guys - of all sorts - may bypass our schools if they
have cameras. And while other steps may also be helpful, start with cameras. They are inexpensive. Gary Wesley,
Mountain View
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:19 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Bobel, Phil
Subject:Stanford dump trucks using Alma Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Good Morning..... I was at the intersection of El Camino and Middle Ave. in Menlo Park yesterday. Stanford is
building a large complex and ALL their loaded and returning empty dump trucks are traveling up and down
Alma.
The trucks have 2 containers and must weigh a considerable amount. It is reasonable to believe this truck traffic,
to me unusual and unnecessary, will cause damage to Alma. Not to mention the noise, impact on regular traffic
and dust.
Are you aware of this activity? Is Stanford allowed to do use Alma as a road for their loaded dump trucks ? are
they being charge a fair fee to offset road damage? Isn't there a rule against construction truck traffic occurring
in PA if it did not originate in PA? Other than taking longer to travel, why are they not using El Camino?
These are not a few trucks! they are lined up and come from the construction site on a regular basis all day long!
I followed them as far as Meadow.. unsure where they are dumping the dirt.
Please advise and thank you.
Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM
Medical Case Management
Phone: 650-325-2298
Fax: 650-326-9451
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:James Poppy <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2019 7:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for approving the bike bridge
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your actions last night. The budget increase is painful, but the infrastructure is important.
Well done.
Jim Poppy
Melville Avenue
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 9:20 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Eggleston, Brad
Subject:Thank you!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor, Council members and staff,
Thank you for approving the bike/ped bridge over 101 at Adobe creek. Sorry I was not there to speak to this, but very
glad it passed.
It is a long time coming and I look forward to riding over the bridge with you all when it is complete.
Thanks again for moving forward on this important project.
Sincerely,
David Coale
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, November 18, 2019 11:28 AM
To:MediaInquiries@kushner.com
Subject:Thou Shalt Not
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
John tells the Priests and Levites from Jerusalem that he is not the Messiah. Well, whatever Term is really used. John is
the Crier before the Christ and the Messiah dies with a Loud Voice before the Resurrection? Then John answers the
Question, "Are you Elijah?" by saying, "I am not." which is an Odd Affirmation of a Negative. Then when John is asked,
"Art thou the Prophet?" And John says, "No" which could have the Answer to, "Are you Elijah?" yet it wasn't the Answer
for John is "I am not." Except does this mean anything other than that John is not Elijah? Well there are 613 Mitzvot with
Commandments that are Positive totaling 248 and Commandments that are Negative totaling 365 and the Differential of
117 Commandments with the Winner being Negative Commandments in a Landslide of 365 Mitzvot ; And Elijah lives to
365 Years when Elijah is Translated except John is not Elijah because John is, "I am not." Would this infer that Elijah the
Tishbite played a Principled Role in the Recording of the Backstory as Enoch even as John was Moses in a Previous
Incarnation? Would this be from as Enoch the Seventh in the Lineage through Seth in the Second Recorded Lineage of
Adam or as Enoch the Third in the Lineage through Cain in the First Recorded Lineage of Adam?
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:greenberglaur@gmail.com
Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Train noise after 9pm
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hello,
I am a resident of Palo Alto and would like information about what the city has done or is considering doing to reduce
the loud noise and vibrations caused by trains passing, particularly after 9pm. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
'
Herb Borock
P. 0. Box 632
COUNtfL ~EETING 1/-/f;-'-1
Palo Alto, CA 94302 [ ] Plac~d Before Meeting
[+Received at Meeting
November 18, 2019
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
NOVEMBER 18, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #9: STATE REVOVLING FUND APPLICATION
AGENDA ITEM #17: (a) APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM TO RECYCLED WATER
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACE REPORT; AND (b) APPROVAL OF
AGREEMENT WITH MOUNTAIN VIEW AND VALLEY WATER
Dear City Council:
I urge you to remove both of these items from your agenda,
because the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is
not adequate to evaluate significant effects related to sea
level rise that were not discussed in the previous EIR, and you
are prohibited from approving the State Revolving Fund Agreement
and the Agreement with Mountain View and Valley Water until you
abide by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CEQA requires you to prepare a Subsequent EIR du~e
significant environmental effects regarding sea level rise, and
CEQA prohibits you from approving a project that violates
.a:e.o~telR:l:-the City Council adopted Seal Level Rise Policy.
You recently adopted a Sea Level Rise Policy based on a
presentation that showed the path of any new recycled water
pipeline being inundated by sea water during the term of the
agreement discussed in the staff reports for these agenda items.
At the March 18, 2019 City Council meeting the Council
unanimously adopted the following Sea Level Rise Adaption Policy:
MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to:
A. Accept the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy, which will serve
as a guide for the development of a subsequent Sea Level Rise
Adaptation Plan. This Plan will serve as the Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan-Sea Level Rise chapter; and
(~
B. Direct Staff to return to Council with a Sea Level Rise
Adaptation Plan by December 2020.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
The Policy includes the following item #2:
"2. For critical development and infrastructure (e.g.,
wastewater treatment facility or utilities that are essential to
public health and safety), a risk assessment should be completed
based on the SLR projections to 2100 and to include the lifetime
of the building using the Medium-high or Extreme Risk Aversion
Projections[.]"
See Power Point slides 24-26 at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t
=72191.97&BlobID=69942 that accompanied staff's presentation of
the agenda item on Seal Level Rise.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
~
Herb Borock
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
MEMORANDUM
Finance Committee
11/19/2019
FINANCE COMMlmE MEETING
11/19/2019
[X) Placed Before Meeting
[ I Received at Meeting
Item# 2
Ap_prove the FY 2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and
Budget Amendments -Corrected Chart
The General Funds Departments, actual departmental costs, including encumbrances and
reappropriations, over the past seven years chart (page 7) of CMR #10644 the FY 2019
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Budget Amendments was inadvertently
incorrectly printed. The chart below is the corrected version.
FV 2013 Actual
FV 2014 Actual
FV 2015 Actual
FV 2016 Actual
FV 2017 Actual
FV 2018" Actual
FV 2019 Actual
FV 2020 Budget
II Public Safety
;; Community Services
-i Admln Depts
l!I Public Works
'· Planning & Comm Env
:<:: Development Svcs
•Library --
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER:
11111111111111111 i11111111 -I I 1111111111111111 \11111111 I =::::;:::l()IDO,i~~
:::::::::::::::::l:::::::: :I l
11111111:11111111 {11111111 11111e;=::~a:'ll"l
11111111
1
111111111111111111 1111111::• ;::
1
=:::;::::~
' 1111111111111111 11111111 1111111 *==*~'
11111111
1
11111111 11111111 11m111a-j =--===----4w-----1-----1•---+--_,
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200
FY 2020
Budget
80,083
32,481
29,092
20,302
23,258
.
10,532
FY 2019 FY 2018 FY 2017
Actual Actual Actual
76,765 75,975 72,815
30,096 28,39S 26,573
23.408 22,127 21.406
19,004 18,908 17,475
11,009 10,446 10,732
13,098 12,560 11,668
9,900 9,357 9,266 ---
Ed Shikada
City Manager
FY 2016 FY2015 FY 2014 FY 2013 I
Actual Actual Actual Actual
65,005 62,459 63,403 61,222 I
25,262 23,902 23,402 22,279
22,059 19,771 19,784 18,544
15,084 14,210 14,138 13,987 I
10,912 9,026 14,637 13,112
10,872 11,335 . _-_] -8,217 8.144 8,072 --7,555_] -
DATE: November 12, 2019
TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S REQUEST TO CHANGE RATES FOR
INCOME QUALIFIED PROGRAMS (A.19-11-003)
Summary
On November 4, 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its Income Qualified Programs Application (A.19-
11-003) with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The application seeks recovery of approximately $1 .2.billion needed to administer and enhance income qualified
programs, including California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE), Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) and the
Energy Savings Assistance Program.
The application covers a six-year period from 2021 to 2026. If the CPUC approves this application, PG&E will begin to"
recover costs in electric and gas rates beginning January 2021 and continue throughout the six years covered in the
application.
On an annual basis, PG&E is requesting less funding for these programs than previously authorized amounts, with the
exception of FERA, which is being expanded per CPUC mandate. On average, residential electric customers will see a
decrease in their monthly bill amount. Certain gas customers will also see a decrease in their monthly bill amount but, on
average, residential gas customers will see a small increase.
CARE and FERA are PG&E discount programs that help eligible customers pay their energy bills.
·CARE offers a monthly discount on energy bills for qualifying households. -n~
• FERA offers a monthly discount on electric bills for households of three or more people with a slightly highe~co~
than required for CARE. o ~ o .c: ' , "Tl
Energy Savings Assistance Program provides qualified customers with energy-saving improvements, such as-ene~
efficient appliances and home weatherization, at no charge for customers. CO :xr
!I=-c.i)O To learn more about these programs, customers can visit pge.com/programs. :z ol>
\0 ...,,~ •• ...,,0
Background w gn
The programs included in this application have provided income qualified customers assistance in lowering e~rgy l>
consumption and costs while increasing their comfort, health and safety since 1983 and have offered rate assistance
through a monthly discount to qualifying customers since 1989. PG&E is required to file an application updating its
program proposals and costs for these income qualified programs. This recurring application is filed on a schedule
approved by the CPUC.
How will the application affect electric rates?
Bundled electric customers receive electric generation, transmission and distribution services from PG&E.
Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential nonCARE customer using 500 kWh per month would
decrease from $121.17 to $120.89, or -0.2% in the first year.
Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers only receive electric transmission and distribution services
from PG&E. On average, these customers would see a decrease of -0.3% in the first year.
Another category of nonbundled customers is Departing Load. These customers do not receive electric generation,
transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, these customers are required to pay certain charges by law or
CPUC decision. The impact of PG&E's application on these customers is an average decrease of -2.3% in the first year.
Actual impacts will vary depending on usage.
How will the application affect gas rates?
Bundled gas customers receive transmission, distribution and procurement services from PG&E.
Based on rates currently in effect, the gas bill for a typical residential nonCARE customer averaging 32 therms per month
would increase from $52.32 to $52. 38, or 0.1 % in the first year.
Actual impacts will vary depending on usage.
1
How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals?
If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. Para mas detalles flame al 1-800-
660-6789 • ~11t~3&~ 1-800-893-9555. For TTY, call 1-800-652-4712. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and
exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Income Qualified Programs Application (A.19-11-003)
P.O. Box 7442
· San Francisco, CA 94120
A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files office by appointment only.
For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's application (without exhibits) is
available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov.
CPUC process
This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and
other related information necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary
Hearings (EHs) may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other
parties. These EHs are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate.
After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed
decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an
alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled
CPUC Voting Meeting that is open to the public.
The California Public Advocates Office (CalPA) may review this application. CalPA is the independent consumer advocate
within the GP.UC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible
rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. CalPA has a multidisciplinary staff with expertise in
economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about CalPA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email
PublicAdvocatesOffice@cpuc.ca.gov or visit CalPA's website at www.publicadvocates.cpuc.ca.gov.
Stay inform~~
If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription
service. Sign up at: http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the
proceeding, have informal comments ab9ut the application or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may
access the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office (PAO) webpage at http://~onsumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/.
You may also contact the PAO as follows:
Email: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Mail: CPUC
Public Advisor's Office
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074
TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282
Please reference PG&E's Income Qualified Programs Application (A.19-11-003) in any communications you have with
the CPUC regarding this matter. All public comments will become part of the public correspondence file for this
proceeding and made available for review by the assigned Judge, Commissioners and appropriate CPUC staff.
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
A w
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
MOLLY STUMP, CITY ATIORNEY
NOVEMBER 18, 2019
19
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 19-COLLEAGUES' MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
DUBOIS AND KOU AND POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE
TO PROVIDE JUST CAUSE EVICTION PROTECTIONS TO TENANTS UNTIL
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 1482 TAKES EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2020
Attached is the urgency ordinance updated to correct a typo in Section 1, paragraph E, as
follows:
E. Eviction creates particular hardships for individuals and
households of limited means, given the shortage of housing,
particularly affordable housing, within the City of Redwood Cit·~
Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay Area region generally ...
I of I
Not Yet Approved
Ordinance No.
Urgency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Temporarily Prohibiting Evictions without Just Cause through
December 31, 2019, for Residential Real Property Built Prior to
January 1, 2005
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. The "Tenant Protection Act of 2019" (Assembly Bill ["AB"] 1482) was
approved by the California Legislature on September 11, 2019 and signed by the
Governor on October 8, 2019; and
B. Effective January 1, 2020 the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 codified
as California Civil Code sections 1946.2 (Just Cause Eviction) and 1947.12 (Rent Caps)
will provide eviction protections and limits on rent increases in the State of California; and
C. The City Council, pursuant to its police powers, has broad authority to
maintain public peace, health, and safety of its community and preserving the quality of
life for its residents; and
D. Housing instability threatens the public peace, health, and safety as
eviction from one's home can lead to prolonged homelessness; increased residential
mobility; loss of community; strain on household finances due to the necessity of paying
rental application fees and security deposits; stress and anxiety experienced by those
displaced; increased commute times and traffic impacts if displaced workers cannot find
affordable housing within the city in which they work; and interruption of the education of
children in the home; and
E. Eviction creates particular hardships for individuals and households
of limited means, given the shortage of housing, particularly affordable housing, within
the City of Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay Area region generally; and
F. As AB 1482 does not go into effect until January 1, 2020, landlords could seek to evict
tenants without cause in order to implement rent increases that would not otherwise be possible
after the effective date; and
G. The City desires to prohibit evictions without just cause during this transition period; and
H. The City Council finds and determines that regulating the relations between
residential landlords and tenants will increase certainty and fairness within the residential
)
Not Yet Approved
rental market in the City and thereby serve the public peace, health, and safety; and
I. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 authorizes the adoption of an urgency
ordinance to protect the public peace, health or safety, where there is a declaration of the facts
constituting the urgency and the ordinance is adopted by four-fifths of the Council; and
J. This urgency ordinance would essentially establish the just cause eviction protections that
will go into effect on January 1, 2020 under AB 1482 immediately within the City of Palo Alto; and
K. An urgency ordinance that is effective immediately is necessary to avoid the immediate
threat to public peace, health, and safety as failure to adopt this urgency ordinance could result
in the displacement of the City's residents and community members.
SECTION 2. Just Cause Eviction Protections.
This urgency ordinance shall be known as the "Just Cause Eviction Protection Ordinance."
(a) Notwithstanding any other law, after a tenant has continuously and lawfully occupied a
residential real property for 12 months, the owner of the residential real property shall
not terminate the tenancy without just cause, which shall be stated in the written notice
to terminate tenancy.
(b) For purposes of this Ordinance, just cause includes either of the following:
191118sm010
1. At-fault just cause, which is any of the following:
(A) Default in the payment of rent.
(B) A breach of a material term of the lease, as described in paragraph (3) of
Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to,
violation of a provision of the lease after being issued a written notice to
correct the violation.
(C) Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a
nuisance as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
(D) Committing waste as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
(E) Criminal activity by the tenant on the residential real property, including any
common areas, or any criminal activity or criminal threat, as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 422 of the Penal Code, on or off the residential real
2
191118sm010
Not Yet Approved
property, that is directed at any owner or agent of the owner of the residential
real property.
{F) Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the tenant's lease, as
described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
{G) The tenant's refusal to allow the owner to enter the residential real property
as authorized by Sections 1101.S and 1954 of the Civil Code, and Sections
13113.7 and 17926.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
{H) Using the premises for an unlawful purpose as described in paragraph (4) of
Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(I) The employee, agent, or licensee's failure to vacate after their termination as
an employee, agent, or a licensee as described in paragraph (1) of Section 1161
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
{J) When the tenant fails to deliver possession of the residential real property
after providing the owner written notice as provided in Section 1946 of the
Civil Code of the tenant's intention to terminate the hiring of the real property,
or makes a written offer to surrender that is accepted in writing by the
landlord, but fails to deliver possession at the time specified in that written
notice as described in paragraph {S) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
2. No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
(A) Intent to occupy the residential real property by the owner or their spouse,
domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents.
{B) Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market.
(C) The owner complying with any of the following:
{i) An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability
that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
{ii) An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the residential
real property.
{iii) A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the residential real property.
{D) Intent to demolish or substantially remodel the residential real property. For
purposes of this subparagraph, "substantially remodel" means the
replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing,
or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency, or
3
j
Not Yet Approved
the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or
asbestos, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, that
cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with the tenant in place
and that requires the tenant to vacate the residential real property for at least
30 days. Cosmetic improvements alone, including painting, decorating, and
minor repairs, or other work that can be performed safely without having the
residential real property vacated, do not qualify as substantial rehabilitation.
(E) Before an owner of residential real property issues a notice to terminate a
tenancy for just cause that is a curable lease violation, the owner shall first give
notice of the violation to the tenant with an opportunity to cure the violation
pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the
violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, a three -
day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure may thereafter be served to
terminate the tenancy.
(c) Th is section shall not apply to the following types of residential real properties or
residential circumstances:
191118sm010
1. Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1940
of the Civil Code.
2. Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care
facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, as defined in Section
1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code, or an adult residential facility, as defined in
Chapter 6 of Division 6 of Title 22 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures
published by the State Department of Social Services.
3. Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a
kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school.
4. Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen
facilities with the owner who maintains their principal residence at the residential
real property.
5. Single-family owner-occupied residences, including a residence in which the
owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including,
but not limited to, an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
6. A duplex in which the owner occupied one of the units as the owner's principal
place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy, so long as the owner continues
in occupancy.
7. Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15
years.
8. Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any other
dwelling unit, provided that the owner is not any of the following:
(A) A real estate investment trust, as defined in Section 856 of the Internal
Revenue Code.
(B) A corporation.
4
Not Yet Approved
(C) A limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.
9. Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with
a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for
persons and families of very low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093
of the Health and Safety Code, or subject to an agreement that provides housing
subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or
moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code or
comparable federal statutes.
(d) Any waiver of the rights under this section shall be void as contrary to public policy.
(e) For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following definitions shall apply:
1. "Owner" and "residential real property" have the same meaning as those terms
are defined in Civil Code Section 1954.51.
2. "Tenancy" means the lawful occupation of residential real property and includes
a lease or sublease.
(f) Applicability. This Ordinance shall apply to tenancies where the tenant remains in
possession of the residential real property and an eviction lawsuit, if any, has not been
finally adjudicated.
(g) Statement of Urgency. The City Council finds and declares that this Ordinance is required
for the immediate protection of the public peace, health and safety as failure to adopt
this urgency ordinance could result in irreversible displacement of residents resulting
from no-fault evictions during the period before AB1482 becomes effective. The Council,
therefore, adopts this Ordinance to become effective immediately upon adoption.
(h) Enforcement. An owner's failure to comply with any requirement of this Ordinance shall
render any notice of termination of tenancy void. A tenant may assert this Ordinance as
a complete affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer or other action brought by the
owner to recover possession of the residential real property. A tenant may bring a civil
suit in the courts of the state alleging that an owner has violated any of the provisions of
this ordinance. An owner's failure to comply with this Ordinance does not constitute a
criminal offense.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections
of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and
each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one
or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
191118sm010 5
)
Not Yet Approved
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment. ·
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption and shall remain
in effect until December 31, 2019. On January 1, 2020, this ordinance shall be repealed and shall
be of no further force and effect.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
City Attorney City Manager
Director of Administrative Services
191118sm010 6
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
MEMORANDUM
Finance Committee
11/19/2019
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
11/19/2019
[X] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
Item# 2
Approve the FY 2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and
Budget Amendments -Corrected Chart
The General Funds Departments, actual departmental costs, including encumbrances and
reappropriations, over the past seven years chart (page 7) of CMR #10644 the FY 2019
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report {CAFR) and Budget Amendments was inadvertently
incorrectly printed. The chart below is the corrected version.
FY 2013 Actual
FY 2014 Actual
FY 2015 Actual
FY 2016 Actual
FY 2017 Actual
FY 2018 Actual
FY 2019 Actual
FY 2020 Budget
It Public Safety
;Community Services
r.Admin Oepts
!II Public Works
'·Planning & Comm Env
:.;: Development Svcs
Library
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER:
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200
FV 2020
Budget
80,083
32,481
29,092
20,302
23,258
.
10,532
FY 2019 FY 2018
Actual Actual
76,765 75,975
30,096 28,395
23.408 22,127
19,004 18,908
11,009 10,446
13,098 12,560
9,900 9,357
Ed Shikada
City Manager
FY 2017
Actual
72,815
26,573
21,406
17,475
10,732
11,668
9,266
FY 2016 FY2015 FY 2014 FY 2013
Actual Actual Actual Actual
65,005 62.459 63.403 61,222
25,262 23,902 23,402 22,279
22,059 19,771 19,784 18,544
15,084 14,210 14,138 13,987
10,912 9,026 14,637 13,112
10,872 11,335 . .
8,217 8,144 8,072 7,555
I
' I