HomeMy Public PortalAbout20171030plCC2701-32
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 2/3
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 | 10/16/2017 8:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anil Babbar <ABabbar@caanet.org>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 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:Palo Alto City Council - Oct 16th Meeting - Colleagues Memo Response
Attachments:Palo Alto Colleague Memo Response Letter Oct 16.pdf
Mayor Scharff and City Council
Attached is a letter from the California Apartment Association in response to the Colleagues Memo on Renters
Protection.
Sincerely,
Anil Babbar ▪ Vice President of Public Affairs
California Apartment Association
1530 The Alameda, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95126
ababbar@caanet.org ▪ O: (408) 342-3509 | C: (408) 348-8373
October 15th, 2017
Mayor Scharff & City Council City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mayor Scharff and the City Council,
The California Apartment Association (CAA) is strongly opposed to the proposal outlined in the
Colleagues Memo titled “Strengthening Renter Protections for Palo Alto Residents.” This call to implement rent control seems to be done in an effort to address housing affordability. Unfortunately rent control does little to address the issue of affordability but does a great deal to damage the existing
housing stock, the quality of life of the residents, and discourage future development which is the real
key to increasing affordability.
Rent control severely limits the operating income that an property owner will earn thus causing basic
maintenance to be reduced and significant upgrades to be put on hold. This is evident in any city with
rent control. If a landlord is unable to afford the cost of maintenance and upgrades, they will either
delay it or shelve it, thus causing the deterioration of the housing stock.
This 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. Communities that have rent control have seen a
spike in the sale of properties to developers and other interests who may not be interested in maintaining the property as rental housing.
Before you pass any policy, it’s important to understand what problem you are trying to solve and if the
proposal solves that problem. The Colleagues Memo outlines the issue of housing affordability but
does not provide any data or context to demonstrate the need for this proposal.
After evaluating both rent growth and development in Palo Alto, it’s not clear what problem the
Council is trying to solve with rent control. As far as affordability, since 2014 the average quarterly
growth in rents has been 2.5%. The average rent price in Palo Alto is the result little to no development of housing. In the past three years, Palo Alto has only seen 44 units of apartments built, an average of only 15 per year. Palo Alto is at a standstill in terms of growth, that is the reason for the current state of
affairs.
Rather than implementing a policy that is expensive to administer, difficult to implement, a burden to property maintenance and is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, CAA is recommending that
the Council vote no on rent control and begin a conversation on how the City can provide more
housing opportunities for the residents of Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Anil Babbar
Vice President of Public Affairs
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:James Wick <jimwickone@verizon.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 2:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rent Control
Attachments:img692.jpg; img694.jpg
Mayor and Council Members Please consider the above attachments as you deliberate the issue of Rent Control on Monday, October 16th. Thank You, Sharon M. Wick Sharonwick38@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:37 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:AMY AMY <amyluk38@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 7:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Objection to rent control
Attachments:PAMayor Scharff and City Council.docx
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 | 10/16/2017 8:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Young <kyoung@apr.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 8:44 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
Cc:Karen Young
Subject:FW: against rent control : VOTE "NO" 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
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 9:19 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Moulton <jeanne.moulton@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 9:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Renter protection
Honorable Council members,
I support measures to protect renters, because I don't want to lose the economic diversity of our population.
Diversity is already disappearing with soaring prices for homes. The cost of rentals is something that we can address.
Jeanne Moulton
319 Addison Ave
94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:03 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nadr Essabhoy <nessabhoy@apr.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 9:28 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: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,
Nadr Essabhoy
333 Bryant Ct Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:03 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Linda Xu <lxu1000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 9:31 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:I am against RC and "Just Cause Eviction"
Dear City Council & Mayor Scharff,
I am a voter, and I am deeply concerned about the memo regarding the Rent Control (“RC”) and “Just Cause Eviction”.
Even with its good intention, RC does not work, and is not fair. Just Cause Eviction is the perfect way to destroy our
community.
RC makes housing shortage even worse by artificially increasing demand and killing supply.People in low-rent RC units will
not want to move even when the demand diminishes (think of the empty-nested parents), while frustrated landlords are
likely to take their rental units out of market. This will aggravate the housing shortage, pushing the rent even higher.
RC sacrifices the interest of the majority renters to favor a minority of renters in RC units. While a small portion of renters
are taking advantage of the RC units, most renters are suffering from the super high market-rate rent. This is unfair, and
prevents the inflow of talents, hurting the economy badly.
RC victimizes small mom-and-pop landlords the most, since they are the ones who typically cannot afford newer RC-free
unit. The Bay Area’s statistically super-high rental market is skewed by the new RC-free apartments.
Just Cause Eviction will make our neighborhoods suffer. It’s extremely hard, if not impossible, to collect evidence and find
witnesses to testify against bad tenants. As a result, bad tenants, including violent criminals and drug dealers, will
stay. Good tenants will leave out of fear and frustration.
As famed economist Assar Lindbeck said it eloquently, "next to bombing, rent control seems in many cases to be the most
efficient technique so far known for destroying cities." And nobody wants Palo Alto to be one of such cities..
I hope you can seriously vote NO to the memo of Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction.
Thank you very much!
Regards,
Linda Xu
650-862-7078 cell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:03 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Grant Huberty <granthuberty@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 11:17 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
The City of Palo Alto is serious about imposing the failed social experiment of rent control on landlords? You
are essentially annexing your fine city to East Palo Alto. Let the blight begin.
Grant Huberty
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:03 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Linda Henigin <linda@brail.org>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 12:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please study renter protections
Hello City Council members, I moved to Palo Alto six years ago from New Jersey. My family was extremely fortunate in that we ended up finding a house we could afford to buy right away. We have watched friends around us who didn't buy at the time now worrying about whether they'll be able to stay here long-term. Most have given up their dreams of owning their own home.
When I meet new families, I try to figure out whether they are renting, and if so, how long they might be able to stay. It's hard for us to have
to say goodbye to new friends over and over again.
I also worry about our teachers, firefighters, nurses, etc. My younger son was born at LPCH and was in the NICU for 10 weeks. We met very few nurses who lived less than an hour commute from the hospital. The vast majority had traveled far to work their shifts.
And most of our teachers at Duveneck have long commutes, which makes them unavailable to meet after school.
Our community is suffering because our our lack of housing that is affordable to people who work here. Our median income doesn't support
our median house price. This is unsustainable for a community that wants to have a diversity of income levels living here, and wants middle-
income workers to be able to live near their jobs.
Please take the step to at least study renter protections, so we know what all of our options are. Please do this now before we lose more of our valuable community members. Sincerely, Linda Henigin Edgewood Drive, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:03 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Norton <pnorton@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 12:21 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:Proposed rent control
Mayor Scharff & City Council,
I am emailing you to let you know about some unintended issues that rent control on my property in Mountain
view has caused. And I urge you to vote against rent control in Palo Alto and surrounding areas. Rent control
doesn't work and wreaks havoc on landlord-tenant relations and the people who actually need the help with lower rents.
Since the passing of rent control, we have had nothing but issues from our tenants of our 24 unit complex in
MV. Problems have arisen where none existed previously. I have owned these units for almost 20 years and
have poured money back in them to make them nice. I have done all my own work and built up my equity so I
could one day pay for my children's college and retire. Several years ago I took money out for college and now I am paying for 2 children to go to a university. We had left our rents intentionally low compared to what we could have gotten so we could put the buildings with property management, not have issues, be fair to the
residents and move out of the area and retire. Now the rent rollbacks and rising costs have hit us so hard, we
have very little cash flow. In order to make the next chapter of my life make sense, we will be selling out to a
developer who will be tearing these units down and the city will have accomplished the exact opposite of their intended goal. It's not right to take away my property rights like this? No other industry is governing what people can make on their jobs or investments?
I would like to offer a make sense solution for Palo Alto to look at that I wish MV had considered. The need for
people in our community to have affordable housing is apparent and warranted but the burden should not be shouldered by the few landlords like myself that invested years ago and have kept good affordable housing available by working year after year on their properties. I took all the market risk and managed to make
cutbacks in the lean years to get to this point. The city should put this burden on all its residents. Palo Alto
should be the first to stand up and say we are not going to punish one small group of landowners to benefit the
whole town. A tax should be passed and needy tenants should be vetted and given assistance on housing through a citywide tax plan to subsidize housing. Property rights of hard-working owners should not be unfairly taken away. I bought my properties with all my rights intact like most of you have with your current homes. If
you let people vote on my rights (When I don't even get a vote), where does it stop? Next, it will be that prices
of homes are too high and you may have to sell your homes at a discount because the have-nots voted it that
way! This is not the correct way to handle this! I bought my properties in good faith years ago and would never have expected someone to have the ability to vote away my rights. Don't let this happen!
Sincerely,
Paul Norton
Premier Realty Associates
Senior Sales Associate
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:03 PM
6
BRE#: 00923003
_____________________________
NorCal Real properties Inc,.
President
pnorton@gmail.com
496 First Street, Suite 200 Los Altos, CA 94022
Direct 650.941.9558
Cell 650.814.2541
4364 Town Center Blvd. Ste 318 El Dorado Hills, Ca 95762 Direct 916.358-5500
Cell 650.814.2541
Mail:
3941 Park Drive #20375 El Dorado Hills, Ca 95762
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:04 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Yang <pabloyang@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 12:25 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 to 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. The City of Palo Alto should be prioritizing
meeting the housing demands of its residents as opposed to regulating rents.
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,
Paul Yang
Interdale Way, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 1:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Item 13, Renter Protection
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council members;
I support the request from Council Members DuBois, Holman and Kou to try strengthening rental
protections. When I saw their item in the packet I thought it's deja vu all over again. Almost 40 years ago, in
1978, rent costs were a big issue in Palo Alto and many other cities. Rents were rising, and as an added insult,
tax cuts for rental properties created by Proposition 13 were not passed on to renters despite the fact that
Howard Jarvis made tax cut pass-through to renters a major selling point in his campaign for Proposition 13. Some cities such as Los Angeles, San Jose and San Francisco did enact laws limiting rent increases to 8%. Palo
Alto had extensive discussions about rent control and how to address rising housing costs, adopting the
negotiating committee to address rental issues in 1978 and 1979. High rents, rising home prices, and the jobs-
housing imbalance that caused lots of traffic from workers in and out of town were big issues in 1978 and
1979. Interesting how things change over time isn't it?
Since a number of cities in California have had limits on rent increases and a variety of tenant protections for
many years it seems useful to see how they have worked, if the negative impacts that landlords threatened such
as few new rental units being built, lack of maintenance, and negative impacts on property values actually
happened. What if any limits on rent increases should be imposed can be reviewed. Both landlords and tenants will attend the Policy and Services Committee meeting and give useful information on the pros and cons of
actions to address high rent costs.
Housing costs and availability have been issues here for more than 40 years,so no matter how hard you try you
aren't likely to fix them. However you may be able to mitigate the negative impacts to renters. It is well worth your time and effort to try.
Regards, Bob Moss
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Jenny Teng <jteng@apr.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 1:25 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
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 | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
3
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Gautam Srivastava <togurug@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 1:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No 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-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,
Gautam Srivastava
gsrivastava@ucla.edu
Property Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Laurel Robinson <laurel@serenogroup.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 1:27 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:Please do not pursue rent control in Palo Alto
Mayor Scharff and City Council,
As a Realtor and 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, Laurel Robinson 171 Washington Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301 --
Laurel Robinson
Realtor, Sereno Group
650-269-7266
laurel@serenogroup.com
www.LeannahandLaurel.com
BRE# 01747147
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 2:46 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Esmail_Sophie <e.smile@prodigy.net>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 1:36 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
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,
Esmail Essabhoy.
3939 Grove Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 1:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 13: Renter Protections Colleague's Memo
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for taking up the issue of Renter Protections and special thanks for Council Persons DuBois, Holman and Kou for advancing this. These comments are my own and not representative of any group, although my
thoughts have been colored by the time I have served on the Housing Element Community Panel and
Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee.
As you state, 44% of Palo Alto's population rents and it is critical that we offer almost half of our population protections from no cause evictions, tenant negotiations and greater predictability around living expenses. So
many families and households are adversely impacted by the volatile rent increases, including many long time
residents.
Renter protections are an important piece to solving the housing shortage and crisis in our city and region, but it is not the ONLY piece. At the root of the sky high rents, extreme rent increases, and evictions, is the lack of
enough available housing for our growing regional population.
I hope tonight's discussion also spurs support and action for a comprehensive housing strategy for Palo Alto
that: 1) PRODUCES significant housing for people at a range of income levels, subsidized below market rate, middle
income housing and market rate
2) PROTECTS renters from no-cause evictions and massive rent increases
3) PROVIDES PREDICTABILITY for landlord/tenant negotiations (ie binding arbitration, not just mediation)
and future rent increases.
You were ALL elected to make decisions that support the community as a whole. In addition to introducing the
much needed dialogue on renter protections, I encourage you to please use the opportunity tonight to advance a
comprehensive housing strategy to PRODUCE more housing, PROTECT renters and PROVIDE
PREDICTABILITY.
Thank you for your service and for your consideration on this matter,
Elaine Uang
Kipling Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Haluk Konuk <haluk_konuk@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 1:40 PM
To:DuBois, Tom; Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory;
Scharff, Gregory (internal); Holman, Karen; Wolbach, Cory; Council, City
Subject:No to rent control
Dear Mayor Scharff and the 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. 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,
-Haluk Konuk
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Louis Yun <louisyun@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 2:00 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,
I am a property owner in 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.
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, Louis Yun
Palo Alto Property Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:maria mapps <mamamapps@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 2:28 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
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, Maria Mapps Owner of 9 apartment units located 4275 McKellar Lane, Palo Alto 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Renter protections
I support stronger protections with respect to notice and evictions and hope they can be extended to all renters and not
just those who live in older large multi family buildings.
I support substantial increased funding for housing for low income residents including a city bond as had been done in
other cities. In addition I support policies that expedite projects like the PAH proposal and do not make them infeasible
by loading on costs that risk losing their tax credit funding.
But the main pillar of increasing housing affordability is a set of policies that expand supply in locations near services,
shopping, transit and amenities and policies that lower the cost in money and time of building new housing.
Personally I and the economist community generally do not find rent control to be a good policy as there are many
unintended negative consequences and many if not most renters are unaffected so we create two classes of renters. it
shouid be a heads up that no one is advocating limiting the price that homeowners can sell or rent their homes for.
But there are many positive ways to increase notice and eviction protections and move toward more affordable rental
housing.
Renters are a vital part of our commuity and many are facing real and serious challenges.
Stephen Levy
365 Forest Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:flo flo <floccc@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 2:36 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:Vote NO on 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,
Property Owner
Mr. Flo
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Cardus <pcardus@silvar.org>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 1:17 PM
To:Paul Cardus; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Scharff, Greg
Cc:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Paul
Cardus
Subject:Agenda item 13: Colleagues' Memo regarding Renter Protection
Attachments:mayor scharff letter 10-16-17.pdf
Good afternoon Mayor Scharff and Councilmembers,
Attached please find a letter submitted on behalf of the Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS®.
Thank you.
Paul Cardus, RCE, CIPS, AHWD
Executive Officer
Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS®
19400 Stevens Creek Blvd., #100
Cupertino, CA 95014
www.silvar.org
Phone: 408.200.0100
Direct: 408.200.0105
Mobile: 650.224.2046
pcardus@silvar.org
Silicon Valley
Association of REALTORS®
October 16, 2017
Honorable Greg Scharff
Mayor, City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Scharff and Councilmembers,
The Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® (SILVAR) is a trade association representing over 5,000 real
estate professionals in north and west Santa Clara County and southern San Mateo County. We write to
express our opposition to the proposals in the Colleagues Memo, "Strengthening Renter Protections for
Palo Alto Residents." We contend that the City of Palo Alto should prioritize meeting the housing
requirements 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. Construction of significantly more rental housing is the only way to make Palo Alto rents
more affordable. This has not been the approach of the city. Now, it appears that some in the city are
looking to property owners to shoulder the burden of "solving" the city's lack of affordable rental
housing.
In a recent presentation to Palo Alto REALTORS®, Dr. Christopher Palmer, who was assistant professor of
Real Estate & Urban Economics at the Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, and is now professor at the
MIT Sloan School of Management, spoke about real estate and business cycles. He referred to rent
control as a "blunt instrument" that only works for incumbent residents, but does nothing for the future
and does not help those who really need it. Better options to rent control would be expanding the
Section 8 voucher program by making it portable, providing help with tax credits, and relaxing of
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) approvals. Densification, modular housing, and fast-tracking authority
are also more effective options to increase supply.
Rent control will exacerbate the current predicament of affordability. Under rent control, the turnover
of rental units becomes practically non-existent. Tenants of these units often opt not to "move up"
when their incomes increase or hold on to both the regulated rental unit and a newly purchased home
outside the city. Upper-middle income professionals are more likely to end up with rent stabilized units
because they can hire professional brokers to find rent stabilized units and pay a premium for these
units. Rent control is not an effective anti-poverty solution.
Furthermore, rent control requires significant city staff time and resources to implement. A database of
all rental units must be created, a Rent Advisory Board must be established, and new city staff must be
hired. Rent control could create an incentive for landlords to remove their housing units from the
housing market, which will make the housing shortage worse.
19400 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 100 •Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: 408.200.0100 •Fax: 408.200.0101 • www.silvar.org
SILVAR and our Legislative Committee (SILVAR LC) strongly support expanding housing opportunities
and smart affordable housing programs; however, we firmly believe rent stabilization is a
counterproductive impediment to affordability. Strong voluntary programs can help stem the tide of
displacement yvithout stripping property owners of the value of their investments. We urge the Council
to reject rent control and focus its efforts on increasing housing opportunities.
Paul Cardus
Executive Officer
Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS®
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mariel Block <mariel.block@lawfoundation.org>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 2:29 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Nadia Aziz
Subject:Law Foundation Letter in Support of Strengthening Renter Protections in Palo Alto
Attachments:Law Foundation Letter to PA CC Re Renter Protections_10.16.17.pdf
Members of the Council:
Attached please find the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley’s letter in support of strengthening renter protections for Palo
Alto residents. We thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
Best,
Mariel Block
Mariel Block | Senior Attorney
Pro Bono Housing Program
mariel.block@lawfoundation.org | p 408.280.2458 | f 408.350.1158
Advancing Justice in Silicon Valley
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San Jose, California 95112
www.lawfoundation.org
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication (or an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient), or if you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including any attachments, without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
~LAW FOUNDATION of Silicon Valley
Fair Housing Law Project
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San Jose, California 95112
Fax (408) 293-0106 • Telephone (408) 280-2435 • TDD (408) 294-5667
By Electronic Mail
October 16, 201 7
Mayor, Vice Mayor and Members of Council
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Strengthening Renter Protections for Palo Alto Residents
October 16, 2017, Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13
Dear Members of Council:
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley strongly supports the Memo from Council Members
DuBois, Holman, and Kou regarding strengthening renter protections for Palo Alto City Residents and
urges the City to prioritize the study of a rent stabilization ordinance. We believe that rent stabilization
would provide renters with more predictable and fair rent increases and that just cause eviction would
guard against discriminatory and retaliatory evictions, preventing the displacement of low-income
residents of Palo Alto.
Given the economic insecurity felt by many in Palo Alto, where lower income renters, seniors
and families with children live in fear of the threat of eviction in our high-priced rental market, rent
stabilization and eviction protection will provide much needed stability. Limiting the rate of rent increases
and protecting the rights of tenants to be in stable housing, where landlords are empowered to evict only
with a good reason, leads to stable communities.
Whiie we appreciate the efforts of staff and City Council to address the very real problems of
soaring rents and discriminatory and retaliatory evictions, we urge you to adopt an even stronger
ordinance than the ordinance recommended by the Memo. We strongly believe that any new renter
protections should apply to all tenants, not just those who live in buildings of "5 or more housing units."
Thank you for considering the Law Foundation's comments. I can be reached at
mariel.block@lawfoundation.org and 408-280-2458.
Sincerely,
-~---
Mariel Block
Senior Attorney
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Omar Kinaan <omar@kinaan.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 2:51 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 to Rent Control
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to vote against pursuing rent control in Palo Alto. I manage a number
of houses/condos in Palo Alto and have witnessed the market correcting on its own. The City
does not need artificial controls which may have unintended bad consequences.
In the past decade rents have increased as supply of available housing was lower than demand.
However, the past few years, more and more individuals are putting their homes up for rent
rather than selling. This has increased the supply of available rentals and prices have started to
correct. In addition, many new apartments have been built in the surrounding communities
helping alleviate rent prices (according to Rent Café Blog 9,362 new apartments came available
in the San Francisco Metropolitan Area in 2016) . All in all, the market is naturally adjusting. I
agree it takes long but eventually the market will adjust.
As an example, I have a two bedroom, two bathroom condo in downtown Palo Alto (one of 36
such units currently available between University Ave area and California Avenue area) which
has not rented. It has been available for 150+ days and is being offered at a lower price then it
previously rented for.
Thanks for your consideration.
Omar Kinaan
Realtor, GRI, CDPE, CLHMS
Certified International Property Specialist
Golden Gate Sotheby's International Realty
650.776.2828
CalBRE #01723115
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 3:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hao Chu <haohuachu@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 2:56 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 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. I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that rent control has upon a
community.
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 community stakeholders to evaluate how to address our
local and regional housing challenges.
Sincerely,
Hao Chu
Property/Home Owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 3:48 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Dewey <rrd@deweyland.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 3:36 PM
Subject:Considerations Regarding Rent Control
Attachments:Considerations Regarding Rent Control.pdf
Dear Member of the Palo Alto City Council:
Please see the attached letter concerning rent control.
Thank you. Regards,
--
Richard R. Dewey, Jr.
President/CEO Dewey Land Company, Inc.
999 Baker Way, Suite 300
San Mateo, CA 94404
650.571.1010 - voice
650.571.1019 - fax
I RLD Land UC
a CaHfornia Bmhed fiabilhy company
999 Baker Way, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94404 p: 650.571.1010 f: 650.571.1019
VIA EMAIL
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
October 16, 2017
Re: Considerations Regarding Rent Control.
Dear Council Member:
The Council is considering enacting a citywide imposition of controlling rents rather
than allowing the individual tenants and property owners to individually determine
what is in their interests. By imposing rent control on the apartment housing stock,
the Council guarantees that for-rent housing stock will not be added to the City of
Palo Alto. Instead, I suggest that the Council consider measures that will encourage
the development of additional for-rent housing. These measures can be greater
density, increasing of height, the use of creative parking solutions, reduction in City
fees levied upon for-rent housing projects, expedited permitting and the like. By
encouraging more and denser for-rent development, the City gains for-rent housing
stock, whereas the imposition of rent control will result in the cessation of any new
residential for-rent product.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
ia limited liability company
Richard R. Dewey, Jr.
Manager
RRD/sz
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 3:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:WINNIE AU <winnieau@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 3:48 PM
To:Council, City
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 Council members 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,
Winnie Au
Property Owner
Margarita Ave. Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 3:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Linda Nguyen <themarc.cd@fpimgt.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 3:49 PM
To:The Marc Leasing
Subject:The Marc-Oppose Rent Control in Palo Alto
Attachments:Scan.pdf
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, The Marc, Palo Alto has been operating apartments in the city since 2006.
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.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 3:52 PM
2
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.
Linda Nguyen Senior Community Director The Marc, Palo Alto
www.themarc-pa.com|tel: 650-328-1030
501 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
OCTOBER 16, 2017
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hon. Greg Scharff
Mayor
City of Pa lo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE : Oppose Rent Control in Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Scharff and Councilmembers,
As a long-time re ntal housing provider in Palo Alto, I am proud to offer quality
housing for Palo Alto residents. In fact, our company, The Marc, Palo Alto has
been operating apartments in the city since 2006.
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 Legisl ative 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 an d re pairs. Over time, this
can result in a decline in t he 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 deve lopment 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.
Linda Nguyen
Senior Community Director
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 4:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 4:03 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert;
Flaherty, Michelle
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Sartor, Mike; Eggleston, Brad; Mello, Joshuah
Subject:10/16 Council Questions for Agenda Item 7: Fuels to Supply the City's Fleet & Item 9:
SP Plus for Valet Parking Services
Attachments:Valet C14152025 Contract Amendment No 1 Fully Executed.pdf
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
by Council Member Holman regarding the October 16, 2017 council meeting.
Item 7: Fuels to Supply the City's Fleet – CM Holman
Item 9: SP Plus for Valet Parking Services – CM Holman
Item 7: Fuels to Supply the City's Fleet ‐ CM Holman
Q. 1. Why a 5‐year contract as opposed to a 3‐year, for instance?
A.1. Staff recommends a 5‐year contract as opposed to a 3‐year contract as the
expense/savings of a shorter contract is not expected to be significant enough
to offset the staff resources needed to rebid the contract in three years. The
cost of fuel is set by the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) from the San Jose
terminal and is the bulk of the contract, the delivery charges are what vendors
are primarily bidding on and is approximately $3,500 annually.
Q.2. As the City tries to move to CNG, electric and hybrid vehicles and equipment
and with millions of dollars dedicated to vehicle replacement, please describe why
this 5‐year contract uses as its baseline the gallons of gasoline of fuel purchased
in 2017 (198,000 gallons)?
A.2. Although staff are replacing tens of vehicles/equipment each year with
more fuel efficient models, the number of CNG/Electric replacements is not as
great due to operational needs and availability, resulting in decreases in fuel use
that are neither significant nor enough to calculate estimates differently,
therefore staff utilize prior year actuals to estimate future costs.
It is also noted on page 2 of the staff report, paragraph two that the usage has
been declining over the last 3 years (2015 ‐ 2017 from 230 gallons to 198 gallons).
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 4:12 PM
2
Again, the decreases in fuel use have not been significant year to year and in
Fiscal Year 2017 were primarily due to the golf course being offline.
With significant vehicle replacement investment, the declining usage pattern
reported for the last three years, and the City’s commitment to GHG reductions,
it would seem that gasoline usage would continue to decline.
Although estimates are based on prior year actuals, staff recommends the
contract capacity not‐to‐exceed an amount of $3,256,164 for the five‐year term,
meaning if usage continues to decline, the full capacity of the contract will not
be reached and actual costs will be less than the contract approved.
Item 9: SP Plus for Valet Parking Services – CM Holman
Q. 1. The first year contract was for $300k for Lot R. Amendment one was for
$997,652 for 3 additional lots/garages. How much of this was spent given
infeasibilities discovered as a balance as indicated as available to cover
Amendment 3?
A. 1. The total expenditure under this contract (with amendments) to date has
been about $637,000. Expenditures have occurred at Lot R (High), Lot S (Bryant)
and Lot CW (Cowper Webster), although valet service was recently discontinued
at Lot CW. (See Attachment.)
Q. 2: Amendment 2 was to reduce that service to only Lot R and Bryant/Lytton
garage. However, the Amendment (Attachment A) only covers Lot R and at an
unspecified dollar amount. Staff report states $20k month approx. but that was
not stipulated in the contract. Amendment 3, on Consent this coming Monday,
and as described in Attachment B again only stipulates valet service for Lot R and
at an unspecified dollar amount. Staff report states $20k month approx. but that
is not stipulated in the contract. How much has been spent to date (what is the
balance still in the Univ Ave Parking Permit Fund?) and can the contract please be
clarified as to what lots and garages are to have valet service and at what dollar
rate?
A.2: Amendment 2 did not remove the additional garages and lots from the
contract, it simply extended the term of the contract through Sept. 2,
2017. Because approximately $637,000 has been spent, approximately
$360,000 remains in the budget and has been appropriated for this contract if
extended. As noted above, garages that are currently utilizing the valet service
are Lot R (High) and Lot S (Bryant). Under the contract (as established in
Amendment 1), the dollar rate for Valet Service is $24.50/hour for Lot R and
$20.90/hour for additional garages. The parties operated with these rates for
the six month extension period under Amendment 2, and they would remain
unchanged for the next six months under the proposed Amendment 3, which is
currently before the Council. The average invoice for services over the last 12
months has been $20,000, although this is not a contract limitation, it’s simply
our experience given the scope of the program.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 4:12 PM
3
Thank you,
Janice Svendsen
Janice Svendsen | Executive Assistant to James Keene, City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2105 | E: janice.svendsen@cityofpaloalto.org
1 of 8 Revision April 28, 2014
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C14152025
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
SP PLUS CORPORATION
This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C14152025
June 29, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal
corporation (SP PLUS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation ("CONSULTANT").
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of the
operation of a Parking Attendant Program at the Lot R Parking Garage on High Street between
University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue.
B. The CITY intends to increase the compensation for the addition of parking
Amendment No. 1, Scope of
Services.
C. The parties wish to amend the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 4 COMPENSATION, is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Nine Hundred Thirty Seven
Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Two Dollars ($937,652.00). In the event Additional Services are
authorized, the total compensation for such Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not
exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set
out i -1 RATE SCHEDULE
Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the
ation for Additional
Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean
any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, as
described within the Scope of Services
SECTION 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read
as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference:
2 of 8 Revision April 28, 2014
a. SCOPE OF SERVICES
b. C COMPENSATION
c. C1 RATE SCHEDULE
SECTION 5. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract,
including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Amendment on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SP PLUS CORPORATION
By: _______________________
Steven Aiello
Senior Vice President
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A": SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION
RATE SCHEDULE
3 of 8 Revision April 28, 2014
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Project Description
CITY is contracting with CONSULTANT to operate the Parking Attendant Program at the Lot R
Parking Garage on High Street between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. The
CONSULTANT has sufficient experience and knowledge in parking lot operations and was selected
through a Request for Proposals selection process as the preferred CONSULTANT for this project.
Lot R Parking Attendant Program
CONSULTANT will be required to staff the Lot R parking garage initially between 8:00AM and
6:00PM and guide vehicles with valid Permits issued by CITY to available open parking spaces. As
standard marked parking spaces reach capacity CONSULTANT will then be required to guide
motorists to parking locations within the drive aisles of the parking garages, issue a Claim Ticket,
and take possession of the vehicle until the motorist returns to claim their vehicle. As motorists exit
the garage through the course of the day CONSULTANT will be required to move vehicles that
block vehicles parked in standard marked spaces and move vehicles parking in the drive aisle into
the standard parking marked spaces.
CONSULTANT will be required to furnish all signage, kiosks, claim tickets, and security boxes for
vehicle keys, and provide cell phones for the operators so that motorists may contact them to claim
their keys during normal business hours (8:00AM to 6:00PM). After an initial 30-day monitoring
period CONSULTANT will attend a meeting with CITY to discuss the program operations and
recommend new hours of operation or permit increases to the community to take better advantage of
the parking attendant program.
Project Schedule and Term
The first 12 months of the parking attendant program is on trial and shall only be extended upon
successful completion of the trial.
CONSULTANT will operate the Lot R Parking Attendant Program using a minimum of two parking
lot attendants. CITY shall provide quarterly assessments of the program to evaluate the parking
attendant program and CONSULTANT operations and performance. This agreement also includes
pre-defined pricing for options to extend the Parking Attendant Program to additional parking
structures in the University Downtown Business District and may elect to extend the program to
additional parking structures at any time upon reasonable written notice to CONSULTANT.
4 of 8 Revision April 28, 2014
Technical Specifications
Lot R High Street South Parking Garage
The Lot R Parking Garage has entrances on both High Street and Alma Street and is located mid-
block between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. Lot R has 5 floors divided into Hourly
visitor parking (Floors 1-2) and Permit parking (Floors 3-4-5) between 8AM and 6PM.
Technical details regarding the garage operations are provided below.
Table 1
Lot R Parking Garage Specifications
Lot Name # Hourly
Spaces
# Permit
Spaces Total # Spaces Max # Permits
Sold
R High St South 77 134 211 225
CITY already sells 68% additional permits over the available Permit parking supply as usage of the
permits varies by season. Upon setup and implementation of the Parking Attendant Operator
program CITY will release an initial 25 additional permits to motorists on the Permit Wait List for
this garage. CONSULTANT will be required to maintain daily reports on the number of vehicles
parked within aisles and actively managed by the parking attendants, time period at which aisle
parking begins and relief is observed allowing the parking attendants to move vehicles back into
standard permit parking spaces. After an initial 30-day evaluation period, CONSULTANT will
provide CITY with a report summarizing parking patterns. Based on CONSULTANT report, CITY
will release additional lots of permits to maximize the Parking Attendant Operator program. The
parking of vehicles in aisles of the garage will only be permitted with the floors where permit
parking is provided. Vehicles moved by the Parking Attendant Operator must be parked in permit
parking spaces. No parking of vehicle with permits is allowed on the floors where Hourly parking
for downtown visitors is provided.
Lot R Parking Attendant Operation Start Up
implementation of the Parking Attendant Program at Lot R and other CITY lots as applicable;
provided, however, CITY shall not reimburse more than $2,500.00 per lot. Start-up operations shall
include a detailed report by CONSULTANT highlighting recommended signage standards, location
of signage, any markings improvements. The report shall be submitted a minimum of four weeks
prior to the commencement of parking attendant operations. Upon approval by CITY,
CONSULTANT shall procure and install all signage and marking improvements. The report shall
g attendant
program. CONSULTANT shall identify up to five team members for CITY to select for use in the
program. The report shall include Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) on key attendant operations
to be defined by CONSULTANT, including but not limited to:
5 of 8 Revision April 28, 2014
Parking Attendant Program Start of Work Day Procedures
Parking Attendant Program Break/Lunch Procedures
Parking Attendant Program Vehicle Check In Procedures
Parking Attendant Program Key Return and Owner Validation Procedures
Parking Attendant Program Key Storage and Late Return Procedures
Parking Attendant Program Vehicle Storage and Security Procedures
CONSULTANT shall also be responsible for procurement of kiosks used by the parking attendants,
lock boxes for key storage, and valet tickets, which shall be reimbursed as Start Up Costs.
Additional Services
CONSULTANT shall be available to provide Additional Services to the CITY including, but not
limited to:
Parking Guidance System Assessment and Recommendations
Parking Access and Revenue Collection Equipment Assessment and Recommendations
Technical Writing for Request for Proposals
Grant Writing Assistance
Parking Garage Lighting Assessment
Parking Facility Lighting
Consultant does not provide security services
As of June 29, 2015, the foregoing
AMENDMENT NO. 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Project Description
CITY is contracting with CONSULTANT to continue the existing Parking Attendant Program at Lot
R and expand services to the Lot CC, Lot S, and Lot CW Parking Garages.
Parking Attendant Program
CONSULTANT will be required to staff the Lot R, Lot CC, Lot S, and Lot CW parking garages
between 8:00AM and 6:00PM and guide vehicles with valid Permits issued by CITY to available
open parking spaces. As standard marked parking spaces reach capacity CONSULTANT will then
be required to guide motorists to parking locations within the drive aisles of the parking garages,
issue a Claim Ticket, and take possession of the vehicle until the motorist returns to claim their
vehicle. As motorists exit the garage through the course of the day CONSULTANT will be required
to move vehicles that block vehicles parked in standard marked spaces and move vehicles parking in
the drive aisle into the standard parking marked spaces.
6 of 8 Revision April 28, 2014
CONSULTANT is required to furnish all signage, kiosks, claim tickets, and security boxes for
vehicle keys at each garage, and provide cell phones for the operators so that motorists may contact
them to claim their keys during normal business hours (8:00AM to 6:00PM).
CONSULTANT will be required to provide an on-site Valet Supervisor or Manager per the hourly
-
Project Schedule and Term
CONSULTANT will operate the Parking Attendant Program using a minimum of two parking lot
attendants at each site for a minimum of two (2) years commencing in March 2015 through February
2017. CITY shall provide quarterly assessments of the program to evaluate the parking attendant
program and CONSULTANT operations and performance.
Technical Specifications
Technical details regarding the garage operations are provided below.
Table 1
Parking Garage Specifications
Lot Name # Hourly
Spaces
# Permit
Spaces Total # Spaces Max # Permits
Sold
R High St South 77 134 211 330
CC Civic Center 183 509 692 875
S Bryant/Lytton 381 307 688 665
CW Cowper/Webster 201 388 589 750
CONSULTANT will be required to maintain daily reports on the number of vehicles parked within
aisles and actively managed by the parking attendants, time period at which aisle parking begins and
relief is observed allowing the parking attendants to move vehicles back into standard permit parking
spaces. The parking of vehicles in aisles of the garage will only be permitted with the floors where
permit parking is provided. Vehicles moved by the Parking Attendant Operator must be parked in
permit parking spaces. No parking of vehicle with permits is allowed on the floors where Hourly
parking for downtown visitors is provided.
Parking Attendant Operation Start Up
implementation of the Parking Attendant Program at Lot CC, Lot S, and Lot CW; provided,
however, CITY shall not reimburse more than $2,500.00 per lot. Startup operations shall include a
7 of 8 Revision April 28, 2014
detailed report by CONSULTANT highlighting recommended signage standards, location of
signage, any markings improvements. The report shall be submitted a minimum of four weeks prior
to the commencement of parking attendant operations. Upon approval by CITY, CONSULTANT
shall procure and install all signage and marking improvements. The report shall also highlight
CONSULTANT shall identify up to five team members for CITY to select for use in the program.
The report shall include Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) on key attendant operations to be
defined by CONSULTANT, including but not limited to:
Parking Attendant Program Start of Work Day Procedures
Parking Attendant Program Break/Lunch Procedures
Parking Attendant Program Vehicle Check In Procedures
Parking Attendant Program Key Return and Owner Validation Procedures
Parking Attendant Program Key Storage and Late Return Procedures
Parking Attendant Program Vehicle Storage and Security Procedures
CONSULTANT shall also be responsible for procurement of kiosks used by the parking attendants,
lock boxes for key storage, and valet tickets.
Additional Services
CONSULTANT shall be available to provide Additional Services to the CITY including, but not
limited to:
Parking Guidance System Assessment and Recommendations
Parking Access and Revenue Collection Equipment Assessment and Recommendations
Technical Writing for Request for Proposals
Grant Writing Assistance
Parking Garage Lighting Assessment
Parking Facility Lighting
Consultant does not provide security services
8 of 8 Revision April 28, 2014
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule
below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1
up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in
not exceed $937,652.00.
CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this
amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall
not exceed $60,000.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result
in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the
CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The
Project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the
tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including
reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $937,652.00 and the total compensation for Additional
Services does not exceed $60,000.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $116,920.00
(Year 1)
Task 2 $377,780.00
(Year 2)
Task 3 $432,952.00
(Year 3)
Sub-total Basic Services $927,652.00
Reimbursable Expenses $10,000.00
(Start-up costs)
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $937,652.00
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $60,000.00
9 of 8 Revision April 28, 2014
Maximum Total Compensation $997,652.00
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within
the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse
CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which
CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are limited to the Start Up Cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any
expense anticipated to be more than $2500.00 shall b
manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from
written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and
services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and
maximum compensation shall be negotiated Project
Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional
services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
10
o
f
8
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
A
p
r
i
l
2
8
,
2
0
1
4
-
RA
T
E
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
Co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
a
i
d
h
o
u
r
l
y
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
t
h
a
t
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
t
h
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Ta
b
l
e
2
b
e
l
o
w
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
e
-
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
p
r
i
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
t
a
b
l
e
w
i
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
f
i
x
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
t
e
r
m
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 11:57 AM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Sartor, Mike; Eggleston, Brad; Magliocco, Gina; Mello, Joshuah; Cervantes, Yolanda;
Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly; Bahlman, Danitra; Nickel, Eric; Keene, James; Shikada,
Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Hoover, Tricia
Subject:10/16 Council Questions for Agenda Items: 7: Fuel Services Contract, 10: Speed Limit,
11: Fire Department
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
by Council Member Tanaka regarding the October 16, 2017 council meeting.
Item 7: Fuel Services Contract – CM Tanaka
Item 10: Ordinance to Increase Speed Limit on Deer Creek Road – CM Tanaka
Item 11: Fire Department Deployment Changes & Negotiations with IAFF – CM Tanaka
Item 7: Fuel Services Contract
Q. 1. How much did the prices change as a result of changes in delivery costs and
other charges? Did these charges increase, decrease, or stay the same.
A.1. The overall delivery charges will decrease with this fuel contract. Deliveries
to the Municipal Services Center for unleaded gasoline will drop by .00275 cents
per gallon and diesel by .00499 cents per gallon, while deliveries of unleaded and
diesel to our other locations will drop by .0425 cents per gallon.
Item 10: Ordinance to Increase Speed Limit on Deer Creek Road
Q.1. Will the increased speed limits on Deer Creek and Bayshore Road put the
safety of bicyclists or pedestrians at risk?
A.1. Staff is recommending an increase in the posted speed limit on these two
roadways to better match the existing operating speeds and enable the use of
radar for enforcement. It is expected that the operating speeds will remain
stable or decrease with this change. Therefore, the safety of bicyclists and
pedestrians should not be impacted. There are continuous Class II bicycle lanes
along East Bayshore Road between Embarcadero Road and San Antonio Road
and an adjacent Class I shared‐use path along the segment recommended for a
posted speed limit increase. We are not recommending a posted speed limit
increase in the area without the adjacent Class I shared‐use path. There are also
2
no pedestrian or bicycle crossings within the segment proposed for a posted
speed limit increase. There are continuous Class II bicycle lanes along Deer Creek
Road between the western city limits and Arastradero Road. In 2011, Deer Creek
Road was converted from a four‐lane cross‐section to a two‐lane roadway with
Class II bicycle lanes and a two‐way left‐turn lane. There are sidewalks on the
segment between the northernmost Tesla driveway and Arastradero Road and
an equestrian trail along the east side all the way to the western city limits. There
is one lightly‐used pedestrian crossing within the segment recommended for a
posted speed limit increase. This crosswalk is primarily used by adults accessing
adjacent bus stops. Staff will monitor this crossing and consider the addition of
a pedestrian refuge island and/or rectangular rapid flashing beacons if
necessary.
Q.2. Why were private schools excluded from the 2012 Study? Can there be
another study done on the posted speed limits near private schools?
A.2. Staff has conducted the necessary work required to reduce the posted speed
limits on the streets abutting private schools. All that is required to do so is
council direction to modify the Ordinance.
Q.3.Will the speed limit around schools be reduced to 20 miles per hour, or 15
miles per hour?
A.3. Staff is recommending a posted speed limit reduction to 20 miles per hour
in school zones. Council may direct staff to modify the Ordinance to reduce the
posted speed limit in school zones to 15 miles per hour.
Q.4.Will the reduced speed limit around schools affect bus schedules?
A.4. The reduced posted speed limit in school zones is not anticipated to affect
bus schedules.
Item 11: Fire Department Deployment Changes & Negotiations with IAFF
Q.1. Why was Stanford University’s fire services losing revenue?
A.1. Stanford University contracted with the City in October 1976 to provide all
risk services including fire, rescue, emergency medical services (EMS) and
ambulance transportation to the Central Campus and Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC) under a 50‐year agreement. Under the 1976
agreement, Stanford paid 30.3% of the fire department’s budget and received
30.3% of fire department revenue from cost recovery. In May 2012, and at
Stanford’s request, the SLAC fire station closed and protection was contracted
to the Menlo Park Fire District. Stanford next initiated discussions with the City
to reduce costs associated with operating the one remaining fire station, the
Central Campus Fire Station – Fire Station 6. In October 2013, Stanford issued a
two‐year contract cancellation notice. Stanford simultaneously sought
3
alternative public and private fire service providers through a request for
proposal while continuing to negotiate with the City. By the contract
cancellation in October 2015, Stanford had not secured another provider and
asked the City to extend the contract for a series of short term extensions while
both parties pursued mediation and continued negotiations.
Q. 2. Why did the City agree to the interim agreement with Stanford if it led to a
$2 million reduction in reimbursements for services to the City?
A.2. The negotiations between the City and Stanford have slowly progressed,
and that progress was enough to continue providing service. It is important to
note that Stanford had not secured, and still has no feasible alternative
fire/rescue service. The City also looked at cost efficiencies in their operations to
deliver service to assist in offsetting this loss in revenue. The City and Stanford
have agreed to interim agreements at approximately 75 percent of the original
contract terms, reflecting a $2 million reduction in reimbursements for services
to the City in FY 2017. The FY 2018 Adopted Budget included a $1.3 million
reduction in appropriated expenses in recognition of these efforts and
committed to returning to the City Council once agreement was reached among
the impacted parties to articulate the implications of such a reduction in cost.
Q.3. Why would the phasing of the implementation cost $200,000?
A.3. The $1.3 M of savings included in the FY 2018 Adopted Budget reflected an
approximate reduction that the City was in the process of negotiating with IAFF
and was established based on FY 2017 values at a point in time. The City was
successful in negotiating deployment changes that total $1.5 M of annual savings
in FY18 dollars. The $200k difference reveals the difference from the estimated
vs. actual annualized reduction in costs based on the final agreed upon
deployment changes.
The deployment changes will not take effect until January, mid‐way through the
fiscal year, therefore the Department will only realize approximately half of this
annualized amount in savings. However, due to the Department holding a high
number of vacancies, including the positions recommended for elimination, it is
anticipated that the Fire Department will remain within its salary and benefits
budget without requiring any additional funding. The Office of Management and
Budget and the Fire Chief will be monitoring salary and benefits expenditures
closely to ensure expenses remain aligned with the budget.
Q.4. How does it cost $70,000 to eliminate 11 full time positions?
A.4. In order to implement these changes, some additional costs are
anticipated. Additional personal protective equipment for all firefighters is
necessary to ensure turnout‐times of cross‐staffed crews are not delayed by
moving their equipment between two different apparatus, saving
approximately 30‐60 seconds in response time. The one‐time cost associated
with this is anticipated to be $70,000 with ongoing costs estimated at $20,000
annually.
4
Thank you,
Janice Svendsen
Janice Svendsen | Executive Assistant to James Keene, City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2105 | E: janice.svendsen@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 7:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Transparency of City of Palo Alto Pension Payouts and Obligations
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301
Elected Council Members:
The following matrix of payouts provides a good estimate of what public sector pensions are worth (in this case public
safety employees):
Using a COLA of only 2%, public sector retirees will receive the following payouts in the following ranges:
--------------------------Minimum Pension Payouts------------------------- Initial
Pension Payout
$100K--10-Years: $1.1M | 20-Years: $2.5M | 30-Years: $4.1M $150K--10-Years: $1.7M | 20-Years: $3.4M | 30-Years: $6.2M
$200K--10-Years: $2.2M | 20-Years: $5.0M | 30-Years: $8.3M $250K--10-Years: $2.8M | 20-Years: $6.1M | 30-Years: $9.3M
$300K--10-Years: $3.3M | 20-Years: $7.4M | 30-Years: $12.4M $350K--10-Years: $3.9M | 20-Years: $8.6M | 30-Years: $14.4M
$400K--10-Years: $4.5M | 20-Years: $9.9M | 30-Years: $16.5M $450K—10Years: $5.0M | 20-Years: $11.2M | 30-Years: $18.6M
$500K--10-Years: $5.5M | 20-Years: $12.3M | 30-Years: $20.6M
(A retired employee’s exit salary is in the left-most column. Moving from left to right, the total payout after ten years, twenty years and thirty years is found in each of the columns with those year numbers.)
Police and Fire Department employees are routinely drawing salaries in the larger cities in the $125K-$200K range, with
pensions as much as 90% of their high salary (or more). Within a decade, it’s hard not to expect some public safety employees to routinely be paid more than $300K/year—which will obligate CalPers and the Palo Alto taxpayers to paying
these folks over $12+M in their retirement years (for example). Other municipal employees’ pensions can be as much as 82% (or more) of their exit salaries. It’s not hard to show that during their retirement years most public sector employees
will be paid more than twice what they were paid during their active working years.
CalPERS claims that the average pension payout is about $36K a year. While that may be true at the moment, as the people working for Cities like Palo Alto retire, they will be paid effectively twice (2X) in their retirement years what they
made in their working years. The older generation of retirees is not generally aware of the high salaries that the current generation of workers is making. So, there is a lot of resistance in this group towards any kind of pension reform. Getting
the payout data into the public’s view is really important—if not critical—in my opinion.
It is long past time that these retirement payout obligations be acknowledged by the City of Palo Alto both to its employees, and the public. I challenge you to take the step(s) necessary to direct Administrative Services to find the
appropriate document(s) to make these financial obligations more transparent than they are now.
Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/17/2017 3:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pepper Person <pepperxigua@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 6:44 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Rebecca Sanders
Subject:3001 El Camino Real--Addendum to 10/11 email
Dear City Council (cc: VNA),
Even the most cursory review of the "Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration" brings up obvious
concerns. (1) Like many projects, it's underparked.
The MND clearly shows 4 spaces below minimum. So, the provided parking is 4 spaces below the minimum
guess for required parking. Why? Why can't it be built with adequate parking?
(2) It is also unclear on exactly how parking will be affected on Acacia--will there be enough room for parking
on both sides, like today? Do those spaces just vanish? Acacia is tight as it is. Have the Council members walked the site?
(3) It fails to model the impact of approved projects, such as 443 Page Mill, everything on Park, etc.
What will happen in 5 years when these underparked and over-varianced projects fully blossom?
What monitoring is put in place for impacts to parking and traffic?
(4) It fails to take into account businesses in the neighborhood that require their employees to use street parking instead of provided parking, which threatens towing unauthorized vehicles.
Will this project add to that problem?
(5) It really glosses over the impacts of increased density on safety.
Increased traffic presents dangers that are easily witnessed on Park. Cars blow through the crosswalk and
frighten cyclists and pedestrians.
So, several cyclists ride on the sidewalk, ignoring the bike line and endangering pedestrians, just as on Page Mill and Hanover and so on.
How is any of that monitored? Exactly how has automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic on Park Blvd
changed since the massive projects have started growing?
(6) What else is lurking?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/17/2017 3:43 PM
2
For example, 443 Page Mill was approved, even though waste receptacles would need to be rolled into Page
Mill for collection.
Very simply, this report's length gives a false sense of security. You really need to think carefully about the
effects of so many projects with variances, below-minimum parking, and so on.
Naturally, we would ask that every council member affirm that they have read and understood each page of each document before voting.
Regards,
Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA
Jieming Robinson
### Prior email ###
Dear City Council (cc: VNA),
We received notice of a very special public hearing of the city council for 3001 El Camino Real...
And in this notice, you state that a draft MND was circulated for public review on 7/3/2017. Circulated where?
To what public?
Let's go back to the article in the Mercury News ( http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/19/50-apartment-
project-on-el-camino-gets-ok-from-palo-alto-commission/ ).
In that article, Commissioner Gardias wondered why there was a lack of community discussion around the project at 3001 El Camino.
Here, Planning Director Hillary Gitelman hypothesized that the "likely answer could be that the project is not
asking for any zoning variances."
Well, now there is a Design Enhancement Exception. Maybe that will bring out the community.
But there are obviously a few questions to answer.
First, why isn't there any tip for how to find the final MND on this notice? Why not provide a link? The assertion that the draft MND was circulated should be qualified, to note that it was an extremely limited
circulation.
Sending out notices saying that a draft MND was circulated and now there's a final MND, without any guidance
as to find those, is disingenuous at best.
Do you really think that people will call each project's representative, or piddle around the CoPA website, to
find these items? You specify the representative, why not add a simple link?
Second, is it possible for a developer to build something in Palo Alto without an MND? Could there actually be a project without a document full of negatives?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/17/2017 3:43 PM
3
Third, is it possible for a developer to build something in Palo Alto without a cornucopia of variances? How
many will follow this one? Why even have rules, if they're so rarely followed?
These projects seem to follow a familiar tack. Get approval without variances. Add variances. Get approval.
Perhaps we should merge Palo Alto with Mountain View, or rebrand as Mountain Alto, since we obviously look
at our neighbors to the south as role models on how to grow.
Regards, Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA
Jieming Robinson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Cornett <jbcornett@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 14, 2017 11:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto City Comprehensive Plan
Dear Council Members ...
The population of Palo Alto, both commercial and residential, continues to grow. Is this the goal of the City Council?
May I suggest that an overarching goal might be "quality of life".
In many instances, improving the quality of life is coincident with increases in commercial and residential enterprises. But not in all cases.
My personal view is that we, the citizens of Palo Alto (and by inference, you the City Council Members),
should focus "quality of life" as the primary goal.
And if increases in population is not consistent with that goal, then we should forego population growth
(commercial and residential) and forego the resultant increases in traffic density, school enrollment,
infrastructure, etc. that then require greater governmental services.
Let's work smarter ... not harder.
Please guide the City's Comprehensive Plan to seek a better quality of life for Palo Alto's citizens. And I
believe that can be achieved by limiting (even halting) the growth of commercial and residential structures that
lead to an ever increasing population in our City.
Most sincerely,
James Cornett
420 Sequoia Ave
(650) 279-2434
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/18/2017 7:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2017 8:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Comp Plan
I urge you to really consider your votes on this Comp Plan.
This plan which is a vision and policies for Palo Alto for the
next 15 years. The 'plan' does nothing to curtail the excess
growth we've experienced in the past 10 years.
It does not take into account the traffic, congestion and pollution
we already are experiencing. All of this makes Palo Alto
less livable; losing the very reasons people wanted to live here
in a suburban community with good schools, parks, and top
notch services. All of these have already felt the burdens
of crowded schools, lack of parks, and limited response to
resident's concerns.
Wouldn't it be better to solve the traffic, congestion etc.,
before we build more?
So far we have not solved these issues. Additionally we
have Stanford's application to grow their campus by 2,275,000
square feet, plus 3,150 units of housing.
Do these aspirations not affect all of us living in this area?
Additional congestion, traffic, and over building.
This proposed Palo Alto Comp Plan has not taken Stanford's
growth into consideration. Non-residential growth could
increase by 3 million sq. feet over the next 15 years.
Becoming an urban center, certainly not a resident focused
community.
You were elected to serve the citizens of this community,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/18/2017 7:43 AM
2
that is a huge responsibility and commitment. The decisions
you make now affect our tomorrows which can't be
undone. Please think of things like sewage, water,
traffic, schools, parks, space and services.
Breathing Room! Our infrastructure is at risk and
the vitality of our community will be severely comprised.
We think we have an endless supply of water, which seems
to me to very short sighted. I urge you to read the Guest Opinion
in the Palo Alto Weekly of last Friday. 'Restore Hetch Hetchy'
a pipe dream or a living vision? Whether on not this becomes a reality,
the amount of building, people, housing etc., you need to
take our environment into account.
Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn
4976 Orme St. 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 11:54 AM
To:Neilson Buchanan
Subject:@ Amazon ..........worth your attention
Attachments:171012 Amazon Effect Taxpayers Funding Disruption of Economy SV Biz
Journal Oct 12 2017.pdf
Such success stories are like ice cream. When is there too much?
There has been a torrent of information about this paradox generally from subscription only sources such as Biz
Journals and Wall St. Journal. See attachment.
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/10/11/the-amazon-effect.html
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF CNSBUCHANAN@YAHOO.COM
From the Silicon Valley Business Journal:
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/10/11/the-amazon-effect.html
Q. ..1.
The Amazon Effect: How taxpayers are funding the disruption
of the U.S. economy
Oct 11, 2017, 8:00am PDT Updated: Oct 12, 2017, 7:16am PDT
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has built a net worth of roughly $85
billion with the sort of discipline and scale refined by corporate
titans before him -Rockefeller, Ford and Gates among them -
though no one has so efficiently tapped America's collective
impatience and love for a bargain. What Albuquerque's favorite son
is accomplishing, and the ruthless speed at which he is
accomplishing it, is unprecedented.
He's had lots of help along the way.
Americans have supported the Bezos surge in two distinct ways: by buying everything from dog food to
diamonds on Amazon.com and by kicking in at least $1.24 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies and
incentives that have fueled the company's growth across the country. That figure does not include
hundreds-of-millions of dollars in additional breaks from deals to phase in state sales taxes, nor does it
include dozens of hard-to-quantify tax abatements and land arrangements struck with a mosaic of towns,
counties and school districts along the way.
Those subsidies, aggregated in a Business Journals analysis of public records and financial filings from
across the United States, have helped support the expansion of Amazon's sprawling network of more than
257 sorting and distribution centers, a 141 million-square-foot portfolio of facilities that house hundreds-of-
thousands of workers in 33 states. The company has millions more square feet in Class A office space as
well as a rapidly expanding portfolio of data centers managed by Amazon Web Services Inc., arguably its
fastest-growing division and abeneficiary of more than $229 million in known taxpayer subsidies.
The analysis by The Business Journals also led to a nationwide look at how Amazon is touching nearly
every corner of the country -and subscribers can go here to access these stories.
Competition -and a degree ofdesperation -have been key to Amazon's well-honed strategy for
maximizing taxpayer support. For example, the company has proven shrewd at pitting states and
communities against one another by leveraging the allure of new jobs and the cachet that comes with
landing a major technology company.
What Amazon delivers is usually something more mundane.
Cities throughout the country's wilting industrial hubs have been particularly eager to step up to Amazon's
demands, even though the company's quick-turn delivery model requires proximity to the one asset they
allpossess: customers. But the incentives keep coming, totaling around $100 million in South Carolina,
more than $127 million in Ohio, and millions more in the neighboring Rust Belt and Coal Country states of
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Kentucky and Illinois.
Never mind that Amazon's massive fulfillment centers are accelerating the company's disruption of retail
markets. Or that what it often provides in return for taxpayer subsidies are low-wage warehouse
"functions" that, by the company's own admission, are likely to be replaced by robots someday.
It's all happening with the full-throated -and in some cases high-fiving -support of local officials.
INTERACTIVE MAP: Tracking Amazon's rapidly expanding footprint
Interviews by The Business Journals with dozens of public officials and reviews of documents received
through public records requests have turned up little in the form of skepticism or concerns voiced by
community leaders when Amazon comes to town. Few have asked whether subsidizing Amazon's
expansion is worth the cost, or how a company with around $30 billion in cash can possibly have a "need
for funding," as it was phrased in a recent subsidy application in Michigan.
Instead, The Business Journals found examples in which elected officials waived wage requirements to
enable Amazon to qualify for a particular subsidy or incentive plan. Their rationale, repeated by local
officials interviewed by The Business Journals: Any job is better than no job.
Those dynamics will be on full display in the weeks ahead, as the Seattle-based company seeks bids from
U.S. cities to house "HQ2," a proposed second North American headquarters expected to host up to
50,000 workers. Analysts suggest the winning bid will require billions of dollars in pledges of taxpayer
support. Cities are lining up to throw a hat in the ring.
Few would wager that HQ2 represents an end game for the 53-year-old Bezos, or that his charges into e-
commerce, rocket ships, groceries, publishing and political lobbying in Washington, D.C., will satisfy what
appears to be an insatiable appetite for growth. The Bezos juggernaut has always been something of a
work in progress, where the possibilities for new products and customers are endless.
It is a mastery for disruption that has spread to all corners of the U.S. economy and sent a shot across the
bow of entire industries and regulators alike. What comes next could very well affirm, or suffocate, the
notion of the American Dream.
Director, Editorial Research & Analysis ~ ·
Craig M. Douglas mi
,1
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/18/2017 7:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:California High-Speed Rail <info@hsr.ca.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Amended: California High-Speed Rail Board of Directors Meeting Agenda for October
19, 2017
To view this email as a web page, go here.
BOARD AGENDA
***Amended 10/17/17***
Monthly Meeting Agenda
October 19, 2017
9:00 A.M.
Meeting Location
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Chambers
700 H Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
PUBLIC COMMENT
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/18/2017 7:43 AM
2
For this meeting, an opportunity for public comment on all agenda and non-
agenda items will be provided at the outset of the public session of the meeting. Those persons who wish to comment on agenda and non-agenda
items, are required to submit their requests to Board Secretary before the
start of the meeting by filling in the green cards. Typically public comment will
be limited to two minutes per person, however the Chair may decide to shorten or
lengthen the public comment periods, at his or her discretion. Agenda Items may be taken out of order.
1. Consider Approving the Board Meeting Minutes from the September 19,
2017 Board Meeting
Responsible Party: -- Status: A
Duration: 5 min.
2. Consider Awarding a Contract for Early Train Operator Services
Responsible Party:
T. Fellenz
Status: A
Duration: 40 min.
2. Consider Amending the Interagency Agreement with Caltrans for Legal
Services to Support Right-of-Way Acquisition
Responsible Party:
J. Andrew/ S. Jarvis
Status: A
Duration: 10 min.
3. Investing in California's Future Through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Responsible Party:
T. Fellenz/
L.Alley
Status: A
Duration: 15 min.
4. Closed Session Pertaining to Employment of an Executive Director (CEO)
The Authority Board will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code
section 11126(a) to discuss the employment of a new Executive Director (CEO)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/18/2017 7:43 AM
3
Responsible Party: Chair Richard Board Members
Status: --
Duration: --
5. Closed Session Pertaining to Litigation
The Authority will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section
11126(e)(1)&(2)(A) to confer with counsel with regard to the following litigation:
SunnyGem LLC v. California High-Speed Rail Authority;(Sacramento
Superior Court Case No. 34-2017-80002538)
John Tos; Town of Atherton; County of Kings; Morris Brown; Patricia
Louise Hogan-Giorni; Anthony Wynne, Community Coalition on High-
Speed Rail, TRANSDEF; California Rail Foundation v. California High-
Speed Rail Authority (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2016-
00204740)
County of Kings v. California High-Speed Rail Authority;(Sacramento
Superior Court Case No. 34-2014-80001861)
First Free Baptist Church of Bakersfield v. California High-Speed Rail
Authority; (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2014-80001864)
City of Shafter v. California High-Speed Rail Authority;(Sacramento
Superior Court Case No. 34-2014-80001908)
The Authority will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section
11126(e)(1)&(2)(B)(i);11126(a)(1).
Responsible Party: J. Andrew Status: --
Duration: --
* “A” denotes an “Action” item; “I” denotes an “Information” item; “C” denotes
“consent” item.
* The Agenda was amended on October 17, 2017 to remove Agenda Item #2
“Consider Awarding a Contract for Early Train Operator Services.”
Reasonable Accommodation for Any Individual
Requests for reasonable accommodations, such as interpreters or assistive listening devices, require at least one week advance notice prior to the meeting/event. Please submit request to the High-Speed Rail Authority’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Branch at (916) 324-1541 or via email at boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov.
Adaptaciones razonables
Las solicitudes de adaptaciones razonables, como intérpretes o dispositivos de audición asistida, requieren al menos una semana de aviso previo antes de la reunión/evento. Haga su solicitud en la Oficina de Igualdad de Oportunidades en el Empleo (Equal
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/18/2017 7:43 AM
4
Employment Opportunity, EEO) de la Autoridad del Sistema Ferroviario de Alta Velocidad al (916) 324-1541 o por correo electrónico a boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov.
合理便利設施
如需同聲傳譯或助聽設備等合理的便利設施，需至少在會議/活動前一周給出提前通知。請提交申請至高速鐵路管理局的公平就業機
會（EEO）辦公室，電話為(916) 324-1541，或請發送電郵至 boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov.
Mga Makatuwirang Kaluwagan
Ang mga kahilingan para sa makatuwirang kaluwagan, tulad ng tagapagsalin ng wika o kagamitang pantulong sa pagdining, ay nangangailangan ng isang linggung paunang abiso bago ang pagpupulong/kaganapan. Mangyaring magsumite ng kahilingan sa Sangay ng Pantay na Pagkakataon sa Trabaho (Equal Employment Opportunity, EEO) ng Awtoridad ng Mabilis na Tren (High-Speed Rail Authority) sa (916) 324-1541 o sa pamamagitan ng email sa boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov.
합리적인 편의서비스
통역사 또는 청취 지원 장치 등의 합리적인 편의서비스에 대한 요청은 미팅/행사 적어도 1주일 전에 요청해야 합니다. 요청서를
고속철도청 평등한 고용기회(EEO) 지점, (916) 324-1541 또는 이메일boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov.로 보내 주십시오.
การอํานวยความสะดวกที่เหมาะสม
หากต้องการขอรับการอํานวยความสะดวกที่เหมาะสม เช่น ล่ามหรืออุปกรณ์ช่วยฟัง ต้องมีการแจ้งให้ทราบล่วงหน้าก่อนการประชุม/การจัดงานอย่างน้อยหนึ่งสัปดาห์
โปรดส่งคําขอไปยังสํานักงานสาขาโอกาสการจ้างงานที่เท่าทียมกัน (EEO) ของการรถไฟความเร็วสูงที่หมายเลข (916) 324-1541 หรือผ่านทางอีเมลที่
boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov.
SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV
California High-Speed Rail Authority
770 L Street, Suite 620 Sacramento, CA 956814 info@hsr.ca.gov
(916) 324-1541
This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority
770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US
Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/17/2017 3:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2017 12:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:cell antennas in Palo Alto neighborhoods
Dear City Council members,
As you may know, Governor Brown just vetoed SB649 (https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/Sb_649_Veto_Message_2017.pdf)
regarding deployment of new cell towers in cities without local government control.
Given Verizon’s plan for hundreds of small cell towers in Palo Alto, I have some questions and concerns, in particular
with regard to the health and safety of residents, especially children:
1) can we please hold hearings on the issue of cell towers in residential neighborhoods?
2) how have the health effects of these proposed cell towers been evaluated by the City of Palo Alto? Please consider
these articles about health effects from electromagnetic fields from wireless devices/equipment ‐ see this from UC
Berkeley:
http://www.saferemr.com/2016/03/welcome‐to‐emr‐safety.html
https://uhs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/wellness‐cellphonesandyourhealth.pdf
3) what new ordinances can be created to keep cell towers out? Other cities in the Bay Area have achieved this ‐ we can
too!
I look forward to well‐informed, careful deliberation on these important issues.
Thank you,
Tina Chow
(Barron Park)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:48 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:celia chow <celia.cchow@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 16, 2017 1:41 PM
To:Atkinson, Rebecca; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Gitelman, Hillary; Jeanne
Fleming
Subject:Cell tower shot clock running out, no ARB hearing scheduled.
Dear Rebecca,
In your recent email (appended below), you said that there were no plans for the ARB to hold public hearings—public hearings that are required before the ARB can make a recommendation—on any of Verizon’s proposed cell towers in October or November. I would appreciate it if you would explain to me how that can be the case when, as you know, the shot clock on Verizon’s Cluster One runs out on November 29th. Moreover, as you also know, if the City fails to act on Verizon’s applications by that date, the company is entitled to consider the applications to be approved.
In short, I am confused. I’m sure you and the Planning Department agree with my neighbors and me that under no circumstances should any
cell tower shot clock simply be allowed to run out, so I would appreciate it if you would explain what is going on.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Celia Chow
(650) 327-5312
2090 Webster Street
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hello Celia Chow,
Thank you for your email.
10/13/17:
The Planning Department did previously think that an ARB meeting on Cluster 1 might be possible to schedule in
the November timeframe, but an ARB meeting has not been scheduled at this time. We still have a lot of analysis to
complete on the Cluster 1 application before we can schedule. When a meeting is scheduled, it will be posted into our
permit tracking system under status remarks. Notice will also be posted in the newspaper about ARB meetings and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:48 PM
2
postcard notices will also be mailed out to residents within the mailing radius outlined in our Municipal Code. I am
awaiting direction from my Director on if there any other additional notifications beyond what I have described above.
The shot clock for Cluster 3 is still stopped, as I have not yet received a resubmittal.
Regards,
Rebecca
Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org
Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code
Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped
From: celia chow [mailto:celia.cchow@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 8:57 PM
To: Atkinson, Rebecca
Subject: Re: A formal request in regards to the Small Cell Installations in Palo Alto
Thank you for your detailed information. We always appreciate your help in providing requested information
to us.
Do you also know if the ARB has a hearing scheduled now for one or more of the clusters?
Thanks!
Celia
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hello Celia Chow,
Thank you for your email.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:48 PM
3
As of 10/03/17:
It is my understanding that Vinculums/Verizon is in the process of hosting community meeting(s) that are required
prior to submitting more formal application(s). I haven’t received another formal application yet, but anticipate more
submittals toward the end of October. The applicant would know their own timeframe on this point.
The shot clock for Cluster 2 restarted, as I just received a resubmittal on Cluster 2 yesterday afternoon.
The shot clock for Cluster 3 is still stopped, as I have not yet received a resubmittal.
I don’t have any informal Preliminary Architectural Review application or formal Tier 3 Wireless Communication
Facility application yet from AT&T or T‐Mobile for proposed small cell nodes in the right of way, although there may be
some applications that are active proposed for private property.
It is my understanding that AT&T is working on putting together an informal Preliminary Architectural Review
application at this time.
Regards,
Rebecca
Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org
Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code
Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped
From: celia chow [mailto:celia.cchow@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 1:02 PM
To: Atkinson, Rebecca; Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject: A formal request in regards to the Small Cell Installations in Palo Alto
Hi Rebecca,
Please let us know if Verizon has submitted a 4th (or more) set of applications. Are the shot clocks for Cluster 2 & 3 are still stopped?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 2:48 PM
4
We also appreciate if you can tell us where the AT&T submission stands. And is TMobile submitting anything?
Thanks!
Celia
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/17/2017 3:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nahid Waleh <nwaleh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:30 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cell Towers in Old Plao Alto
Dear City Council members:
We, the residents of Old Palo Alto, are delighted that Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB649.
We would like to request from you to: 1. hold hearings on the issue of cell towers in residential neighborhoods
2. direct city staff to use every possible tool to keep cell towers out
3. pass tough, new ordinances to accomplish that goal
Respectfully, Nahid Waleh
2344 Emerson St
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/17/2017 3:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sherryl Casella <orioness@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2017 7:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cell Towers in our neighborhoods
Dear Council Persons,
Please draw a line to limit these ugly utility boxes in our neighborhoods. Also, the cell tower additions to the
utility poles.
Hopefully Governor Brown’s veto of SB649 gives you support for this position.
1) Please hold your own hearings on the issue of cell towers in residential neighborhoods;
2) to direct city staff to use every possible tool to keep cell towers out; and
3) to, if needed, pass tough, new ordinances to accomplish that goal.
Thanks,
Sherryl Casella
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:55 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Shull <shull.mark@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 9:34 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Cupertino City's Aircraft Noise plan vs. Palo Alto's
Palo Alto's web page on aircraft noise, which appears to be volunteer info and pretty dated:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/airplane_noise.asp
Cupertino's web page, which appears to show the city engaging fully and having a plan:
http://www.cupertino.org/residents/news/aircraft-noise
It is way beyond time for the City of Palo Alto to take ownership in dealing with the aircraft noise, vs leaving it up to ad hoc volunteer groups (which isn't working). San Mateo County cities have long taken it as their
responsibility, and it appears that other mid-Peninsula cities are doing the same.
As the leading city in the mid-Peninsula, and the only city besides EPA that has traffic from all three main
Peninsula approaches to SFO, plus SJC reverse flow (at 2000 ft) plus Surf Air, I urge the city to own this issue and make it a priority.
This has become a city-level issue up and down the Peninsula. Is Palo Alto at the table, and is the city
representing us effectively on this critical matter?
Mark Shull
2020 Tasso Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 9:27 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@right-thing.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 4:35 PM
To:Atkinson, Rebecca
Cc:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review Board; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Formal request for access to public records
Dear Rebecca,
I have four formal requests:
1. Please consider this to be my formal request for access to all emails sent to date by Palo Alto residents to the
Planning Department, to any other city department or to City Council on the subject of the telecom industry or
telecom industry installations since my previous request to you.
2. Please consider this to be my formal request for access to all forthcoming emails sent by residents to the
Planning Department, to any other city department or to City Council on the subject of the telecom industry or
telecom industry installations.
3. Please consider this to be my formal request to see all the applications that have been submitted to the City by
telecom companies (or their agents, such as Crown Castle and Vinculums) in the last 12 months.
4. Finally, please consider this to be my formal request that Celia Chow and I, as representatives of the resident
group, United Neighbors, be kept informed of all meetings related to the subject of the telecom industry or
telecom industry installations.
Thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming
JFleming@Right-Thing.net 650-325-5151
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/16/2017 8:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 15, 2017 2:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: FYI: This Tiny Country Feeds the World
fascinating article
Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM
Medical Case Management
Phone: 650-325-2298
Fax: 650-326-9451
This Tiny Country Feeds the World
This Tiny Country Feeds the World
By Jason Treat, NGM Staff; Kelsey Nowakowski. Sources: FAOSTAT;
Arjen Hoekstra, University of Twente; Statistics Netherlands (CBS)
The Netherlands has become an agricultural giant by showing what the
future of farming could look like.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:25 AM
To:Loran Harding; bballpod; Irv Weissman; francis.collins@nih.gov; firstvp@fresnopoa.org;
Mayor; CityManager; Council, City; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer;
midge@thebarretts.com; beachrides; kfsndesk; newsdesk; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com;
Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; David Balakian; dennisbalakian; terry; Greg.Gatzka; Raymond
Rivas; hennessy; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Paul Dictos; Joel Stiner;
Cathy Lewis
Subject:Fwd: KCBS says Sat. 9-30-17: Many drug Co. have ops in P.R. C/B shortages at hosps.
etc.
Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2017
Update to the information in the attached, from Sept. 30. Tonight, Oct. 11, 2017, the Nightly Bus. Report
said that the FDA says that 10% of the drugs prescribed in the U.S. are made in P.R. Many of the plants still
have no electricity. Expect shortages of some meds.
So now I have heard this from KCBS-SF on 9-30 and now, 12 days later, again on NBR.
And to be clear, this does not just portend shortages IN PR, but in the entire U.S. (and probably beyond).
This is going to Dr.Burns at Kaiser, Dr. Weissman at Stanford, and Dr. Collins at NIH.
Dr. Collins- Please forward this to the President. KCBS mentioned cancer drugs, immune system
suppressors and diabetic supplies. One other category, as I recall.
LH
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:47 PM
Subject: Fwd: KCBS says Sat. 9-30-17: Many drug Co. have ops in P.R. C/B shortages at hosps. etc.
To: francis.collins@nih.gov
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM Subject: KCBS says Sat. 9-30-17: Many drug Co. have ops in P.R. C/B shortages at hosps. etc.
To: bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Irv Weissman
<irv@stanford.edu>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:57 PM
2
dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Daniel Zack
<daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>, david pomaville <pomaville165@sbcglobal.net>,
kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, jboren <jboren@fresnobee.com>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, CityManager
<citymanager@fresno.gov>, "city.council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov,
"paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Joel Stiner
<jastiner@gmail.com>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, "steve.hogg" <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>,
beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, "steve.brandau" <steve.brandau@fresno.gov>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, mmt4@pge.com, midge@thebarretts.com, info@superide1.com,
debra.perrone@stanford.edu, firstvp@fresnopoa.org, "robert.andersen" <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, Leodies
Buchanan <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, Raymond Rivas <financialadvisor007@gmail.com>,
fmerlo@wildelectric.net, Steven Feinstein <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>, "Greg.Gatzka"
<Greg.Gatzka@co.kings.ca.us>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, "igorstrav ." <mwaldrep@aixrecords.com>, kclark <kclark@westlandswater.org>,
Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>, nick yovino
<npyovino@gmail.com>, "oliver.baines" <oliver.baines@fresno.gov>, "clinton.olivier"
<clinton.olivier@fresno.gov>, pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>,
russ@topperjewelers.com, thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov, "richard.wenzel" <richard.wenzel@aecom.com>, yicui@stanford.edu
Sat. morning, 9-30-17
Dr. Burns- KCBS reported in the past hour that many drug Cos. and medical device makers have operations
in Puerto Rico. Without power, some, at least, are not operating and that could lead to shortages at hospitals,
clinics etc.
They mentioned c. drugs, immuno- suppressing drugs for transplant pts., and supplies used by diabetics.
If the Trump Admin. cannot or will not get help to P.R., the medical community and its pts. could feel this.
They said that the fed. government encouraged the drug cos. etc. to set up ops in P.R. to help the economy there.
Please spread the word throughout Kaiser.
Copy going to Dr. Irv Weissman at Stanford. Please spread the alarm.
I looked at one device I use, and it says "Made in the USA". Sounds great, but then P.R. is in the USA.
Thank you.
L. William Harding
Fresno
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:57 PM
3
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:55 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>
Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 11:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Special Message from the Mayor on Wildfires
Thanks for this message from the Mayor about how we can help with the Wildfires in the North Bay.
However, I understand we had a Red Flag Warning today (Thursday) until 5pm affecting the Santa Cruz Mountains, including the Palo Alto Hills,
per http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/communications_firesafety_redflagwarning , but I did not see any
messages or warning about that. Or a notice that the Foothills Park Fire Station was being staffed.
Best regards, Arthur
Begin forwarded message:
From: "City of Palo Alto" <cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com>
Subject: Special Message from the Mayor on Wildfires
Date: October 12, 2017 at 5:37:08 PM PDT
Reply-To: cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com
Our hearts go out to our neighbors in Northern California that are
experiencing the devastating wildfires that are currently spanning eight
counties. When the fires first broke out Sunday night, the Palo Alto Fire Department immediately responded as part of the Santa Clara County Strike Team Task Force. We have sent two engines and several members of our fire crews, as well as sworn personnel from our police department to assist in operations. Additionally, Palo Alto Animal Services delivered a truck load of donations and supplies, and assisted with some animal rescues.
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Connect with us!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/13/2017 4:55 PM
2
Many of you in the community want to do what you can to help as well.
These fire-ravaged areas will need help rebuilding for many years, but in
the short-term, the Red Cross and other organizations are asking for donations. If you are so inclined, here are links to some organizations that could use immediate help:
Red Cross
Napa Valley Community Foundation
Sonoma County Resilience Fund
Salvation Army
Humane Society of Sonoma County
Humane Society of Napa County
We are a community that knows how to rise to the occasion and this
disaster serves as a good reason to pull together and help our neighbors
during their time of great need.
Finally, the wildfires are a good reminder to review emergency
preparedness plans. I hope you will take a moment to visit this link on our
website with details on what you can do in the event of an emergency.
Greg Scharff
Mayor
The City has a variety of e-news topics that may be of
interest to you. Join other e-news topics, update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or
stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your e-mail address
to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact
subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.
This service is provided to you at no charge by the City of
Palo Alto.
This email was sent using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City of Palo Alto · 250 Hamilton Ave · Palo Alto, CA 94301 · 650-329-2100