HomeMy Public PortalAbout20171030plCC701-32
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: 10/30/2017
Document dates: 10/11/2017 – 10/18/2017
Set 1/3
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 4:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Fruchterman <Jim.F@Benetech.org>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:15 PM
To:CityCouncil@CityofPaloAlto.org
Subject:Speed limits redux
Staff is continuing to push for speed limit increases. My impression is that most Palo Altans share my strong opinion that
the City should focus on traffic calming and enforcement.
Although the Agenda item makes it seem like they are only recommending increases on Deer Creek and East Bayshore,
the recommended resolutions are much more extensive. I encourage you not to take on staff’s agenda and not approve
the resolution that would keep them working on more speed increases.
Jim Fruchterman
1850 Middlefield, Palo Alto (residence)
P.S. Staff will probably say they did outreach and workshops and got minimal feedback, but I signed up to be on their
email list for traffic topics long before these workshops, and they forgot to send workshop date information to the email
list they set up for that purpose. Certainly depressed turnout for the workshops when the people who were motivated
enough to sign up for the email list on the topic were left out. I only found out about the workshops after they had
occurred. The good news is that I heard about this agenda item because they sent it out to the list this time.
Jim Fruchterman
Founder and CEO, Benetech
Email: jim@benetech.org
Twitter: @JimFruchterman
Blog: The Beneblog
480 S. California Ave, Suite 201
Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA
(650) 644‐3406
Fax: (650) 475‐1066
www.benetech.org
Benetech ‐ Technology Serving Humanity
A nonprofit organization
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 6:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Do NOT raise the speed limits.
Hello.
Please do NOT raise the speed limits, esp. on Middlefield which is now already gridlocked and an obstacle course and
which will only get worse.
Yet again, we had to read about these proposed changes in neighborhood groups rather than having the city "outreach"
actually reach us with news about proposed changes right in front of our homes.
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach
1699 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Jo Ann Mandinach
Need To Know Info Solutions
http:.//www.needtoknow.com
650 329‐8655 or cell 650 269‐0650
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:57 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 10:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Speed Limits
City Council Members,
Please keep the speed limits in Palo Alto as they are and enforce them!
Friends and neighbors I've talked to agree that speed limits should be left as they are and enforced!
My husband and I shall not vote for any council member who supports increased speed limits.
Sincerely,
Barbara Kelly
444 Washington Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 5:28 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Nickel, Eric
Subject:October 16, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #11: Fire Deployment Changes
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
October 15, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
OCTOBER 16, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #11
FIRE DEPLOYMENT CHANGES
Dear City Council:
Please clarify the status and staffing of two units that were formerly
identified as being housed and staffed at Station 2.
Breathing Support Unit
In 2006, Fire Station 2 was designated as one of three locations in Santa
Clara County to house a Breathing Support Unit.
Palo Alto Fire Department has the responsibility to deploy the unit as a
mutual response aid anywhere in the County, and the unit is also available
for deployment in Palo Alto at the discretion of the Incident Commander.
Is Station 2 still the home for the Breathing Support Unit?
Since the staff at Station 2 is already recommended for cross-staffing an
Engine and an Ambulance 24-hours a day, who would staff the Breathing
Support Unit when it is needed?
[See CMR:224:06 (May 8, 2006) at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6034.]
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:44 AM
2
Rescue Unit
In 2013, the Finance Committee was told that the Rescue Unit was taken out
of service and that a new Truck Unit would replace the Rescue Unit's
responsibility to respond to incidents involving hazardous materials and
incidents involving search and rescue.
However, the Fire Department's website page for "Apparatus" last update
March 4, 2015, still shows the Rescue Unit as being in service both for
hazardous materials and for search and rescue.
Is the new Truck Unit capable of performing all of the functions
previously performed by the Rescue Unit?
Is the Rescue Unit still in service? If so, is it housed at Station 2,
and is adequate staffing available for the unit if it is housed at a
station that already has cross-staffing?
[See (a) 5/16/2013 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 15 of 38, third
paragraph, next to last sentence (“The decision was made to make the
ladder truck the primary technical, rescue, hazardous material, search and
rescue, ventilation piece of equipment for the community.”) at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/34583;
(b) 12/17/2013 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2 of 4, line 7 (“Rescue 2
was removed from service in August 2013 ...”) at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/39248; and (c)
“Apparatus” “Last Updated: Mar 4, 2015” at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/overview/apparatus.asp.]
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
cc: Fire Chief Eric Nickel
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:44 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:RICH <w6apz@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 5:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fire Department Staff Reduction 101517o
I urge council not to reduce Fire Department staffing. According to the article in the Weekly, the financial problem was caused by Stanford paying less for fire services. The solution should be to provide Stanford only with the services it is paying for, not to reduce service to all Palo
Altans!
The stated standard of 90% of the time to have the Fire Department respond in 8 minutes may sound
good, but my Eichler home would be reduced to ashes if it took that long to response to a fire. What
about the other 10% of the time? Obviously, it would take longer for a fire truck to arrive. If your home is covered within that 10%, even a larger house could be consumed by fire before the fire department would arrive. This is simply NOT acceptable.
We experienced excellent service from Palo Alto’s Fire Department about a year ago. We had gone
out for only an hour. When we returned, the house smelled like something was burning. We quickly
looked around for the source, and when we could not find it, we called the Fire Department.
Within about 3 minutes a fire truck arrived. 3 firemen came in, looked around, and finding nothing
obvious, other than the smell, they retrieved some equipment from their truck and began again. Each fireman had a different instrument with which they checked each room. They found the dishwasher in the kitchen to be the source of the smell. After verifying that there was no longer an active fire, the
firemen moved the dishwasher to the garage to enable the house to air out from the smell. We were
lucky. Whatever burned in the dishwasher was apparently stopped by the dishwasher’s timer. Had
the timer not turned off the power, the house would have been in flames!
Fortunately, we have needed the Fire Department’s services rarely in the over 50 years we have lived in Palo Alto. But, when we need them, we need their immediate response. Please do not
reduce their staffing!
Northern California’s fires have shown that a brisk wind can spread fire from one home to many
others in just a few minutes. This is NOT the time to reduce Fire Department staffing!
Alice & Rich Stiebel
840 Talisman Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 12:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Balin Time Sensitive Article: Proposed PAFD Service Cuts Discussed
Attachments:FBalin_Time Sensitive_Proposed PAFD Cuts Discussed.pdf
FYI.
Fred Balin
2385 Columbia Street
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>
Subject: Balin Time Sensitive Article: Proposed PAFD Service Cuts Discussed Date: October 15, 2017 at 11:48:33 PM PDT To: PAN <paneighborhoods@googlegroups.com>
Attached as PDF.
Time is short, pardon me.
But if you have time, kindly read, evaluate, and weigh in with the council today (Monday). -Fred Balin College Terrace
Proposed Fire Department Service Cuts Unveiled
Decision Monday Night (8:45 pm, 10/16) at City Council
By Fred Balin, College Terrace, fbalin@gmal.com
Around midnight 10/15/17
The hour is late.
Time is short.
The decision is timely and important
Read, consider, comment to the city council, and/or attend the meeting, if you can.
Thank you -fb
Station No. Name Location
1 Downtown 301 Alma Street
2 Mayfield 2675 Hanover Street
3 Rinconada 799 Embarcadero Road
4 Mitchell 3600 Middlefield Road
5 Barron Park 600 Arastradero Road
6 Stanford University 711 Serra Street
Station No. Name Location
8 Foothills Park 3000 Page Mill Road
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
i
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
u
t
s
U
n
v
e
i
l
e
d
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
M
o
n
d
a
y
N
i
g
h
t
(
8
:
4
5
p
m
,
1
0
/
1
6
)
a
t
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
By
F
r
e
d
B
a
l
i
n
,
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
,
fb
a
l
i
n
@
g
m
a
l
.
c
o
m
Ar
o
u
n
d
m
i
d
n
i
g
h
t
1
0
/
1
5
/
1
7
Fi
r
e
C
h
i
e
f
E
r
i
c
N
i
c
k
e
l
v
i
a
a
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
h
a
s
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
to
t
h
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
’
s
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
m
o
d
e
l
t
h
a
t
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
s
a
v
e
$
1
.
5
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
w
h
i
l
e
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
-
t
i
m
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
w
e
r
e
n
o
t
r
e
v
e
a
l
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
u
d
g
e
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
J
u
n
e
,
b
u
t
af
t
e
r
r
a
i
s
i
n
g
a
s
t
i
n
k
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
h
e
l
p
o
f
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
n
t
h
i
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
a
g
r
e
e
d
t
o
re
t
u
r
n
i
n
t
h
e
F
a
l
l
w
i
t
h
a
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
t
o
h
o
l
d
o
f
f
o
n
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
n
y
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
u
n
t
i
l
th
a
t
t
i
m
e
.
T
h
e
y
h
a
v
e
m
e
t
t
h
a
t
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
i
s
n
o
w
f
o
r
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
ex
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
a
n
d
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
tr
a
d
e
-
o
f
f
s
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
t
o
t
h
e
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
Th
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
f
o
c
u
s
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
e
r
,
a
n
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
.
I
t
d
r
a
w
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
st
a
f
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
,
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
c
i
t
y
o
f
p
a
l
o
a
l
t
o
.
o
r
g
/
c
i
v
i
c
a
x
/
f
i
l
e
b
a
n
k
/
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
/
5
9
7
9
8
,
st
r
i
v
e
s
t
o
p
u
t
k
e
y
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
a
m
o
r
e
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
m
,
w
h
i
l
e
a
l
s
o
ad
d
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
t
h
a
t
i
s
d
e
e
m
e
d
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
b
u
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
I
h
o
p
e
y
o
u
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
t
o
r
e
a
d
i
t
,
a
n
d
,
i
f
i
n
c
l
i
n
e
d
,
b
r
i
n
g
y
o
u
r
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ju
d
g
m
e
n
t
t
o
b
e
a
r
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
,
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
(ci
t
y
.
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
@
c
i
t
y
o
f
p
a
l
o
a
l
t
o
.
o
r
g
)
a
n
d
/
o
r
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
a
t
t
h
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
o
n
d
a
y
(O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
6
)
,
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
i
s
i
t
e
m
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
e
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
a
t
8
:
4
5
p
m
.
So
l
e
t
’
s
e
x
a
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
.
1.
F
o
u
r
F
e
w
e
r
F
i
r
e
F
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
P
e
r
2
4
-
H
o
u
r
D
a
y
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
2
7
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
s
t
a
f
f
t
h
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
,
l
a
d
d
e
r
t
r
u
c
k
,
am
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
,
c
o
m
m
a
n
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
a
n
y
o
t
h
e
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
z
e
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
)
a
r
e
o
n
d
u
t
y
i
n
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
e
a
c
h
d
a
y
a
n
d
n
i
g
h
t
.
U
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
n
e
w
p
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
t
o
t
a
l
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
b
y
on
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
d
a
y
(
t
o
2
6
)
a
n
d
b
y
t
h
r
e
e
a
t
n
i
g
h
t
(
t
o
2
4
)
.
F
o
u
r
f
e
w
e
r
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
ea
c
h
d
a
y
a
n
d
n
i
g
h
t
.
T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
s
h
a
v
e
g
o
t
t
o
g
i
v
e
2.
R
e
m
o
v
e
O
n
e
F
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
A
e
r
i
a
l
L
a
d
d
e
r
T
r
a
c
k
Th
r
e
e
y
e
a
r
s
a
g
o
,
t
h
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
b
e
g
a
n
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
e
w
,
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
-
d
r
a
w
n
a
e
r
i
a
l
l
a
d
d
e
r
tr
u
c
k
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
e
x
t
e
n
d
u
p
a
1
0
0
-
f
e
e
t
.
I
t
s
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
w
a
s
n
o
t
o
n
l
y
t
o
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
ca
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
o
l
d
e
r
l
a
d
d
e
r
t
r
u
c
k
,
b
u
t
a
l
s
o
t
o
s
t
o
r
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
ve
h
i
c
l
e
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
c
u
e
,
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
e
v
a
c
u
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
b
y
a
l
s
o
t
a
k
e
th
e
p
l
a
c
e
o
f
a
n
o
l
d
e
r
3
-
p
e
r
s
o
n
r
e
s
c
u
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
.
I
t
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
n
d
l
e
w
h
a
t
u
s
e
d
t
o
b
e
co
v
e
r
e
d
b
y
s
i
x
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
h
i
g
h
l
y
-
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
z
e
d
s
k
i
l
l
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
w
o
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
Th
e
l
a
d
d
e
r
t
r
a
c
k
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
2
4
x
7
x
3
6
5
.
I
t
h
o
l
d
s
f
i
v
e
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
r
a
n
i
t
wi
t
h
f
o
u
r
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
n
o
w
i
s
t
o
c
u
t
i
t
t
o
t
h
r
e
e
.
So
t
h
a
t
’
s
a
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
n
e
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
e
a
c
h
d
a
y
.
3.
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
-
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
o
f
F
i
r
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
s
A
n
e
a
r
l
y
-
i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
l
s
e
x
t
u
p
l
e
t
o
f
f
i
r
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
i
s
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
e
d
o
n
e
p
e
r
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
x
f
i
r
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
“
t
h
e
f
l
a
t
s
”
(
i
.
e
.
,
d
o
w
n
i
n
a
n
d
n
e
a
r
o
u
r
s
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
/
u
r
b
a
n
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
o
w
n
)
.
Th
e
y
a
r
e
s
t
a
f
f
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
t
h
r
e
e
-
p
e
r
s
o
n
c
r
e
w
o
f
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
o
n
e
w
h
o
i
s
a
pa
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
f
i
v
e
o
f
t
h
o
s
e
s
i
x
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
e
n
j
o
y
2
4
x
7
x
3
6
5
“
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
”
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
,
i
.
e
.
,
a
th
r
e
e
-
p
e
r
s
o
n
c
r
e
w
i
s
a
l
w
a
y
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
.
A
s
i
x
t
h
e
n
g
i
n
e
i
s
c
r
o
s
s
-
s
t
a
f
f
e
d
wi
t
h
a
n
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
(
I
t
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
a
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
4
,
M
i
t
c
h
e
l
l
P
a
r
k
,
3
6
0
0
M
i
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
)
.
I
f
bo
t
h
e
n
g
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
a
r
e
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
d
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
c
a
l
l
c
o
m
e
s
i
n
,
t
h
e
c
r
e
w
ho
p
s
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
p
i
e
c
e
o
f
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
i
s
o
u
t
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
u
n
t
i
l
th
e
y
r
e
t
u
r
n
.
I
f
i
t
’
s
a
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
c
a
l
l
a
n
d
i
f
i
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
t
o
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
c
a
r
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
p
u
t
t
h
e
f
i
r
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
o
u
t
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
o
r
a
n
h
o
u
r
.
Th
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
c
r
o
s
s
-
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
x
f
i
r
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
f
r
o
m
1
.
0
t
o
2
.
5
p
e
r
da
y
.
(
S
e
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
i
r
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
c
h
a
r
t
s
o
n
n
e
x
t
p
a
g
e
)
Fi
r
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
En
g
i
n
e
c
r
e
w
s
o
f
3
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
1
p
a
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
D
a
y
t
i
m
e
a
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
a
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
1
1
,
2
,
3
,
5
,
6
1
,
2
,
3
,
5
,
6
Cr
o
s
s
S
t
a
f
f
e
d
2
4
4
1 Cr
e
w
o
f
3
a
l
w
a
y
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
e
n
g
i
n
e
2
Cr
e
w
c
a
n
s
t
a
f
f
e
n
g
i
n
e
o
r
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
;
e
n
g
i
n
e
u
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
w
h
e
n
c
r
e
w
i
s
o
u
t
o
n
c
a
l
l
w
i
t
h
am
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
En
g
i
n
e
c
r
e
w
s
o
f
3
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
1
p
a
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
D
a
y
t
i
m
e
a
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
a
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
e
r
:
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
1
1
,
3
,
5
,
6
1
,
5
,
6
Cr
o
s
s
S
t
a
f
f
e
d
2
2
,
4
2
,
3
,
4
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
:
•
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
:
1
a
t
e
a
c
h
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
6
i
n
a
l
l
.
•
En
g
i
n
e
c
r
e
w
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
m
a
i
n
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
,
i
.
e
.
,
3
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
p
a
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
.
•
Cr
o
s
s
-
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
6
f
i
r
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
n
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
f
r
o
m
1
.
0
t
o
2
.
5
.
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
’
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
c
a
l
l
s
i
n
t
h
e
u
r
b
a
n
a
n
d
su
b
u
r
b
a
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
r
e
a
s
a
r
e
e
i
g
h
t
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
l
e
s
s
,
9
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
.
To
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
f
i
r
e
s
a
r
e
a
v
e
r
y
,
v
e
r
y
s
m
a
l
l
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
d
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
c
a
l
l
s
i
n
t
o
w
n
,
an
d
t
h
a
t
w
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
o
r
a
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
a
n
d
pr
e
s
s
i
n
g
n
e
e
d
,
t
h
i
s
c
a
n
b
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
s
a
go
o
d
m
o
v
e
.
T
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
u
n
u
s
u
a
l
oc
c
u
r
s
a
n
d
d
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
s
e
n
d
s
o
u
t
a
1
s
t
a
l
a
r
m
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
t
u
r
n
c
a
l
l
s
f
o
r
r
a
p
i
d
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
of
3
o
f
o
u
r
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
,
t
h
e
l
a
d
d
e
r
t
r
u
c
k
,
1
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
,
a
b
a
t
t
a
l
i
o
n
c
h
i
e
f
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
"m
u
t
u
a
l
a
i
d
”
f
r
o
m
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
o
f
l
a
d
d
e
r
t
r
u
c
k
a
n
d
b
a
t
t
a
l
i
o
n
c
h
i
e
f
an
d
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
o
f
o
u
r
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
a
r
e
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
d
u
e
t
o
c
r
o
s
s
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
,
i
t
i
s
n
o
t
s
o
g
o
o
d
.
Al
s
o
,
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
t
o
m
u
t
u
a
l
a
i
d
,
i
t
i
s
n
o
t
c
l
e
a
r
t
o
m
e
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
o
f
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
f
i
r
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
y
l
e
a
r
n
t
h
a
t
w
e
a
r
e
c
u
t
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
f
f
.
D
o
e
s
n
’
t
th
a
t
m
a
k
e
u
s
l
e
s
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
o
h
e
l
p
t
h
e
m
?
I
a
s
s
u
m
e
t
h
e
f
i
r
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
h
a
s
t
a
k
e
n
th
i
s
i
n
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
.
4.
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
T
h
e
i
r
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
i
s
t
h
e
o
n
l
y
c
i
t
y
i
n
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
t
s
o
w
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
me
d
i
c
a
l
(
i
.
e
.
,
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
)
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
I
n
o
t
h
e
r
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
i
t
c
o
m
e
s
v
i
a
a
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
.
W
e
a
r
e
g
r
a
n
d
f
a
t
h
e
r
e
d
i
n
t
o
o
u
r
o
p
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
i
t
g
i
v
e
s
t
h
e
ci
t
y
t
h
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
f
a
s
t
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
i
m
e
s
,
a
s
w
e
a
r
e
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
c
l
o
s
e
r
,
a
n
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
c
a
r
e
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
b
o
t
h
c
r
e
w
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
r
e
p
a
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
s
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
s
i
d
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
x
f
i
r
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
th
e
f
l
a
t
s
.
T
w
o
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
m
b
i
a
n
c
e
s
h
a
v
e
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
o
n
e
i
s
c
r
o
s
s
st
a
f
f
e
d
(
i
.
e
.
M
i
t
c
h
e
l
P
a
r
k
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
s
t
a
t
e
d
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
)
.
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
w
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
f
i
r
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
f
i
v
e
.
Un
d
e
r
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
n
o
t
a
l
l
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
u
l
l
t
i
m
e
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
r
e
e
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
a
t
o
n
e
t
i
m
e
t
o
f
o
u
r
.
T
o
d
o
t
h
i
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
i
n
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
c
r
o
s
s
-
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
w
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
to
s
a
v
e
m
o
n
e
y
,
y
o
u
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
t
h
o
s
e
t
h
a
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
pr
o
v
i
d
e
i
t
.
Cr
o
s
s
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
o
n
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
,
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
n
e
w
p
l
a
n
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
r
o
m
1
.
0
t
o
2
.
5
(m
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
,
o
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
,
t
h
e
c
r
o
s
s
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
)
.
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
i
s
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
f
r
o
m
2
.
0
t
o
1
.
5
(
S
e
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
ch
a
r
t
s
o
n
n
e
x
t
p
a
g
e
)
Am
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
(A
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
c
r
e
w
s
o
f
2
,
b
o
t
h
p
a
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
s
)
St
a
f
f
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
D
a
y
t
i
m
e
a
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
a
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
3
1
,
2
1
,
2
Cr
o
s
s
S
t
a
f
f
e
d
4
4
4
No
A
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
at
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
3,
5
,
6
3
,
5
,
6
1 Cr
e
w
o
f
2
i
s
a
l
w
a
y
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
2
Cr
e
w
c
a
n
s
t
a
f
f
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
o
r
e
n
g
i
n
e
;
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
u
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
w
h
e
n
c
r
e
w
i
s
o
n
c
a
l
l
w
i
t
h
e
n
g
i
n
e
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
(c
r
e
w
s
o
f
2
,
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
1
p
a
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
)
Am
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
D
a
y
t
i
m
e
a
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
a
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
3
1
,
6
6
Cr
o
s
s
S
t
a
f
f
e
d
4
2,
4
2
,
3
,
4
No
A
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
at
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
5
5
Su
m
m
a
r
y
:
•
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
f
i
r
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
f
r
o
m
3
t
o
5
.
•
24
-
h
o
u
r
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
f
r
o
m
2
.
0
t
o
1
.
5
•
Cr
o
s
s
-
s
t
a
f
f
e
d
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
f
r
o
m
1
.
0
t
o
2
.
5
•
Am
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
d
a
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
f
r
o
m
3
t
o
4
•
Am
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
n
i
g
h
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
f
r
o
m
3
t
o
4
•
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
o
n
b
o
a
r
d
p
a
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
s
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
f
r
o
m
2
t
o
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
1
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
m
e
a
n
s
l
e
s
s
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
t
o
p
i
c
k
u
p
t
h
e
sl
a
c
k
.
O
v
e
r
t
h
e
p
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
,
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
’
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
f
u
n
d
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
o
v
e
r
$
3
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
f
o
r
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
w
h
i
c
h
a
l
m
o
s
t
p
a
y
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
a
l
a
r
i
e
s
o
f
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
w
h
o
s
t
a
f
f
t
h
e
am
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
.
“
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
U
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
”
c
o
u
n
t
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
th
e
r
e
a
r
e
s
t
i
l
l
o
v
e
r
5
0
0
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
a
y
e
a
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
a
k
e
o
n
E
M
S
c
a
l
l
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
h
a
n
d
l
e
d
b
y
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
at
t
h
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
u
l
d
c
u
t
t
h
a
t
i
n
h
a
l
f
.
Cr
o
s
s
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
i
s
e
r
a
s
e
t
h
e
b
u
d
g
e
t
l
i
n
e
s
o
f
7
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
S
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
ci
t
y
h
a
s
a
b
o
u
t
1
4
o
r
1
5
u
n
f
i
l
l
e
d
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
n
o
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
w
i
l
l
b
e
l
a
i
d
o
f
f
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
ne
w
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
,
n
o
r
w
i
l
l
t
h
e
r
e
b
e
a
n
y
s
a
v
i
n
g
s
i
n
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
o
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
An
o
t
h
e
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
r
a
w
b
a
c
k
t
o
t
h
e
s
w
i
f
t
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
r
e
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
i
s
a
m
o
v
e
aw
a
y
f
r
o
m
t
w
o
p
a
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
s
i
n
e
a
c
h
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
,
a
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
o
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
ou
r
E
M
S
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
Th
e
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
e
e
m
s
t
o
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
i
s
w
i
l
l
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
b
e
t
h
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
’
s
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
,
s
t
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
g
o
a
l
s
i
n
i
t
s
n
e
w
m
o
d
e
l
i
s
t
o
:
“m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
p
a
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
o
n
e
v
e
r
y
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
.
.
.
(P
a
g
e
3
)
”
an
d
l
a
t
e
r
:
" e
x
t
e
n
d
t
h
e
P
A
F
D
’
s
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
o
f
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
a
l
l
a
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
pa
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
a
n
d
o
n
e
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
(
E
M
T
)
.
(
P
a
g
e
6
)
.
Pa
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
s
h
a
v
e
a
m
u
c
h
h
i
g
h
e
r
s
k
i
l
l
s
e
t
,
m
u
s
t
m
e
e
t
s
t
i
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
a
l
s
o
ac
h
i
e
v
e
a
h
i
g
h
e
r
p
a
y
g
r
a
d
e
t
h
a
n
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
(
E
M
T
s
)
.
A
l
l
P
a
l
o
Al
t
o
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
a
n
E
M
T
.
5.
T
h
e
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
d
o
n
o
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
m
o
d
e
l
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
to
t
h
e
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
,
b
u
t
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
a
n
g
e
r
i
n
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
i
s
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
y
o
n
a
l
l
ou
r
m
i
n
d
s
a
t
t
h
i
s
t
i
m
e
Ou
r
o
f
f
-
r
o
a
d
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
f
i
r
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
(
a
n
e
w
o
n
e
i
s
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
)
i
s
h
o
u
s
e
d
i
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
5
(B
a
r
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
,
6
0
0
A
r
a
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
)
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
f
i
r
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
.
O
n
r
e
d
f
l
a
g
da
y
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
-
r
i
s
k
s
u
m
m
e
r
a
n
d
e
a
r
l
y
F
a
l
l
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
t
h
e
t
h
r
e
e
-
p
e
r
s
o
n
c
r
e
w
a
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
5
d
r
i
v
e
t
h
e
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
e
n
g
i
n
e
t
o
t
h
e
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
i
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
d
a
y
t
i
m
e
ho
u
r
s
.
M
y
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
i
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
d
o
z
e
n
r
e
d
f
l
a
g
f
i
r
e
-
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
d
a
y
s
t
h
i
s
ye
a
r
,
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
h
a
l
f
a
s
m
a
n
y
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
.
If
a
f
i
r
e
w
e
r
e
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
i
n
t
h
e
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
o
n
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
d
a
y
o
r
a
t
n
i
g
h
t
,
t
h
e
wi
l
d
l
a
n
d
e
n
g
i
n
e
w
o
u
l
d
d
e
p
l
o
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
5
a
s
w
o
u
l
d
a
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
f
i
r
e
en
g
i
n
e
f
r
o
m
C
a
l
F
i
r
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
e
d
a
t
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
,
a
n
d
b
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
ci
t
y
’
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
o
f
w
i
t
h
i
n
-
2
0
-
m
i
n
u
t
e
,
9
0
%
-
o
f
-
t
h
e
-
t
i
m
e
i
t
h
a
s
s
e
t
“
r
u
r
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
a
r
e
a
s
.
”
Th
a
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
a
n
d
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
m
e
r
i
t
s
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
t
h
i
s
t
i
m
e
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
2
0
1
7
,
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
’
s
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
F
i
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
8
s
t
a
f
f
e
d
t
h
e
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
ev
e
r
y
d
a
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
o
u
r
m
o
n
t
h
s
o
f
h
i
g
h
-
f
i
r
e
d
a
n
g
e
r
s
e
a
s
o
n
.
T
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
wa
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
a
n
d
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
,
p
a
i
d
v
i
a
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
.
Th
a
n
k
y
o
u
f
o
r
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
Se
n
d
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
f
b
a
l
i
n
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
a
n
d
w
r
i
t
e
c
i
t
y
;
t
h
e
n
a
t
t
e
n
d
o
r
w
a
t
c
h
o
n
c
a
b
l
e
o
r
l
i
v
e
s
r
e
a
m
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 9:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Friday, October 06, 2017 3:29 PM
To:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto
Cc:Council, City; Mario Dianda; David@healthwrights.org; Dave Price;
bjohnson@paweekly.com
Subject:Re: Renter Protections in Palo Alto
/orNo, I don't know Angie Evans but she is my dream advocate. She's doing what we have been trying to do, that is, reach out to likely allies
with a specific helpful suggestion. This is my contribution to the rent control debate: We should have
rent control not because landlords are "greedy", but because rental housing for the workforce is one
of the components of responsible city planning. We have a capitalist system, that is, not socialist; the
economy is built by private enterprise; it is, nevertheless, orchestrated by the city, county or state government. which controls land use. They say you may put homes here, stores there, factories over
yonder, and they arrange public transportation to the sites which are destinations for many. Some of
these uses are money making uses, so the property they are on is worth more; the property tax
reflects that difference in value, and traditionally, as the money to be made increases, the property
tax produces more revenue. However, Prop 13, designed to change the traditional method, which was driving the middles, skilled workers and white collar workers, from their homes, also made it
possible to earn more money from a given property without paying back a commensurate tax. A
more satisfactory solution would be to have split tax rolls, and/or hand the health and education
burden back to the federal government, which does have revenue which increases as the nation's
wealth increases, because the payroll tax is a percentage of wages. It would be more practical to lhave the care provided by the county , basically for unskilled workers and their families, paid for by
the payroll tax on these workers, (single payer) and higher education, as well as higher education,
which increases the earning power of those who get it, increasing the income tax. WILPF has a
particular interest in this use of federal tax money, because the federal government has been getting
more money, and spending it on "defense" from countries we don't need to be defended from. Nevertheless, owners of land which may bear rental property received their permission
to make their money by the useful function of housing hoi polloi, the workers whose labor,
consumption and child bearing make possible our society. They weren't given permission to make as
much money as possible by renting to high class families who have traditionally been property
owners. Exception should be make for single-family homes because the rental goes toward the owner's living someplace else, and some consideration should be given to the possibility of deflation,
also.
In the past, it has been characteristic of elected rulers to feel that property enrichment, was the
highest good, but Prop. 13 set us on a different course. If we recognize that land is to be used to bring prosperity to all individuals. rather than power and glory to the commonwealth, we
will probably want to look into insuring that catastrophe doesn't destroy the rental housing stock, nor
Death, Disease and Depression destroy completely the buying power of the low income renters,
putting the landlord out of business.
Stephanie Munoz
From: "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>
: "Roberta Ahlquist" <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, "chuck jagoda" <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 9:36 AM
2
"Ruth Chippendale" <grchippendale@yahoo.com>, "stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com>,
"Wendy Peikes" <wendypei@yahoo.com>, "Mary Gallagner" <writing2win@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 8:52:14 AM
Subject: Fwd: Renter Protections in Palo Alto
Do you know about this? Is this DuBois's colleagues memo? If you find out details - I don't see her
name on our contact list - I can send something out to the full roster. Are you familiar with her name
with one of the organizations that's on our mailing list. Judy A. ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:00 PM
Subject: Renter Protections in Palo Alto To: wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com
Hi,
I'm a Palo Alto residents and a community organizer. I'm writing because I'd love if some of your
members could come to the City Council meeting on October 16th. As you may have seen, they'll be discussing passing a form of local rent control that protects tenants from steep and sudden increases
and from unfair evictions. We seriously need this in Palo Alto and throughout the peninsula but they
won't do this without hearing from as many residents and organizations as possible. I'm going out of
town on October 12th - my Grandfather's 90th birthday can't be missed, even for renter protections -
but I'd love to talk with you all if you have time before the meeting. I've seen your priorities and believe this is completely in line with your beliefs about housing rights. I hope you'll consider sending
folks to give testimony on October 16th!
All my best,
Angie
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 4:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rick Dodson <rick@daltonmngt.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rent Control
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property manager who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have
witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10%
per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of
rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance
from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to
operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community
stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to
addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Rick Dodson
BRE - 00933204
Property Manager
rick@daltonmngt.com
Dalton Realty| www.daltonmngt.com
510 Waverley Street Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.321.1711 o | 650.327.2383 f
Confidentiality Notice.
The information contained in this email and any attachments to it may be confidential and/or privileged and protected from disclosure. This email is intended to be
reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
immediately notify the sender by return email and permanently delete this email from your system. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 4:19 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Harold Davis <harold@daviscorealtors.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:00 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Rent Control in Palo Alto
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have
witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should
be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices. We have owned
and operated a 28 unit apartment building in Palo Alto for over 50 years. We have consistently held rents to slightly below market over this time period. In fact we have always been sympathetic to working with tenants on a fixed income so that they are able to enjoy living in Palo Alto without being overburdened.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years,
only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of
rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance
from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community
stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Harold and LIzbeth Davis
Property Owner
--
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 4:19 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Charles Leung <charles.s.leung@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:47 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Concerned Email
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October
16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed
firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing
meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices. It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year. The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of
Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to operate their rent control
program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community
stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to
addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely, Property Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 4:19 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:GC <gcsender@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:44 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz (internal);
Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Oppose rent control
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices. It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent
control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the
decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of
Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to operate their rent control
program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges. Sincerely, Gilda Cano
Property Owner
Right-click here to download pictures. To help prprivacy, Outlook prevented automatic download ofrom the Internet.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 4:19 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Email <cftlcjc@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rent Control
You are not in any way should take up the aspect of rent control. Look to Mountain View San Francisco, and Berkeley
for what is taking place. Think folks what you are doing.
Mountain View Resident.
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 4:19 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Lindsay <elizabeth@calsonprop.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Learn from your neighbors to the South
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner in Mountain View I will tell you first hand that Rent Control is a losing proposition. It is touted to help low income and shortage and it does just the opposite. Not only is it an affront to private property
rights but it is will virtually eliminate moderately priced housing in the next 5 years in Mountain View. Owners who can no longer maintain their older buildings sell out to developers for 12 million per acre and there goes
the older affordable complex. I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily
housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. It has been an ugly and destructive process and Mountain View may never recover from the adversarial spin it has put on
once unified neighborhoods. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its
residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years,
only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control, which far outweigh the positive. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent
control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and
administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to
addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Lindsay
Elizabeth Lindsay
Vice President – Residential | Calson Properties, Inc.
T: 650.321.3144 | F: 650.321.3163
elizabeth@calsonprop.com | www.calsonprop.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rob Chang <rob.chang@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 1:17 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Rent Control in Palo Alto
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I
am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the
negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing
demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It’s important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44
apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control.
It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in
operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View
that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2‐milion per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad‐hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders
to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and
regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Rob Chang
Property Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Zhang <jimjingzhang@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 12:05 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Against rent control
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo
Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three
years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year. The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of
rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in
maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city
needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately
$2-million per year to operate their rent control program. I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and
community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only
real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely, Jim Zhang
Property Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Larry and Zongqi Alton <lalton@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 11:57 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:rent control
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
Controlling rents to provide lower housing costs is futile and will result in fewer apartments and even higher rents.
Recent Mountain View rent controlled Landlords are selling their apartments and or redeveloping them into single
family home development, retail, office, startup, etc. spaces which results in fewer apartments available.
Free market forces will work best. Companies will hire and Workers will want to take jobs in other locations with lower
housing costs.
Best Wishes,
Larry Alton
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:hannah dou <hannahdou@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 11:15 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Opposing the Rent Control proposal
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I
am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the
negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing
demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44
apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control.
It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in
operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View
that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2‐million per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad‐hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders
to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and
regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Hannah Dou
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy V. Powell <powellesq@hotmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 11:11 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Proposed rent control
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council,
I am a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are
considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in
multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents
as opposed to regulating prices. You only need to look at cities like Oakland and Richmond to see
what can happen with rent control.
Before you jump on this seemingly easy solution, it is important to look at the facts. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of
less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative
impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the
city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost
approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control program.
I respectfully suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing
which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Nancy V. Powell
phone: 650 324-2526
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:syn tub <betty.r.bai@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 10:37 AM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine,
Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Please Oppose Rent Control!
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices. It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year. The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It
doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating
income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently
determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges. Sincerely, Betty Bai Property Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Beth R Nord <brnandsdl@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 9:11 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Renter protection
Please begin a study of renter protections which will hopefully lead to limiting apartment rent increases. The
cost of housing in our town has escalated to the point that young families cannot afford apartments; our service
workers cannot afford to live here. Our teachers, fire fighters and police personnel cannot afford to live here. I know several families that have had to move out of the area because of the lack of affordable apartments.
This is ridiculous! Please begin to study this problem with the aim of doing something about it.
Beth Nord
886 Richardson Crt.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
brnandsdl@earthlink.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Kim Mattos <kimmattos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 8:32 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:OPPOSITION TO RENT CONTROL
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have
witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should
be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years,
only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance
from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced
by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to
addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Regards,
Kimberly M. Mattos, J.D., Broker
724 North 1st Street
San Jose, California 95112
Cell: 408-373-3188
Fax: 408-295-2180
kimmattos@earthlink.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Maxine Lubow <maxine4391@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 7:28 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Opposition to Palo Alto Rent Control
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are
considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of
experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices. It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the
negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with
rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the
added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain
View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to
operate their rent control program. I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges. Sincerely,
Maxine Lubow, Multi-family housing provider
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Cheryl <cherylxoo@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 7:21 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory;
Cheryl Lubow
Subject:Opposed to Palo Alto Rent Control
Mayor Scharff and City Council, As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that
rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting
the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control.
In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents
have increased on average of less than 10% per year. The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers,
developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the
supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional
housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Burk, Multi-family housing provider, San Francisco
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:JimClaus@calwestern.com
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 9:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Vote NO on Rent Control
Mayor Scharff and City Council
You are considering a rent control proposal on October 16th. Please vote NO! I have been a tenant in apartments and I
own apartments, and I have seen the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. I would suggest you
create more housing rather than discourage it. Price controls have never worked well to increase supply - check out San
Francisco, Berkeley, San Jose, all still burdened with the same problems, and with the additional problems that come with
price controls.
Also, consider Palo Alto’s performance to date in increasing the supply of housing. Since 2014, only 44 apartments were
built in the city. During that same time, on average rents have risen less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Council members Holman, DuBois, and Kou doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It
doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in
operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs (as evidenced by the City of Mountain View
that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control program). This
will simply make owning and operating housing less attractive, particularly to the owners of smaller size properties, who
typically provide most of the affordable housing in the city.
Just vote NO.
Jim Claus
Property Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Chuntao Liao <chuntao.liao@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 9:36 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Subject:Please vote NO to the Rent Control Proposal
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council, I am a Palo Alto resident, living near the cross of East Meadow and Ross Road. I am deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th. I am writing to ask you to vote no on it.
While rent-control policies are advocated by progressive politicians, most economists don't consider it a good solution to address
hosing issues, and many evidences show it has a lot of negative impacts upon a community.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It
doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating
income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control program. I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges. Sincerely,
Chuntao Liao
Resident of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Neville Batliwalla <nbatliwa@pacbell.net>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 7:21 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Rent Control in Palo Alto--I have not been able to increase my rents in the last two
years!
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on
October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should
be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years,
only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 5%.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of
rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance
from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to
operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community
stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Neville Batliwalla
650‐345‐5626
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Brian Ponty <brianponty@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 6:42 PM
To:Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; DuBois, Tom;
Kou, Lydia; Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen; Filseth, Eric (Internal)
Subject:Rent Control
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October
16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed
firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing
meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year. The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of
Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control
program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community
stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to
addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely, Property Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Odello <odello_realty@gmzeus.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 6:05 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Oppose rent control in Palo Alto
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October
16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed
firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing
meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year. The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of
Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control
program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community
stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to
addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely, Annette Odello Property Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Alisha Francisco <afrancisco@gb-a.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Opposed Rent Control in Palo Alto
Dear City Council,
I represent the owner of Oak Creek Apartments located on Sand Hill Road. I am with Gerson Bakar & Associates, the management company for this community. As a long-standing property owner in the City of
Palo Alto, who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I
am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my many years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed
firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. We believe the City of Palo Alto should
be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years,
only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per
year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of
rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance
from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by
the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to operate
their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community
stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to
addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Linda Zeller
Gerson Bakar & Associates
201 Filbert Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA. 94133
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Galli <peter_galli@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 10:59 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Property Owner and Manager against Rent Control in Palo Alto
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner and manager who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you
are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in
multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents
as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past
three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative
impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline
in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost
approximately $2-milion per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and
community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Peter Galli
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
18
Carnahan, David
From:john Lindsay <heymrjohn@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 9:43 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:NO MORE RENT CONTROL!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
19
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control
proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask
you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing,
I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing
meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to
regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments
were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on
average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t
consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline
in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added
expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City
of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to operate their rent control
program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing
providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real
solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely, JOHN LINDSAY
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
20
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
21
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
22
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
23
Carnahan, David
From:Alan Louie <aclwired2@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 8:48 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Cc:Gina Zari
Subject:No Rent Control in Palo Alto
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices. It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent
control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the
decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of
Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to operate their rent control
program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges. Sincerely,
Alan Louie, REALTOR ®, RE Broker
,
Property Manager
and Investor
SRES, MRP, SRWA
2016&1
7 VP - AREAA SF Peninsula
2016 SAMCAR Public Relations Chair
2016 SAMCAR Grievance Committee member
License # 01204336
650-619-0642 direct
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
24
Carnahan, David
From:Edie Keating <edie.keating100@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:59 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Time for Renter Item
Dear Mayor Scharff - Possible renter protections is of great interest in our community. With the late agenda
time, the least likely group to attend is families with young children. With their deep desire for school
continuity, who has one of the strongest interests in this topic? Families with young children. This includes not
only renting families, but also families who own homes and are concerned about the threat of displacement of classmates and teachers who rent.
I hope you will consider moving the Renter Protection item to earlier on the agenda so that the council will have
a better measure of the breadth of interest in this issue among Palo Alto residents.
Sincerely, Edie Keating
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Buck <jbuck@wres.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 9:48 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Palo Alto Rent Control
Attachments:Oppose Rent Control in Palo Alto.docx
Please find attached a letter opposing Rent Control in Palo Alto.
Regards,
Jeff Buck • Vice President
Woodmont Real Estate Services
1050 Ralston Avenue • Belmont, CA 94002
(p) 650.802.1682 • (f) 650.591.4577
jbuck.wres.com • www.wres.com
BRE Lic No. #01094932
______________________________________________________________________
Notice to recipient: The contents of this e-mail, including any attachments, are
intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom the e-mail was
addressed. It contains information that may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure by applicable state and federal law. If you received
this e-mail in error, any review, dissemination, distribution, or use of the
contents of this message without consent is strictly prohibited. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation.
1050 Ralston Avenue | Belmont, CA 94002
Tel: 650.592.3960 | Fax: 650.591.4577 | wres.com
BRE #01193147
October 13, 2017
Hon. Greg Scharff, Mayor
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Oppose Rent Control in Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Scharff and Councilmembers,
As a long-time rental housing provider in Palo Alto, I am proud to offer quality housing for Palo Alto residents. In fact, our
company, Woodmont Real Estate Services has been operating apartments in the city since 2003.
I am very concerned about the proposal by Councilmembers Holman, Kou, and DuBois to implement rent control. While they
seem to couch this proposal as an effort to address housing affordability, rent control does little, if anything, to bring housing
costs down and fails to address the fundamental issue facing our community, the lack of available housing.
Last year, California’s Legislative Analyst (LAO) issued a report questioning the viability of rent control as a tool to address
housing affordability. The LAO concluded that by depressing rents, rent control policies reduce the income received by
owners of rental housing and property owners may attempt to cut back their operating costs by forgoing maintenance and
repairs. Over time, this can result in a decline in the overall quality of a community’s housing stock.
We value the homes we provide to our residents and as a long-term member of the Palo Alto community, our company is
very concerned that moving forward with rent control will directly impact the quality of life for not only those residents that
live in rental units, but the residents who live near these apartment buildings.
After evaluating both rent growth and apartment development in Palo Alto, it’s not clear how this proposal will address
housing affordability. Since average rents in Palo Alto have increased by less than 10% per year, which is less than many
surrounding cities. In the past three years, only 44 apartment units were built in Palo Alto, further creating a shortage of
housing for people who work in the community seeking to live affordability in Palo Alto.
Rather than imposing a policy that is expensive to administer, difficult to implement, and is proven to lead to erosion of
quality housing and safe neighborhoods, the City Council should direct its energies towards solving the underlying issue that
is driving our citywide and regional affordability crisis—the lack of available housing.
Sincerely,
Jeff Buck
Vice President
Woodmont Real Estate Services
1050 Ralston Avenue • Belmont, CA 94002
(p) 650.802.1682 • (f) 650.591.4577
jbuck.wres.com • www.wres.com
BRE Lic No. #01094932
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:J. Shi <jian1@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 10:26 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Cc:ababbar@caanet.org
Subject:opposition to the proposal
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I
am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the
negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing
demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44
apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control.
It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in
operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View
that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2‐million per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad‐hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders
to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and
regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Jian J Shi
Property Owner
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:56 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Shields <michael@svmultifamily.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:10 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:No Rent Control
Attachments:RentControl-WhitePaper FIN 6-17-16 format v2.pdf
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property manager who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on
October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in owning, managing and brokering multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a
community, especially in San Jose and Mountain View. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the
housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years,
only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance
from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to
operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community
stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to
addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
I have also attached a white paper I wrote on the impacts of rent control. It is based on hard evidence from
those cities which have implemented rent control and ignored the warnings of economists.
Sincerely,
Michael Shields, CCIM
Apartment / Investment Broker / Founder
Silicon Valley Multifamily Group
235 Oak Meadow Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Tel 408‐356‐1900 | Cel 408‐605‐6414
BRE 01327546
1 | P a g e
401 Alberto Way, Suite 3 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Tel 408-356-1900 Fax 866-354-7420 www.siliconvalleymultifamily.com
The Reality of Rent Control in San Jose
Michael Shields, CCIM
Silicon Valley Multifamily Group
In April of 2016, the San Jose City Council updated their Apartment Rent Ordinance, approving a
new rent control plan for multifamily properties built before 1979. The new directive says that,
as of June 17, 2016, owners within this category of multifamily properties may only increase
rents by up to 5 percent, instead of the 8 percent previously allowed – a reduction of 3 percent.
Moreover, the new ordinance eliminates the 21 percent increase previously allowed if rent had
not been raised in the last 24 months. It also eliminates any debt pass-through and places much
greater restrictions on passing through the cost of capital improvements restrictions for owners
of these pre-1979-built assets, a group representing approximately 44,000 apartments that
house 11 percent of San Jose’s residents.
In markets that struggle with a high cost of living, rent control is often lauded by citizens. It
provides renters with financial relief and positions municipalities as the heroes who delivered
that relief. Unfortunately, there are long-term realities of rent control that are not as sunny and
can be easily overlooked when quick solutions and grateful constituents abound.
Are these long-term consequences worth quick-fix policies? Most multifamily owners and
investors – not to mention economists – would reply with a resounding “no.”
A Quick Lesson in Rent Control
Investopedia defines rent control as, “A price control that limits the amount a property owner
can charge for renting out a home, apartment or other real estate.” It goes on to say, “Rent
control acts as a price ceiling by preventing rents either from being charged above a certain
level or from increasing at a rate higher than a predetermined percentage.”
San Jose adopted its rent-stabilization ordinance in 1979 and applied it to all properties built
before this time. This decree prohibited owners in this asset class from raising rents more than
8 percent per year, per unit. However, there were exceptions to this rule. During a unit
turnover (when an old renter moved out and a new renter moved in), an owner could raise
rents on that specific unit to reflect market value. Additionally, owners who did not raise rents
for two years could implement a 21 percent rental increase in the third year. If an owner
increased their debt by completing substantial capital improvements, they could also apply to
the rent control board for a variance to recoup that outlay through higher rents.
2 | P a g e
401 Alberto Way, Suite 3 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Tel 408-356-1900 Fax 866-354-7420 www.siliconvalleymultifamily.com
In contrast, owners under San Jose’s new ordinance are limited to a rental increase of 5 percent
per year, with only one minor exception: If an owner improves their building, they are
permitted to raise rents up to 8 percent in the first year post renovation. After that, increases
move back to the more conservative 5 percent annual increase limit. Should an owner miss the
8 percent post-renovation rent increase opportunity, they cannot recoup with a deferred
increase and there is no opportunity to apply for variance.
Two rules do remain unchanged: An owner can still increase a unit to market-rate rents during
a transition, provided the tenant vacates the unit under his or her own volition. A developer or
investor can also purchase a rent controlled property, tear it down and build new units that are
not subject to pre-1979-build rent restrictions (assuming said developer or investor can secure
all of the appropriate design, review and related approvals from the city.)
Proponents of rent control say that rent caps ensure that a portion of the local multifamily
inventory is protected as affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents. That it
allows individuals and families with lower incomes to remain in the city, near jobs and other
resources – versus being displaced due to high cost of living – and that it allows long-term
residents (some say: those who helped build the San Jose community) to remain in units that
they have been renting for many years.
When Rent Control Works
Some communities within Silicon Valley have implemented rent control regulations, and the
formula is working, but the reasons differ from those noted above. Rent control in Los Gatos,
for example, follows a formula whereby rent can be raised 5 percent annually, with debt and
capital improvement expenses (among others) allowed to be passed through to the tenants in
the form of higher rents according to a specific formula. However, Los Gatos benefits from a
host of factors not found in San Jose.
First, it is considered a more upscale and desirable location than San Jose, which appeals to a
more professional work force. And although rents in Los Gatos are high compared to other
areas of Santa Clara County, demand determines the rental rates. Second, residents in Los
Gatos tend to earn more money (Los Gatos boasts one of the highest per capita income rates in
the county), which enables renters to afford the submarket’s high rents while also saving to
purchase a single family house or condo of their own. Los Gatos renters also tend to be a
younger, more transitory demographic, which creates a comparatively high turnover rate. With
each turnover, an owner can raise rents to market rate, allowing area projects to maintain solid
cash flow. Third, Los Gatos schools are ranked among the best in not just Santa Clara County
but in all of California. The correlation between a highly ranked school district and higher rents
and property values has been well established for many decades.
San Francisco is also an exception to the rule. It operates under one of the strictest rent control
programs in the area and yet values continue to skyrocket. Like New York City, we can attribute
this to San Francisco’s extremely unique value foundation, based on world-class economic and
lifestyle amenities. However, when it comes to cash flow, even many San Francisco owners are
3 | P a g e
401 Alberto Way, Suite 3 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Tel 408-356-1900 Fax 866-354-7420 www.siliconvalleymultifamily.com
struggling. One example involves a six-unit, rent controlled property in the Inner Sunset that
was purchased by its owner approximately 20 years ago. While value has swelled to an
estimated $1,500,000, the asset still nets its owner less than $20,000 per year (and that’s
without any debt). This equates to a 1.3 percent cap rate, which is ridiculously low for any
commercial investment. Moreover, if the property had any debt, it would not generate a
positive cash flow at all. In cases like this, we have to ask ourselves: Why would that owner
continue to own, when even a conservative stock investment with a 5 percent yield would offer
greater profit than his property investment – and without any of the challenges that are
synonymous with multifamily ownership and management.
When Rent Control Fails
Unfortunately, San Jose does not offer the draw of San Francisco and it is not the young
professional’s darling like Los Gatos. Here, when rent control fails to do what leaders intended,
the ripples are significant. An owner’s return on investment erodes, which discourages property
improvements on existing rent control assets and the construction of new product in the
market. Renters who do have a rent control unit remain in place, clinging to their low rents
even when their income would allow them to move on to a higher rent base. This limits the
availability of rent controlled units for those it is meant to serve: Low-income residents. While
this is happening, administrative costs soar, added barriers like “finders fees” for rent control
units emerge and bottom-line tax revenues fall.
The result is a broken system, with a rundown inventory of units, low investor interest, low
profit margin for owners and high operational costs for municipalities – all wrapped up in a still-
ineffective social change machine. Even the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) has concluded that “The benefits of rent control, from the tenant’s
standpoint, are likely to decline steadily over time, as the quality of units deteriorate.”
With these thoughts in mind, it is not surprising that a poll by the American Economic
Association reports a 93 percent of members surveyed agree that a “ceiling on rents reduces
the quality and quantity of housing available.”
The National Multifamily Housing Council sums up the key drawbacks of rent control as follows:
Deterioration of Existing Housing
Case studies support that rent control reduces an owner’s return on investment, which in
turn decreases their desire or ability to improve units. The result: a drop in the quality of
existing rental stock. The NHMC also points out that this can lead to the abandonment of an
unprofitable property or condominium and cooperative conversions, which in turn serves to
reduce – not increase – the stock of affordable housing.
Inhibition of new construction
Low return rates in rent-controlled multifamily markets is not an attractive draw to
investors. On the contrary, it serves to direct investment capital to more profitable markets.
This decreases the construction volume of new units and/or creates scenarios whereby
multifamily assets are converted to other uses.
4 | P a g e
401 Alberto Way, Suite 3 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Tel 408-356-1900 Fax 866-354-7420 www.siliconvalleymultifamily.com
Reduced Property Tax Revenues
As property values among rent-controlled buildings drop, so do the taxes that a municipality
can assess on those buildings. In the late 1980s, the NMHC reported this causing New York
City an approximate $4 billion loss in taxable assessed property values, equating to an
estimated $370 million in lost annual property tax revenues. While not as significant,
Berkeley has experienced a similar scenario.
High Administrative Costs
The municipal infrastructure required to create, monitor and manage complaints and
appeals within a rent control system can be tremendous, and often outweigh the short-
term benefits envisioned for rent regulation.
Low Income Residents Still Lose Out
Those living in a rent controlled unit often want to stay there, even once their income
exceeds the intended limits of said housing. Some renters also unofficially sublet their units
to family or friends, in order to retain control of a low rent base. This reduces the inventory
of available rent control units for the true low-income wage individuals who need them. It
also creates new factors that all renters in this category must contend with, such as finders
fees and other entry costs.
HUD itself notes that, “Even moderate rent-control ordinances reduce mobility noticeably,
thereby leading tenants to occupy units whose characteristics are not well-suited to their
current circumstances, such as family size and job location.”
The Owner’s Challenge
From the owner’s perspective, here’s how a failed rent control scenario plays out in San Jose…
First, the city adjusts the rent increase ceiling from 8 down to 5 percent, based on an artificial
threshold that the Housing Department thinks is “fair.” Almost immediately, owners see a drop
in future cash flows. Soon, building maintenance issues arise and landlords are stuck between a
rock and a hard place. They want to improve their buildings, create nice places for tenants to
live and earn market rents that build a sound investment. However, under strict rent codes,
these results simply aren’t achievable.
Consider this: Investor A buys an older, rent-controlled property in San Jose for $1 million. The
property needs modernization and it is lacking curb appeal, so she invests $200,000 into
upgrades such as plumbing, interiors, a new roof and similar improvements. The building
emerges as a valuable, improved member of the local inventory. Unfortunately, based on the
new 5 percent rent cap, it will take Investor A more than 30 years to make her money back.
And so Investor A opts to not make property improvements and her asset sinks into layers of
deferred maintenance issues. The property value drops in parallel, putting Investor A in an
unfortunate capitalization scenario. She could sell, but new buyers face the same challenge:
They can’t get the buy-and-improve (or even maintain) scenario to pencil. And so they pass on
the opportunity to invest, taking their money to a non-rent-controlled market.
5 | P a g e
401 Alberto Way, Suite 3 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Tel 408-356-1900 Fax 866-354-7420 www.siliconvalleymultifamily.com
The Renter’s Reality
Though rent control is most often championed by social and political advocates, time and again
the reality is far from positive. Instead of contributing to an anti-poverty solution, rent control
tends to do just the opposite by accelerating the deterioration of housing quality and
availability, and creating a disproportionate occupancy of rent controlled units by higher
income individuals – all while doing nothing to restrict owners of post-1979 properties from
continuing to significantly raise rents on their apartment units.
At its most errant, rent control can also breed a unique form of discrimination. As the NMHC
says, “By eliminating rents as the basis of choosing among a pool of potential customers, rent
control opens the door to discrimination based on other factors.” Among these are income and
credit history, race, sex, family size and “other unlawful factors” that bias the selection process
in spite of Fair Housing laws.
The leading urban policy magazine City Journal has highlighted rent control’s very counter-
intuitive reality. It points to New York City as a prime example, noting that, “It has finally
dawned on many New Yorkers that rent controls, far from solving the city’s housing problem,
are a prime cause of it.” Even with 1.1 million rent-controlled apartments, Journal reports that
NYC’s middle-class families still struggle with crowded living conditions, a monopoly of rent-
controlled units among the wealthy and limited new construction to help expand local housing
options.
In fact, according to the magazine, “Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies discovered that
Manhattan’s high-income neighborhoods and a few wealthier areas in Queens won the lion’s
share of New York’s rent subsidies (“rent subsidy" being the difference between the maximum
rent for a regulated apartment and the actual rent for a comparable unregulated unit.)” Why?
Because, “The greatest subsidies go to stable households living in desirable apartment buildings
and neighborhoods…” As a result, “Poor and minority families, especially large households with
children, don’t benefit in the least from rent controls.”
This creates a dark outlook for San Jose renters expecting true relief from the city’s new
ordinance, and an even darker outlook for well-intentioned owners wanting to provide quality
living units for the market.
Where Do We Go from Here?
As the NMHC asks: Why should the uniquely public burden of providing subsidized housing to
the poor and middle class be borne solely by providers of rental housing?
Most economists will tell you that rent control ultimately reduces and deteriorates existing
supply, and deters new investment in the community. Renters lucky enough to live in a quality
rent-controlled unit often hold on to that unit tightly. Thus, low- and middle-income families
are still pushed to the less desirable units in the rent control inventory.
6 | P a g e
401 Alberto Way, Suite 3 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Tel 408-356-1900 Fax 866-354-7420 www.siliconvalleymultifamily.com
Investors also lose out. Even before stricter rent controls are put in place, San Jose values still
pale in comparison to nearby, non-rent-controlled communities. In 2015, for example, San
Jose’s multifamily average per-unit sales price was $219,554. In the rest of Santa Clara County,
the per-unit sales price was $439,425. As these figures show, the average value in non-rent-
controlled communities is considerably higher, offering an investor a far greater opportunity to
recoup investment dollars from either buying a property with deferred maintenance or from
renovating and improving a currently owned property.
Investors know this scenario well, and because of it, are already buzzing about exchanging their
San Jose assets for properties in nearby, non-rent-controlled communities. Others are in the
process of buying and are simply saying, “Not in San Jose.” And so their investment dollars –
and their tax revenues – are going elsewhere, such as Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Campbell,
Santa Clara or Milpitas.
Like the idea of rent control itself, more buying and selling seems like good news for real estate
brokers. And it’s true that, in the early stages, brokers will be flush with deals. But the dark side
is that there is a dark side. In the long run, rent control takes an entire market – like San Jose –
out of a dealmaker’s realistic playing field, which greatly reduces the number of investors
willing to purchase properties. And that doesn’t bode well for anyone.
Those who oppose rent control generally agree that our solution to high rents and tight
inventories involves a return to the basic fundamentals of economic stimulation. Some
examples: Federal and state programs that provide financial assistance to low-income renters
and, in turn, increase their ability to stimulate the economy through buying and renting activity.
Also, programs and policies that support easier renovation or new construction of affordable
housing units – a move that increases and diversifies San Jose’s multifamily inventory rather
than narrowing it.
Even the Economist notes that, “In places where demand to live in the city is rising (as in
London, New York and Seattle) a more effective policy would be to build more housing.”
What Can Owners Do Now?
For San Jose owners, rent control will usher in reduced income, increased expenses and more
red tape in complying with the city’s new apartment rental registry – all factors leading to a net
lower cash flow. Decreased investor demand will also breed lower property values.
If you fall in this category of owner, you have a few options. Option one: Hold on to your
property and live with the lower income, lower returns and increased management obligations.
Option two: Exchange out of the San Jose market into a nearby city that does not have rent
control. However, those considering option two have a small window of opportunity. They need
to move soon, while the market is still strong and values are still high – and before other
owners throw their hands up in frustration and join the masses wanting to sell off their San Jose
rent controlled assets.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Fran Turano <fran@rentalhousingnetwork.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 8:54 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Thank you in advance for you effort and reasnoaleness
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner helper who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on
October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years,
only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10%
per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of
rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced
by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to
operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community
stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Edie Keating <edie.keating100@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 2:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Why I hope you will vote yes to study renter protections
Dear Palo Alto City Council –
Tonight you will vote whether staff and Council should more forward to study renter protections. I hope you will take this step to study further.
I hope you will give staff direction to study possible renter protections broadly. While limiting the final policy
to buildings with 5 or more units may be your ultimate choice, I hope staff review will also tell us how many
units are in smaller buildings as well, so an informed decision can be made.
Within the state law which regulates renter protections, Costa Hawkins, there is room for great
flexibility. While this is not what I recommend, you could provide very light renter protection – until recently
San Jose’s limit on rent increase was 8%, far above the CPI inflation rate. Costa Hawkins also sets some limits
that many consider wise – new construction is exempt from rent stabilization, and when a new tenant moves in, the landlord is allowed to charge market rent. My point is – don’t say no to renter protections tonight. Say yes
to learning what your options are.
Do you value your own housing stability? Most of you are home owners, with predictable mortgages and
thanks to prop 13 predictable increases in property tax. If you value housing stability for yourselves, I hope you will also see the value of housing stability for the 44% of your community that rents.
How is my situation as a renter? I was easily able to review the last 7 years of my income and costs. So far, I
can afford my rent. My monthly rent has gone up either $100 or $75 every year. My average rent increase was
4.4%. My average pay increase? 2.7%. If my rent had only gone up only 3% in each of those years, I would have over $2,000 more disposable income to spend this year and every year. That would be a lot more fun than
paying my current rent to my out of town landlord. It would also be a benefit to our local economy.
My personal openness to rent stabilization has grown over many years, from general societal prejudice towards
it, to respect for the limits that Costa Hawkins requires, and even to question some of those limits. For example, I support excluding from rent stabilization an individual who rents out one single family home. But an
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
2
individual who rents out 15 single family homes? I am sad that no city can require rent stabilization of such an
individual. I know that this council supports affordable housing. An affordable housing win helps perhaps
hundreds of families. Rent stabilization can help thousands of families.
Needing to move suddenly is disruptive and painful. Worrying that you may need to move suddenly is also
painful. I think the worst impact is that parents seeking to give their children a secure home will someday need
to explain that they need to move from their home because no one cares. Their landlord doesn’t care about the
family disruption, and that city’s city council did not care enough to even study rent stabilization. Will you let Palo Alto be that city?
Thank you for your consideration.
Edie Keating
20+ year Palo Alto renter
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Chris Lundin <clundin@ix.netcom.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 2:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please consider renters relief
PA City Council:
I’m hopeful you’ll review in detail the proposal by three of your colleagues about providing renters relief from
unreasonable rent increases.
While I’m a homeowner in Palo Alto, my three daughters are all renters (San Mateo, San Francisco and Albany, CA). The
San Mateo one *use* to live in Redwood City but was booted out of her rental to make room for a higher‐rent paying
person. (who, after two months, has not materialized). Needing to move out of a rental due to an increase is incredibly
disruptive (find a new place, pay first‐ and last‐months’ rent, add a security deposit, perhaps rent a moving van, etc.
Incredibly stressful and expensive.
Please seriously consider this matter. Thank you.
Chris Lundin
2756 Ross Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Thompson <gailt1225@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 3:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rent Stabilization
Please vote yes to study rent stabilization. Thank you to the Council members who worked to get this item on the
agenda.
Gail Thompson
Long‐time Palo Alto resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Kendall Properties <530kendall@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 4:30 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:NO Rent Control in Palo Alto
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on
October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote NO on it. In my 35 years of experience in multifamily housing, I
have witnessed firsthand from owning rent controlled property in East Palo Alto, the negative impact that rent control has upon a community and all of its property owners, not just multifamily owners. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents instead of trying to regulate prices.
It’s important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years,
only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased an average of less than 10% per
year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kous' memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the rapid decline in apartment
maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as
evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per
year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of multifamily housing experts, providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing, which is the only real
solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Karen Kessler for Kendall Properties
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:peaceandjusticecenter@gmail.com on behalf of Paul George @ PPJC
<paul@peaceandjustice.org>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 4:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support Colleagues Memo on Renter Protection
Peninsula Peace and Justice Center
305 N. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
We are writing in support of the Colleagues Memo from Council Members DuBois, Holman and Kou regarding
strengthening renter protections. We believe that rent stabilization would provide renters with more predictable
and fair rent increases and that just cause eviction is long overdue. Renters shouldn’t have to live month-to-
month or even year-to-year in fear of sudden changes to their housing status.
We would urge you to adopt an even stronger ordinance than that recommended by the Colleagues Memo.
Renter protections should be extended to ALL renters in the city, not just to those who live in buildings of "5 or
more housing units." There is no justification for offering protections only to a limited segment of the local
population.
In addition to acting on the Colleagues Memo, we strongly urge you to instruct Palo Alto's lobbyist in
Sacramento to work toward the repeal of the Costa-Hawkins Act so that units built after 1995 (now exempt
under this state law) will also be covered by these commonsense measures.
We believe tenant protections are more than just the right thing to do on behalf of renters. This is good policy
for cities that want to maintain their sense of community at a time when the cost of housing has become
untenable for owners and renters.
Sincerely,
NAME [58 Signers] PALO ALTO
ADDRESS PERSONAL COMMENT
marcia b. laris
3065 middlefield
road #3101
Monique Kane
663 Wildwood
Lane I believe this would be a step in the right direction.
Kristina Smith 1144 Cedar Street
Enid Pearson 1019 Forest ct
Barbara Ann
Dawson
773E Meadow
Drive
Thank you my son is working so hard to raise his child in the city he was born and
raised in. It shouldn't be this hard
Michael and Izvara
Predmore
81 Peter Coutts
Circle
Laura Chiu
775 Talisman
Court
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
7
gail thompson 1517 edgewood dr.
Martha Beinin
89 Peter Coutts
Circle
Carol Brouillet 4060 Verdosa Drive
We have been renting our home for 27 years; my youngest son was born in this house. We have seen housing prices increase about ten times in value while we have been living here. My husband has worked at Google for over a decade, but if we lose our current home, we would probably not be able to afford a similar home in Palo Alto, but would be obliged to move elsewhere. There should be some protection for people who have rented and lived here for decades; at the moment, there is none. I am grateful that our sons were able to graduate from high school while we were living here; our greatest fear was trying to relocate anywhere before the kids finished their schooling and I'm sure that many youger parents share those fears.
Adele Jessup
733 Northampton
Drive
Richard N Clark 1074 Moreno Ave
Daniela Starling 773 East Meadow drive
Anne Husty 922 Bautista Ct.
Kip Husty 922 Bautista Ct.
Heidi L. Stauffer 1020 Colorado Avenue
Angela Evans 357 Everett Ave We need renter protections and more housing now!
Michael J. Alexander 3391 Saint Michael Dr.
Shelly Gordon 4250 El Camino Real, A104
Palo Alto, while recognized as a progressive, inclusive, protective city, is caught in a sphere of economic exclusion for many people of diverse financial backgrounds. This ordinance will help even the playing field.
Linda Faste 90 Peter Coutts Circle Stanford
Karen Schreiber 183 Creekside Drive
Jennifer Gaskin 701 E. Charleston Road
As a mother of two middle school aged kids, it's heart breaking that I can't ensure my
kids that we can stay here for them to finish high school. Last year my rent was increased by $450. That's simply heartless just greed.
Melanie Liu 2003 Edgewood Drive I support renter protections for ALL renters and including ALL units.
Barbara
Boissevain
2579 Park Blvd.
Unit X202
As a longtime Palo Alto resident I am very pleased that the council is taking up this
issue!
Glenda Jones 1074 Moreno Ave.
Tracy Ballard-Tal 390 East Charleston Road
Chris Lundin 2756 Ross Road
Federica Armstrong 1920 Bryant St.
Rebecca Van Dyck 1528 College Ave.
Minako H. Sano 3112 South Court Please do everything you can to keep Palo Alto as a livable city for ordinary good people.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
8
Jeanne Stivers 2732 Ross Rd
Sean Holman 357 Everett Ave
caroleann eittreim 1975 ivy lane This is long overdue. For too long landlords have been able to raise rents to astronomical levels.
June Cancell 365 Colorado Avenue
Mary Tan
Fong 3290 Louis Rd
Jonelle Preisser
425 Grant Ave., #30 Palo Alto 94306 Something must be done. Please
Charlotte
Ryan 3924 Louis Road
Paul Seaver 3638 Bryant Street
Sarah Creighton 271 Creekside Dr
Braumon
Creighton 271 Creekside Dr
Joyce Beattie
455 E.
Charleston Rd.
It's crucial for our
Community to not just price rents at "what the market will bear", but to provide livability for those who work, nourish and provide for us in this town. Palo Alto
shouldn't just go to the highest bidder.
Jennifer Prokhorov 3492 Murdoch Ct
Peter
Broadwell
2325 Cornell
Street
As a small time landlord I rent out a converted garage and know the temptation to raise rents. But having been renters in the past also know that that path leads to
discontent. Please do what you can to ease the discontent in all our futures.
carmen Rodwell 3946 nelson dr
Paul Bundy 143 Park Avenue
Barbara
Dawson 2729 Byron St
I am now paying an exorbitant price for rent..Want to stay, but cannot afford much
more. Move up to the mountains? Not likely as they have gone up in flames.
Elisabeth L Sherman 4307 Miranda Ave
I volunteer in the Hotel de Zink homeless shelter when it is housed at the UU Church each Sept, and I have heard many times from our guests that they were forced into homelessness when their rents were raised significantly. Many hold jobs and still can't afford housing here.
Peter Herreshoff 4180 Oak Hill Ave
Marcia Beiley
Laris
3065 Middlefield
Road
Robert
Litwiller
643 Coleridge
Ave
Larry Chinn 800 E Charleston Rd Apt 6
Fernanda Garber 3272 Clifton Ct
Mary A. O'Connor 850 Webster Street
Rents have risen more than inflation and more than wages have risen. Allowing
unreasonable greed is not in the best interest of our city, in addition to being inhumane.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
9
Thomas Wasow 758 Barron Ave.
Michael &
Izvara Predmore 81 Peter Coutts Circle
Linda Lopez Otero 410 Sheridan Ave., #111 --
Paul George, Director
Peninsula Peace and Justice Center
305 N. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 326-8837 www.PeaceandJustice.org
Follow us on Facebook | @Peace_Justice_C
"Peninsula Peace and Justice Center has been one of the most effective of the activist
organizations." ~ Noam Chomsky
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Tom Thompson <talltom@rwthompsonproperties.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 14, 2017 9:21 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Rent and Evictions Controls
Honorable Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council:
As a property owner I am deeply concerned with the Rent & Eviction Control
proposal you are considering. Don’t make our housing shortage worse with these
failed gimmicks. Instead, consider these truths:
The paradox of Rent Control: You would be “helping”… by making it worse.
Two local examples of how Rent/Eviction/Relocation Controls make our housing
shortage even worse.
East Palo Alto:
a) East Palo Alto became the “Murder Capital of the World” in 1992 and
remains our most dangerous city in Silicon Valley. Why? Gang members and
drug dealers are nearly impossible to remove with Rent/Eviction/Relocation
Controls.
b) There are about 30% fewer rental units in East Palo Alto now than there
were in 1984 when Rent/Eviction/Relocation Controls were implemented.
Apartments were demolished because over time maintenance costs far
exceeded rents after Rent/Eviction/Relocation Controls were implemented.
The same thing happened to 900,000+ apartments in New York City. Gone.
San Francisco:
a) There are at least 36,604 vacant rental units in San Francisco. This is 15%
of rentals that owners refuse to even rent, all because of
Rent/Eviction/Relocation Controls in San Francisco. Let me know if you
would like to see the census data that verifies this.
b) We could instantly solve our Silicon Valley housing shortage overnight by
adding 36,000+ rentals… by ending rent control in San Francisco.
Rent/Eviction/Relocation Controls are failed gimmicks and terrible ideas.
Paradoxically, they are universally proven to make housing shortages worse.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
11
Don’t let emotions override common sense. Focus instead on common sense
solutions to the shortage… more housing near jobs and transportation corridors.
Thank You
Tom Thompson
Property Owner
650-678-0252
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Bruce Herrmann <bruceherrmann@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:50 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Rent control. It doesn't work
I have owned 16 apartment units on Sutter Avenue in mid‐town Palo Alto since 1983. I consider myself to be a great
landlord. I have never had an issues with my residents, as evidenced by the fact that only 1 resident has even requested
mediation. 80% of my residents are on annual leases, and I never evicted a resident. Not only has average resident has
been at my property for over 5 years, I have two residents for over 20 years, one of which has been a resident for over
45 years. My property is extremely clean and well maintained, with new roofs, regular exterior painting, professionally
maintained landscaping, etc.
I would like to briefly express my concern over rent control.
First, a bit on my background. I have an MBA from UC Berkeley with a concentration in Urban Real estate. I worked as a
real estate broker in Palo Alto for over 30 years, and have testified numerous times as an expert witness on various real
estate matters.
Rent control just doesn’t work, and is harmful to both the community and to the residents you are trying to protect.
1. As a landlord, I have no incentive to improve my property. One of the reasons my residents stay so long is the fact
that I constantly upgrade their units. New carpets, appliances, professional cleaning—whatever it takes to make them
happy and remain as residents. If my rent is controlled, I have no incentive to keep my residents. Just the opposite—I
want them to leave so I can rent to a new resident at market rents (I’m sure you are aware that state law prohibits
limitation on rent to new residents).
2. With rent control it is in my best interest to have the most financially capable, short term residents. My target
resident will be a young, well paid high tech worker (of which there are many), preferably new to the area. I want
someone who is extremely likely to move in 1‐2 years so that I can release the unit at market rents. This is just the
opposite of my current resident profile—the type of resident you hope to protect with rent control—someone who is
limited income and could be displaced by increasing rents. These people will be gone from Palo Alto if you regulate
rents, since no landlord will want rent to them.
3. Not only does rent control dis‐incentivicize me to upgrade the interior of my units, I have no reason to improve the
exterior as well. I will no longer regularly paint the property, reseal the driveways, add color spot plants to the
landscaping, or do many of the other little things that enhance the street appeal of my property. This certainly is not to
the benefit of the city, and particularly not to the benefit of my neighbors.
4. If you want to help lower income residents, collect a tax from EVERYONE in the city (not just apartment owners), and
use the money to assist needy residents with their rents.
btw, I have no issue with a reasonable just cause eviction ordinance. When there is a free rental market, landlords and
residents work together and the need to evict is just not an issue.
feel free to contact me at:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
13
PO Box 3007
Los Altos, CA 94024
or call me at 650‐941‐0268
Bruce Herrmann
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Zarine Batliwalla <zbatliwalla@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rent Control
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control
proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask
you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting
the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments
were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average
of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t
consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline
in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added
expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of
Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing
providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how
to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Property Owner
--
Zarine Batliwalla
650-222-3588
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Zarine Batliwalla <zbatliwalla@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 10:26 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Palo Alto Rent Control
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
We are small mom and pop landlords. We take pride in our property, have upgraded it over the years and have a good mix of tenants. My husband and I have put our heart and souls into making a lovely home for our tenants who also value the property. We are considerate of people living in our property and do not gouge them with rental increases. We have NOT increased our rents in the last 3 years. As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44
apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
Dear Mr. Dubois,
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control program. I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional
housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Neville & Zarine Batliwalla
Property Owner
--
Zarine Batliwalla
650-222-3588
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Nikolas Noomen <b.v.nikolas@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Plz vote no on rent control
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
17
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal
that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no
on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its
residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t
consider the negative impacts of rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the
city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently
determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to operate their
rent control program. I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing
providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to
address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to
addressing our local and regional housing challenges. Sincerely,
Nikolas Noomen
Property Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
18
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
19
Carnahan, David
From:James Wick <jimwickone@verizon.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 2:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rent Control Deliberation
Mayor and Council Members,
Please open and read and consider the two attachments as you deliberate the rent control issue on Monday, October 16.Thank You.
Sharon M. Wick sharonwick38@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
20
Carnahan, David
From:Dan Decker <ddeckerapts@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 5:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rent Control
As a Santa Clara County property owner I believe you should impose rent control. Rents always go up in rent controlled
markets and we love high rents.
So give it a go.
Dan Decker
Apartment building owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
21
Carnahan, David
From:AMY AMY <amyluk38@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 7:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Objection to rent control
Dear Sir/Madam, Please note the attached petition. Thanks so much for your consideration,
Amy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
22
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Li <cli@apr.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:40 PM
To:Kou, Lydia; Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Holman, Karen; Tanaka, Greg
Subject:No Rent Control in Palo Alto!
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote NO on it! In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I
have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto
should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44 apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per
year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of
rent control. It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by
the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-milion per year to operate
their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to
addressing our local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Property Owner
Carol Li
Princeton street in PA
Thanks and regards,
Carol Li
Alain Pinel Realtors | 578 University Ave | Palo Alto
DRE 01227755
650.281.8368 | www.carolli.com 20+ Years of Excellence
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
23
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
24
Carnahan, David
From:Li Song, CFA <li.song.cfa@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:10 PM
To:Kou, Lydia; Council, City; Holman, Karen; DuBois, Tom; greg.tanaka@cityofpaloakto.org
Subject:NO on any non market base rent proposal or policy
Dear council members,
My name is Li Song and I am a resident of the city. I have the following comments on the colleagues memo on the renter protection program. That program is a form of rent control and I am against it for the following
reasons. I urge you to vote “No” on it.
1. In a market economy prices are the results of supply and demand. Conversely, they also play a
crucial role in determining how much of each resource get demanded and supplied. Rents, like prices, function the same way.
2. When rents are controlled and kept below their fair level determined by the market, people tend to
demand more of rental homes/apartments.
3. For instance, some families which could live comfortably in 2 bedroom apartments, may want 3, or
even more bedroom apartments now, under the controlled, low rents level. Some people who used to
live in Mountain View, may now decide to move to PA, also due to the below market rents.
4. On the supply side, when the rent level is controlled while other cost of maintaining a property (mortgage, tax, repairs) are still market based and rising, landlords may choose to withdraw their rental
units or the apartments from the market, resulting a decline of total rental units in the city with rent
control laws. E.g. In 1976, the city of Toronto implemented its rent control laws. By 1979, 23% of the
rental units were withdrawn from the market. After rent control was introduced in Berkeley in the early
80s, the number of private rental housing units declined by 31% in five years.
5. #3 and #4 combined cause significant imbalance between the demand and the supply of rental
units. The social and political implications are that renters often petition to local politicians demanding
more housing. By now, it’s not hard to tell a normal functioning market economy has been distorted or
even hijacked by rent control laws.
6. Rent control is well-known to cause the deterioration of living conditions of rent controlled units.
Two main reasons: a) landlords don’t need to put in much efforts in the upkeeping of their properties as
they would have no problem finding the next tenants. There is a long list of people waiting for them. b)
controlled rents drove down the landlords’ income, which drains their budget for maintenance and repairs.
7. Another impact of rent control is the aging of the total pool of apartments/rental homes. A survey
conducted by the city of San Francisco a few years ago found that 75% of the rent controlled apartment
buildings are over 50 years old, and 44% are even 70 years old. Reports of rat and roach infestations are also much higher in rent controlled apartments in general.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
25
8. Black market or under the table transactions often spike under rent control. Due to the long waiting
list, landlords or apartment leasing managers now have the discretionary power of who gets an unit and
when. Giving bribes to leasing managers to move a prospective tenant up the list happens far more often under rent control. A colleague of mine, J, who lives in an rent controlled apartment in SF, confirmed
that this practice is an open secret among renters.
9. At various council meetings where rent control initiatives are debated, a common hand played by
the RC supporters is that rent control law help those elderly residents who have lived in the city for decades, and it would be unjust for them to be forced out by high rents. Setting aside the merits or
demerits of this argument, have the RC supporters given any consideration to other elderly residents
who have been on the waiting list for a long time? Have they given any consideration to other elderly
residents who are suffering in rats/roaches infested rent controlled apartments (due to #6)?
10. Another point to make is that rent control programs DO NOT control rents. As a matter of fact, since
the RC laws in NYC and SF don’t apply to luxury apartments above a certain price level, developers
smartly focused on building projects above those price points. The result is that the average rent levels
of both cities are artificially pushed higher by those higher priced units. Not lower.
11. One of the peculiar problems of RC is that it only protects people who are inside looking out, and
totally ignored people who are outside looking in. The result is that people with rent control units don’t
want to give up their units unless it’s absolutely necessary. A former colleague of mine, P, moved to
Beijing over 10 years ago. But for all these years, he keeps his rent controlled apartment in SF, so that
he can use it when he is visiting family/friends in the bay area, once a year. He sure knows that once he gives up his unit, he will have to wait for a long, long time to find another rent controlled unit at that
price level. Data showed that the % of renters who have been in the same apartment for over 20 years in
NYC is twice that of the national average. The lower the turnover of those units, the longer the wait for
prospective tenants.
12. A high profile example is former US congressman Charles Ranglel from NYC. Voters were
outraged when the media broke the story that he kept 4 rent control units in NYC. Why would he do
that? The rents are so cheap that he might as well keep them, just in case. Had congressman Rangel even
given any consideration to his voters who were on the waiting list? You decide.
13. Rent control removes a very important free-market element: tenant’s self-ration. Because the rents
are low, tenants have no or limited incentives to economize their rent arrangements, such as bringing in
a roommate to share the rent, etc. The US censes conducted a bit over 10 years ago showed that 49% of
the rent controlled apartments in SF were occupied by only one person. That number was 44% in NYC.
This is a clear sign of a waste of precious resources that have more efficient uses.
14. Digging even deeper, the aforementioned examples are all ex post, since they have happened so we
have knowledge of them. The bigger loss to the society is those transactions would have happened BUT
didn’t happen, due to rent control. Under RC, many landlords have perfectly vacant rooms to rent out
but choose not to; at the same time, many prospective tenants on the waiting list would be more than happy to pay extra if they could find a room. What a waste on both fronts! Those “good intentions” RC
supporters either fail to recognize this point or choose to look the other way.
15. Since the word Rent Control sometimes has a negative connotation, as it should, many cities have
chosen to sugarcoat it when the pass RC laws. E.g. It’s dubbed as Rent Stabilization Program, a much better sounding moniker to sell to voters! However, regardless how is called, it’s rent control and its
economic impacts to the community are still the same and toxic!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
26
Final words: the most effective way to evaluate the merits or demerits of government programs or laws is NOT
what their stated goals are; instead, it’s WHAT INCENTIVES THEY CREATE…
Regards,
Li Song
Arroyo Ct, 94306 Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
27
Carnahan, David
From:Christina Van Zandt <christina@tishaugp.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:A letter to Oppose Rent Control
Mayor Scharff and City Council, As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44
apartments were built in the City of San Francisco and, since 2014, rents have increased an average of nearly 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control. It
doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2-million per year to operate their rent control program. I suggest the formation of an ad-hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and regional housing challenges. Sincerely,
Property Owner
Christina Van Zandt
(650)906-7754
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
28
Carnahan, David
From:Yan <yanfeichen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 10:41 PM
To:Kou, Lydia
Subject:No rent control in Palo Alto!
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a property owner who is deeply concerned with the rent control proposal that you are considering on October 16th, I
am writing to ask you to vote no on it. In my years of experience in multifamily housing, I have witnessed firsthand the
negative impact that rent control has upon a community. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing meeting the housing
demands of its residents as opposed to regulating prices.
It's important to look at the facts when considering a policy as impactful as rent control. In the past three years, only 44
apartments were built in the city and since 2014, rents have increased on average of less than 10% per year.
The proposal of Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, and Kou memo doesn’t consider the negative impacts of rent control.
It doesn’t consider the higher crime rates of cities with rent control, the decline in maintenance from the decrease in
operating income, or the added expense and administration the city needs as evidenced by the City of Mountain View
that recently determined that it will cost approximately $2‐milion per year to operate their rent control program.
I suggest the formation of an ad‐hoc committee made up of housing providers, developers, and community stakeholders
to evaluate how to address increasing the supply of housing which is the only real solution to addressing our local and
regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Yan Fei & Zongjian Chen
Property Owner
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
29
Carnahan, David
From:kevin guibara <kevinguibara@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 1:48 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Rent Control
Kevin Guibara
405 Kipling St #4
Palo Alto CA
Dear City Council,
Rent control makes apartment living worse. It requires landlords to keep undesirable tenants that can
degrade the quality of living for an entire apartment complex. Rent control measures do not solve the housing
crisis. Building more housing units solves the housing crisis.
If the rent increases year over year in Palo Alto, then Palo Alto did not build enough housing units to
keep up with demand. Rent control does not solve this problem, building new units does.
Instead of studying rent control, the city council should study how they can build 100,000 new housing units over the next 10 years and where Palo Alto can put these units. This is the size and scope required to stop the affordability crisis.
Sincerely,
Kevin Guibara
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
30
Carnahan, David
From:Isaac Agam <agami@agiloans.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 3:03 AM
To:Council, City; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal);
Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian
Subject:Rent Control in Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members,
I’d like to point out to you a few items that speak volume against rent control proposal that you are considering
on October 16th.
It's important to look at the facts before considering a policy as impactful as rent control.
1 – FACT: In the past four years, rents have increased on average of less than about 8.0% per year.
2 – FACT: Rent is coming down now by about 20%! This is the nature of the housing market. It will be a
mistake to form a new policy that affects the City very much as indicated below because of four years of
relatively high rent increase out of many years of housing rentals in Palo Alto.
3 – FACT: The average rent increase in Palo Alto over about 40 years has been 5%-6%. This increase rate
barely covers the increase of costs to maintain an apartment unit at healthy and safe place. Insurance, utilities,
and repairs are all going up higher than 6% per year plus property tax at 2-2.5%/yr.
4 – FACTS: Rent control, while sounds good and certainly bring popularity, has major effects of the cities in
which it is implemented such as San Francisco, Berkeley, Hayward, East Palo Alto, and Oakland as follows:
4.1 – FACT: Rent control brings crime and drugs to the city. See a section of the 2015 FBI report about
crime rates in California,
FBI 2015 Crime index in the Bay Area out 459 Municipalities in CA ranked by City.
The higher the Index, the higher the crime rate
Rank
Crime
Index City / Population Percentile
7 5,053 Oakland, CA / 402,339 98.5%
According to the FBI, Oakland is the second‐most dangerous city in the US
32 2,793 Berkeley, CA / 115,688 93.1%
33 2,735 San Francisco, CA / 829,072 92.9%
34 2,731 East Palo Alto, CA / 28,920 92.7%
86 2,069 Hayward, CA / 149,596 81.5%
Source: 2015 FBI Report on Crime in CA
4.2 – FACT: Rent Control DOESN’T work. Under the law, not all rental units are subject to rent control.
Therefore, despite rent control laws, the rent controlled cities in the Bay Area have the highest average rent as
follows:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
31
Rent in Bay Area Cities as of 02/2016 Ranked by 2 Bedrooms rent
Rank City 1Bed 2Bed Rent Control
1 San Francisco $3,096 $4,126 Yes
2 Oakland $2,986 $3,763 Yes
4 Redwood City $2,670 $3,482 No
3 Berkeley $2,813 $3,393 Yes
5 San Mateo $2,663 $3,328 Yes
6 Palo Alto $2,561 $3,320 Yes
7 Mountain View $2,446 $3,114 Yes
8 Cupertino $2,439 $3,097 Yes
9 Santa Clara $2,399 $3,024 Yes
10 San Jose $2,362 $2,960 No in 2016
Source: Rent Jungle
4.3- FACT: Rent control brings not only crime but also deterioration of the quality of the
neighborhoods and communities as it happened in Oakland, Berkeley, Hayward, and Parts of San
Francisco.
5 – FACT: Palo Alto rent IS affordable.
Minimum wage in Palo Alto will be $19/hour as of January 2019. This translates $6,000/mon for a couple. In
that case, an affordable for a couple will be $2,160/mon.
There are four 1Bedroom units advertised on Craigslist today at a price of $1,500-$2,200.
This is not a luxury living, but it is affordable.
However, the reality is that the median household income in Palo Alto is $126,771/yr., or
$10,564/month. At that level, affordable rent is about $3,800/mon.
There are 41 2 bedrooms Apartments on Craigslist in Palo Alto between $2,575/mon and $3,500/mon.
Tenants pay their rent for one reason alone. THEY CAN AFFORD IT.
In other words, the “unaffordable housing” in Palo Alto is a myth and the interest
groups of tenants and their supporters simply don’t want to pay the going rent
while covering it up with much empty slogans and hollow jingles.
In addition, Palo Alto is not a sacred place. There are enough cities around Palo Alto where the rent is lower
and more affordable.
6 – FACT: Household income in the Bay Area increases an average 8% per year. This is 2% higher than
the average rent increase and it means that even 10% rent increase per year is affordable. However, while we
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
32
had four years of unusual rent increases the 2008-2009 recessions, the rental affordability will improve and is
improving over time.
6- FACT: Rent Control brings waste and bureaucracy.
Rent Control increases the entire city budget for possibly assisting very few people, if at all.
Bureaucracy tends to inflate itself over time. The proposed rent control is the most wasteful use of the city
budget.
7 – FACT: Rent Control brings about a severe decline in the quality, safety, and health of the rental
units. As it happened in Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward, and San Francisco for the rent controlled units. Because
of the restrictions on their income, rent controlled owners do only the minimum to keep up with the laws but
avoid improvements. Therefore, the rent controlled units decline in quality over time.
8 – FACT: Improvements in the quality of housing and the community of City of Palo Alto brought
about by rental owners, not tenants, by investing millions of Dollars in improving their units.
9 - FACT: Many rental units are not owned by large corporations but families that use their savings to
buy and improve rental units for their retirement. A perfectly legitimate way of creating a retirement funds for
old age. While rent control may help a few people in Palo Alto, it robs many families of their savings and
retirement.
In other words, rent control laws allow indolent people to rob hard working and elderly people from their
retirement funds.
10- FACT: Rent Control is immoral. Rental owners bought their rentals units at the time that rent control did
not exist in Palo Alto. Relying on that, they invested millions of dollars in improving the housing market in Palo
Alto. It is immoral to tell a property buyer that from now on, the rules will be such that the funds that they have
been investing in property will now go to somebody else, most of to those that don’t really need any such help.
11 – I’d like to encourage you to carefully review the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) enacted by President Bill Clinton which eliminated the then welfare
programs and their bureaucracies in the Federal and State levels, understand its rationale and implement
it.
For the wellbeing of the City of Palo Alto and its residence, I am writing to ask you to rethink the
campaign of interest groups such as Tenants Protection whose interest is just to avoid paying market
rent and vote NO on the rent control proposal.
Sincerely,
Isaac Agam
Housing provider in Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
33
Carnahan, David
From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 4:18 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Item 13: SUPPORT Strengthening Renter Protection for Palo Alto Residents
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I support the goals and recommendations of the Colleagues Memo on this topic.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to make tonight’s Council meeting, as I will be at the Environmental and Water
Resources Committee meeting for the Santa Clara Valley Water District, on which I serve.
Best regards, Arthur
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:33 AM
34
Carnahan, David
From:Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 7:07 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please support Renter protection, Agenda # 13
Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council:
Please support the recommendations in the Colleagues memo regarding renter protection. Even though I have been a
homeowner in Palo Alto for over 40 years now, I was a renter here for 7 years before that — first an apartment in
College Terrace and then a cottage in a court for 6 years. Even when I was a renter, I considered myself part of the Palo
Alto community and I participated in various issues that were important to me.
I laugh now when I think that my roommate and I had been told by our first landlord that they never raised the rent on a
sitting tenant. At eleven months in they announced they were raising the rent from $125 to $130. We gave them
notice and moved out!!! In those days there were options of local affordable places to move. That is no longer the
case.
I urge you to support the reasonable protections proposed in the Colleagues memo, so that renters are not faced only
with the option of moving far away from Palo Alto to find even comparable housing.
Sincerely,
Emily M. Renzel
Palo Alto Resident since 1964
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joanne Mone <joanne@cmcrents.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 2:59 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Greg.Scharff@cityofpaloalto.com; Tanaka, Greg;
Cory.Wolbach@cityofpalo.org
Subject:Oppose Rent Control In Palo Alto
Attachments:Oppose Rent Control In Palo Alto.pdf; AVG Certification.txt
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
Attached please find letter of opposition from The Desk of Thomas Scott for your review.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joanne Mone
Administrative Assistant
Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Oppose Rent Control In Palo Alto
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e‐mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file
attachments. Check your e‐mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:McFarland, Tessa <TMcFarland@prometheusreg.com>
Sent:Friday, October 13, 2017 5:50 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Opposition to Rent Control
Attachments:Letter to Mayor and Council.pdf
Dear Mayor and City Council: Please see attached letter. Thank you.
Theresa “Tessa” McFarland | Vice President, Corporate Counsel | PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. | Est. 1965
1900 South Norfolk Street | Suite 150, San Mateo, CA 94403
p: 650.931.3658 | prometheusreg.com| tmcfarland@prometheusreg.com
______________________________________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message, including attachments, is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for the recipient(s)
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, disclose, or distribute the message or the information contained in it. If you have received the message in error, please notify the sender
and immediately delete the message.
______________________________________________________________________