HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-09-10 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
Page 1 of 40
Special Meeting
September 10, 2018
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:12 P.M.
Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka,
Wolbach
Absent:
Special Orders of the Day
1. Proclamation Declaring the Month of September Emergency
Preparedness Month.
Mayor Kniss read the Proclamation into the record.
Nathanial Rainey, Office of Emergency Services Coordinator, reported the
Office of Emergency Services (OES) had rebranded its website,
cityofpaloalto.org/preparedness. Preparedness was a whole community
function. Following a disaster, City services would fall short without the
support and preparation of the community. OES encouraged constant
vigilance and preparedness.
Council Member Holman asked if Staff had an update regarding a siren alert
system.
Mr. Rainey responded that the City had made no progress.
Council Member Holman remarked that a siren alert system had been a topic
for many years. She hoped at some time it would become a priority of the
Council and the City.
Study Session
2. Update From State Legislative Lobbyists on State Legislation.
James Keene, City Manager, reported the lobbyists attended Policy and
Services Committee (P&S) meetings regularly. At the Council's request, he
contacted Mr. De Luca and requested a presentation before the Council.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 2 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Niccolo De Luca, Senior Director of Townsend Public Affairs, Inc., advised that
the Governor has until September 30 to act on approximately 1,217 bills. At
the end of the legislative session, he would work with the Executive Leadership
Team to develop the City's legislative platform, which the Policy and Services
Committee would adopt. The City supported four bills, opposed three bills,
and expressed concern regarding one bill. The watch list for the City contained
150 bills. He expected to see more legislation on housing, single-payer
healthcare, homelessness, and forest management when the Legislature
returned in December. In addition, he was working with staff on funding
strategies regarding grade separations and park projects. The firm worked to
brief the Senate Pro Tem's Office, the Speaker's Office, and committee staffs
regarding the City's needs. Between November 2018 and June 2019, he would
track the Cabinet Secretaries as the new Governor named them.
Council Member Wolbach noted the future of rail was an area of concern.
Planning for grade separations was constrained by funding and the needs of
Caltrain, Union Pacific, and the State. Eliminating diesel freight could increase
the number of options and reduce costs for the community. He wanted City
Staff to closely collaborate with Mr. De Luca regarding navigation of complex
lobbying with agencies larger than Palo Alto.
Mr. De Luca would be happy to help the City. He had a great working
relationship with the advocacy firm representing Caltrain. Townsend Public
Affairs had a strong rapport with the California Transportation Commission
(CTC), where much of the grade separation funding was allocated. There were
many ways to frame the discussion regarding the need for funds. He would
love to take City leadership to Sacramento for rounds with the CTC and
legislators.
Council Member Wolbach felt the City's work with the other cities and three
counties located in the Caltrain Corridor would be important. Advocacy on
behalf of the City should focus on flexibility and funding. He questioned
whether regulations for cannabis were becoming stable.
Mr. De Luca indicated a clear picture of cannabis regulations would be
available by the beginning of November. The Governor vetoed almost all
legislation for cannabis because the regulations had not been finalized. He
expected a large quantity of cannabis legislation in 2019. He did not believe
local control for cannabis would change.
Council Member Wolbach inquired whether a future Governor and his Cabinet
would allow cannabis regulations to stand as adopted in November.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 3 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Mr. De Luca related that regulations would likely not change with a new
Governor. Cannabis was a complex topic that literally touched everything
from labor relations to taxation.
Council Member Wolbach asked if Mr. De Luca could participate in Rail
Committee meetings by phone or in person.
Mr. De Luca responded yes.
Council Member Kou requested the rationale for the lobbyist appearing after
completion of the legislative session.
Mr. Keene explained that the issue was timing. The Council indicated its desire
for an update just before the recess. The current meeting was the earliest
time prior to the new legislative year that the lobbyist could meet with the
Council. In the past, the City took positions on bills or worked to have bills
amended as deadlines approached. He invited the Council to think about
issues or factors on which it would like more in-depth discussion.
Council Member Kou noted quite a few bills concerned the removal of local
control over land use and zoning. She wanted the City to be more involved in
State legislation, especially when local control was in jeopardy. Senate Bill
(SB) 828 modified the Code that recognized a city might not meet its Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The language implied that RHNA was a
production mandate. The Council needed to know a great many of the terms
of SB 828 early in the process. SB 1333 would reduce a city's ability to control
planning and zoning.
Mr. De Luca reported that he sent a report regarding SB 1333 to Staff, who
responded right away. After talking with the bill's author and other cities with
concerns, he was able to have the Senator amend the bill. City Staff then
stated the amended bill would not impact the City. Rather than opposing a
bill, he preferred to contact its author and suggest amendments.
Council Member Kou wanted to know the reasons such matters were not
presented to the Council's attention. She wanted to know the amendments
made to the bill.
Mr. De Luca explained that bills were highlighted for the City based on the
platform adopted by P&S.
Mr. Keene would review the information reports regarding legislative matters.
Sometimes, Staff verbally updated the Council. He recalled instances in which
the Council established policy or expressed concern about a particular bill.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 4 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Staff applied the Council's direction and reported to the Council. He would
review the process for reporting on legislation.
Council Member Kou indicated SB 1333 was not listed in information provided
to the Council. Not knowing about important issues limited the Council's
action. Assembly Bills (AB) 1771 and 2923 were additional bills about which
the Council had not been notified.
Mr. De Luca clarified that AB 2923 would give Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
land-use authority for housing projects that cities would normally sponsor. A
coalition of nine cities was fighting the bill. Many of the bills were discussed
in March with respect to the positions to take on them.
Council Member Kou asked with whom Mr. De Luca discussed the bills.
Mr. De Luca answered City Staff. In the future, he could provide a matrix of
bills supported, opposed, watched, and perhaps actively working.
Council Member Kou inquired whether the Governor signed AB 2495.
Mr. De Luca did not know.
Council Member Kou noted requests for veto pertaining to SB 946, AB 553,
and SB 1300. These bills would require actions for which the City would have
to pay. The City could have supported other bills but now had to request
signatures. Hopefully Staff could develop a procedure to notify the Council
sooner about bills.
Council Member DuBois requested information about bills pertaining to
funding for grade separation, parks, and water recycling.
Mr. De Luca remarked that the State traditionally had about $15 million a year
for grade separation calls for projects. With the passage of SB 1,
approximately $80 million in additional funds per year were available for grade
separation. The repeal of SB 1 in November would impact grade separation.
A city's main goal for grade separation was to get on the State list for funding.
Proposition 68 would provide $4 billion for parks, trails, shorelines, and sea
level rise. The first applications for Proposition 68 funding would likely be
submitted in the spring of 2019, and he proposed a meeting between City
Staff and the California Natural Resources Agency and the California
Department of Parks and Recreation.
Council Member DuBois inquired whether Proposition 68 was the primary
source for sea level rise funding.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 5 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Mr. De Luca did not know the amount of Proposition 68 funding that would be
designated for sea level rise.
Council Member DuBois asked about the possibility of obtaining a statement
of support from the Legislature regarding airport noise.
Mr. De Luca could talk with State leaders about a statement. The City should
form a coalition with neighboring cities impacted by airport noise. He could
add airport noise to his work plan.
Council Member Holman added the issue of air quality to Council Member
DuBois' comments regarding airport noise. Air quality on the Peninsula had
been degrading due to fires, increased traffic, and airplane noise. She inquired
regarding the best strategy for the City to participate in funding for parks.
Mr. De Luca proposed the Council first identify projects, second draft a sales
pitch, and then meet with leadership of the California Department of Parks
and Recreation and the California Natural Resources Agency. In the
application, the City should highlight recycled water, drought-tolerant
landscaping, and things of that nature. Following submission of an application,
he would implement an advocacy strategy. He recommended the City submit
as many projects as possible for Round 1. For those projects that did not
succeed in Round 1, the City would receive feedback as to how to make
projects successful.
Council Member Holman noted projects for naturalization of the creek in
Ventura and the purchase of additional parkland were community concerns.
Mr. Keene suggested parks funding could be a Council Priority in 2019. The
City's support or opposition of legislation did not mean its efforts would be
successful. Focusing City efforts on the highest priority projects would be
important to obtain funding. Staff could take general direction to think about
working closely with legislative staff to understand the types of projects that
would likely receive funding. Engaging the Parks and Recreation Commission
would be beneficial in developing a list of projects. The City had a quantified
need for parks within the City.
Council Member Holman commented that the City should focus on legislation
related to health, which included parks, noise and air quality, and
homelessness, and local control. She requested additional information
regarding potential homelessness legislation.
Mr. De Luca articulated that the adopted budget allocated $750 million for
homelessness statewide. Either $250 million or $500 million was allocated to
the big eleven cities. The remaining funding was allocated to Continuum of
FINAL MINUTES
Page 6 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Cares, to which cities and nonprofits applied for funding. The funds were
intended to be one-time, immediate funding. The call for projects was
released the prior week. Legislation in 2019 would focus more on mental
health.
Council Member Holman inquired whether a joint application of a city and a
nonprofit would be stronger than an application from either one individually.
Mr. De Luca responded absolutely. A joint application from two cities would
also be stronger.
Council Member Holman inquired about legislation or proposals regarding
research for greater fire suppression.
Mr. De Luca expected the upcoming budget to allocate additional funding for
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). Land
management was another topic for potential legislation.
Council Member Holman clarified that current methods to fight wildfires
seemed inadequate. She asked about follow-up information to be provided to
the Council.
Mr. De Luca would work with City Staff to develop next steps.
Council Member Holman requested information regarding siren alert systems
and funding for them.
Vice Mayor Filseth inquired regarding momentum in the Bay Area to access
larger pots of money.
Mr. De Luca advised that the Bay Area was looking at transportation, housing,
and infrastructure improvements.
Vice Mayor Filseth asked about funding for High Speed Rail.
Mr. De Luca reported the question was what would happen to the funding
identified for high speed rail projects.
Vice Mayor Filseth asked if regionalizing the grid would be resolved soon.
Mr. De Luca believed the issue would be around for years.
Council Member Fine aligned his comments with previous comments regarding
rail and climate change funding. SB 827 was not presented to the Council. It
was a policy for the Council to support local control initiatives. He did not
FINAL MINUTES
Page 7 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
support preservation of local control where it did not achieve the desired
results. He requested comment regarding top-down solutions for housing.
Mr. De Luca expected compromise to be the tenor for the next few legislative
sessions. A compromise between protecting cities' rights and building new
housing was possible.
Mayor Kniss suggested Council Member Wolbach provide the opinion/editorial
article he and the Mayor of Mountain View wrote regarding the Wiener bill.
She requested additional information regarding potential single-payer
legislation.
Mr. De Luca reported the latest information concerned a proposal. He
frequently dropped into Senator Weiner's office and could visit his office the
following week to learn of any new proposals.
Mayor Kniss noted the City of Cupertino was using SB 35.
Mr. De Luca added that the City of Berkeley tried to use SB 35, but its staff
stopped it.
Mayor Kniss asked if Mr. De Luca expected the Governor to sign the bill
regarding the shoreline project.
Mr. De Luca replied yes, because the Governor had been clear regarding
environmental protections, and the bill was relatively innocuous.
3. 980 Middlefield Road [18PLN-00129]: Request for Prescreening of a
Proposal to Amend the Existing Planned Community (PC) 2152 Zoning
in Order to Change the Allowed use From Mortuary to a Private Club or
Similar use (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER
1, 2018).
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to
continue this item to October 1, 2018.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
City Manager Comments
James Keene, City Manager, announced the Council would hold a discussion
of the Public Safety Building on September 17. A community meeting
FINAL MINUTES
Page 8 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
regarding the Public Safety Building and the California Avenue parking garage
was scheduled for September 12 at Palo Alto Central. More information was
available on the City's website at cityofpaloalto.org/psb. Chris Mosko of the
Palo Alto Fire Department had joined California Task Force 3 in Hawaii in
anticipation of Hurricane Olivia. The prior week, Staff from various City
Departments and Emergency Services Volunteers participated in Urban Shield,
the annual Bay Area disaster recovery exercise. During Drive Electric Week,
the City and Acterra were cosponsoring an electric vehicle ride-and-drive
event and reception on September 16. The City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Unified
School District, and Concordia would host the first in a series of community
meetings regarding design of Cubberley Community Center on September 27.
The Palo Alto Art Center, Human Relations Commission, Palo Alto Library, and
Palo Alto YMCA were leading a community collaborative to celebrate national
Welcome Week, September 14-23. The City was recruiting community
members to serve on the Architectural Review Board, the Parks and
Recreation Commission, and the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Applications were due by October 17 at 4:30 p.m. On September 14, the Palo
Alto Art Center would hold Friday Night at the Art Center. Mayor Kniss and a
small delegation traveled to Yangpu District, Shanghai, China, to celebrate the
Sister City relationship.
Bob Wenzlau, Neighbors Abroad President, reported 1.3 million people lived
in Yangpu District, which was probably the size of Palo Alto. The City entered
into the Sister City relationship as a means to engage the Chinese community
in Palo Alto. The delegation met with the Mayor of Yangpu and touched upon
themes of sustainability. He was surprised by the quality of educational
facilities in Yangpu. The delegation met with the Friendship Association, which
believed education and sustainability relationships could work with business
connections. The relationships with Sister Cities made a large impact on
sustainability, education, and culture.
Mayor Kniss believed the delegation was impressed with Yangpu District. She
inquired about the directional sign for Yangpu.
Ms. Wenzlau indicated Neighbors Abroad had been working with the Rotary
Club to raise funds for the sign. Hopefully, the sign would be installed in the
next six months.
Council Member Kou inquired regarding memorials for 9/11.
Mr. Keene was not aware of any events.
Council Member Wolbach noted a Peace Picnic was scheduled for the following
day.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 9 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Oral Communications
Alison Cormack encouraged residents to attend the community meeting for
Cubberley Community Center on September 27. The first of four community
meetings would focus on community assets, needs, goals, and ideas about the
future program and potential joint uses.
Neilson Buchanan remarked that the Business Registry was a catastrophic
failure. The Council should require a quality assurance approach for the
Business Registry and adopt continuous improvement.
Rita Vrhel complained about a person being paid for volunteer work regarding
the Cool Blocks Program. Palo Alto had a proud and long tradition of
volunteerism, which should continue.
Jeff Levinsky stated the Business Registry was one tool that helped Staff
address and search for solutions to parking and traffic issues. The cost of the
Business Registry was amazingly inexpensive. Good solutions appeared to be
in place to improve the Business Registry.
Valerie Stinger, Human Relations Commission, read a story regarding former
Mayor Sid Espinosa and invited the public to participate in Welcome America
Week. Events for the week included a kickoff party and storytelling walking
tours.
Iqbal Serang spoke regarding preserving the Hotel President as a treasure of
historic significance.
Stephanie Munoz stated the Council had to allow AJ Capital to evict the
residents of the Hotel President. AJ Capital could only reuse the building as
apartments without a variance. The Council could allow the present tenants
to cycle through the building, which would provide funds for renovating the
building.
Jeff Brown suggested the City utilize mirrors and signage at the intersection
of Middlefield and Lincoln to reduce traffic collisions.
Mark Weiss recommended Samson Koletkar be invited to speak at the Human
Relations Commission.
Angie Evans spoke regarding the existing need for affordable housing.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 10 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Minutes Approval
4. Approval of Action Minutes for the August 20, 2018 Council Meeting.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to
approve the Action Minutes for the August 20, 2018 Council Meeting.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Consent Calendar
Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported that Staff erroneously placed Agenda
Item Number 10 on the Consent Calendar. Council Members should disclose
ex parte communications with respect to Agenda Item Number 6.
James Keene, City Manager, advised that Agenda Item Number 10 could be
the first Action Item on the agenda.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth,
third by Council Member Wolbach to pull Agenda Item Number 10 - SECOND
READING: Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend the Contract Between the
Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System
(CalPERS) … to be heard as Agenda Item Number 12A on Action.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman, third by Council Member Kou, fourth by Vice Mayor Filseth, fifth by
Council Member Wolbach to pull Agenda Item Number 12 - SECOND
READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.68 (Rental Housing
Stabilization) of Title 9 … to be heard on September 17, 2018.
Ms. Stump explained that the Emergency Ordinance was adopted and became
effective on August 27, 2018. Staff recommended the Council adopt a
companion Ordinance to the Emergency Ordinance. The Council could decide
whether and when to adopt a companion Ordinance.
Council Member Holman felt the number of Council Members who requested
Agenda Item Number 12 be removed and community concern indicated an
interest to hear Agenda Item Number 12 soon.
Council Member Fine encouraged the Council to hear Agenda Item Number 12
during the meeting.
Council Member Scharff did not believe there was a timeliness issue as the
Council adopted the Emergency Ordinance. If Agenda Item Number 12 was
heard during the meeting, the public would not have notice.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 11 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Mayor Kniss advised that Agenda Item Number 12 would be heard at a future
meeting.
James Keene, City Manager, indicated the agenda for the October 15 meeting
had sufficient room for the Council to hear the item. Alternatively, Agenda
Item Number 12 could replace an item on the October 1 agenda. The Council's
practice was to provide advance notice of the removal of an item from the
Consent Calendar so that Staff could be present.
Council Member DuBois remarked that he provided notice of the potential
removal to the City Attorney. Delaying the item could lead to a much longer
Council discussion.
Council Member Wolbach urged the Council to hear Agenda Item Number 12
during the meeting.
Mayor Kniss inquired whether public comment for Agenda Item Number 12
was needed as the Council had removed it from the Consent Calendar.
Ms. Stump related that the Council could take public comment for Agenda
Item Number 12 during the meeting or at the time to which it was continued.
Mayor Kniss reiterated Ms. Stump's comment.
Mr. Keene noted Agenda Item Number 10 would be heard as Agenda Item
Number 13A.
Winter Dellenbach, spoke regarding Agenda Items 6 and 12, felt the proposed
street name made no sense when the orchard had been demolished. It was
imperative for the Council to hear Agenda Item Number 12 quickly.
Tracy Rosenburg, spoke regarding Agenda Item 8, remarked that the City was
in the forefront in protecting privacy. Enhancements would make the
protections stronger.
Matt Cagle, spoke regarding Agenda Item 8, urged the Council to consider
amendments regarding enforcement of the Ordinance.
Paul George, spoke regarding Agenda Item 8, requested the Council read and
consider the letter from the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center.
Don Foga, spoke regarding Agenda Item 8, encouraged the Council to be
cautious when purchasing technology regarding smart cities.
Mike Katz-Lacabe, spoke regarding Agenda Item 8, recommended changes to
improve the Ordinance.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 12 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Peter Broadwell, spoke regarding Agenda Item 8, asked the Council to adopt
the Ordinance to prevent the abuse of personal information.
Tim Clark, spoke regarding Agenda Item 8, shared the American Civil Liberties
Union's four principles that should be included in the Ordinance.
Sameena Usman, spoke regarding Agenda Item 8, expressed concerns about
the privacy rights and civil rights of vulnerable communities.
Jeff Brown, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, was dismayed by the Council's
lack of urgency regarding renter protections. The means test should be
removed from the Ordinance.
Herb Borock, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, remarked that the Ordinance
should be effective prior to the eviction date of November 12. Hearing the
agenda item on October 15 would be too late. The companion Ordinances did
not need to contain the same language.
Matthew Warren, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, did not understand why
the Council did not hear the item during the meeting as it had been properly
noticed and five Council Members were ready to support the Ordinance.
Alex Smaliy, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, encouraged the Council to
remove the means test from the Ordinance.
Mary Riordan, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, asked the Council to hear the
item during the meeting and to remove the means test from both Ordinances.
Simone Boswell, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, supported removal of the
means test so that the relocation benefit would be available to residents of
the Hotel President.
Diane Boxill, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, asked the Council to remove
the means test and to increase the relocation amount.
Pat Burt, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, understood the five Council
Members removed the item from the Consent Calendar in order to strengthen
the Ordinance. He encouraged the Council to hear the item during the
meeting.
Johannes Muenzel, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, supported the request
to remove the means test so that all residents could benefit from relocation
assistance.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 13 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Matthew Reed, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, encouraged the Council to
reconsider the income limits established in the companion Ordinance as
displacement could be catastrophic.
Mary Sylvester, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, believed notice of the item
was sufficient, and the Council should discuss the item during the meeting,
remove the means test, increase the relocation amount, and provide
additional assistance for seniors and the disabled.
Roberta Ahlquist, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, asked the Council to
remove the means test because the housing crisis affected all tenants.
Jennifer Liu, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, felt all tenants should be
protected; however, rent control was not good.
Mark Weiss, spoke regarding Agenda Item 6, suggested street names of Tao
or Yamamoto Street.
Stephanie Munoz, spoke regarding Agenda Items 6 and 12, supported
Yamamoto for a street name. Another hotel would be superfluous when
current visitors barely occupied the existing hotel rooms.
Rita Vrhel, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, asked the Council to hear the
item during the meeting or during next week's meeting. The means test
should be abolished. The City should investigate the Santa Rosa Ordinance
which prevented eviction while conversion of a building was under review.
Chris Kellogg, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, asked the Council to stop
delaying the item. He supported removal of the means test.
Iqbal Serang, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, emphasized the lack of
affordable housing for residents of the Hotel President. The means test should
be eliminated.
Mark Mollineaux, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, commented that the
means test was unreasonable. Opposition to the means test indicated the
item was urgent.
Jerry Schwarz, spoke regarding Agenda Item 8, concurred with prior
comments regarding Agenda Item Number 8.
Edie Keating, spoke regarding Agenda Item 12, asked the Council to hear
Agenda Item Number 12 during the meeting as it was more time sensitive
than Agenda Item Number 14.
Mayor Kniss inquired about a date for hearing Agenda Item Number 12.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 14 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Mr. Keene noted the Council was already an hour and ten minutes behind the
published schedule. The agenda for September 17 contained three Study
Sessions, any one of which could be continued so that Agenda Item Number
12 could be heard. If the Council made significant changes to the Ordinance,
a first reading of the new Ordinance could occur on September 17 with a
second reading 11 days later. If the Council changed the Ordinance
significantly, members of the public would state the Council did not provide
notice to residents with different perspectives.
Ms. Stump clarified that Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 and State law
require a subsequent first reading when an Ordinance's scope or intention was
changed or when an Ordinance was amended as desired by members of the
public.
Mayor Kniss asked if Staff proposed continuing Agenda Item Number 12.
Mr. Keene reiterated that the item could be heard on September 17. If the
Council chose to hear the item in the current meeting, then it would need to
continue another item on the agenda.
Mayor Kniss announced Agenda Item Number 12 would be heard on
September 17, 2018. She inquired whether members of the public would be
concerned by a continuation of the Study Session on airplane noise.
Council Member Kou reported many members of the public planned to attend
the airplane noise Study Session. She objected to the Council continuing
Agenda Item Number 12. The longer the Council delayed the matter, the
greater the anxiety for residents.
Council Member Holman recognized the value of things destroyed in relation
to Agenda Item Number 6.
Mayor Kniss reminded Council Members that they could not address items on
the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Wolbach inquired whether a review of Agenda Item Number
8 could occur within the next 12 months.
Mr. Keene responded yes.
Mayor Kniss reiterated the City Manager's comments regarding notice to
members of the public who opposed Agenda Item Number 12.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-9, 11.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 15 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
5. Resolution 9791 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Authorizing the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
to Negotiate With the City and County of San Francisco to Amend the
2009 Water Supply Agreement.”
6. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 567 Maybell: Recommendation by the Palo Alto
Historical Association for a new Street Name for a new 16-unit
Subdivision, (Tract No. 10434). Environmental Assessment: Section
15061(b)(3) not Subject to California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).
Zoning Districts: Two-family Residential (R-2) and Low Density
Multiple-Family Residence RM-15.
7. Approval of an Agreement With Santa Clara Valley Water District, in the
Amount of $227,000, for Concrete Channel Lining Repair Along
Matadero Creek; and Approval of a $227,000 Water Fund Operating
Budget Amendment.
8. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance
Adding Sections 2.30.620 Through 2.30.690 to Title 2 of the
Administrative Code to Establish Criteria and Procedures for Protecting
Personal Privacy When Considering the Acquisition and use of
Surveillance Technologies, and Provide for Ongoing Monitoring and
Reporting.
9. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Approve the Status
Update of the Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit.
10. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend the Contract
Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’
Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Palo Alto to Implement
the Share of Employer Contribution in Accordance With Section 20516
of the California Government Code (FIRST READING: August 20, 2018
PASSED: 9-0).
11. Ordinance 5448 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Adding Chapter 10.62 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the
Municipal Code to Regulate Unnecessary Idling of Vehicles (Continued
From April 2, 2018 and June 12, 2018) (FIRST READING: July 30, 2018
PASSED: 9-0).”
12. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.68
(Rental Housing Stabilization) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and
Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Relocation Assistance
for No-fault Eviction for Multifamily Housing Developments Containing
FINAL MINUTES
Page 16 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
50 or More Rental Units (FIRST READING: August 27, 2018 PASSED 7-
1 Tanaka no, Fine Absent). (TO BE HEARD AT A LATER DATE)
MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Holman no
Mayor Kniss inquired whether Agenda Item Number 6 could be returned in the
future for the Council to consider another street name.
Ms. Stump advised that the Council approved the street name with its vote on
the Consent Calendar. A Council Member who voted no could make a brief
comment.
Council Member Holman noted Council Members did not disclose ex parte
communications for the quasi-judicial matter.
Mayor Kniss requested disclosures.
Mr. Keene recalled the City Attorney's request for disclosures at the beginning
of the Consent Calendar.
Ms. Stump added that disclosures were incumbent on Council Members.
Action Items
12A. (Former Agenda Item Number 10) Ordinance 5449 Entitled, “Ordinance
of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend the Contract Between
the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’
Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Palo Alto to Implement
the Share of Employer Contribution in Accordance With Section 20516
of the California Government Code (FIRST READING: August 20, 2018
PASSED: 9-0).”
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Wolbach to adopt an Ordinance amending the Contract Between the Board of
Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System
(CalPERS) and the City of Palo Alto to Implement the Share of Employer
Contribution.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kou not participating
13. Approval of Response to the Grand Jury Report on the Affordable
Housing Crisis and Discussion of Establishing a Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) Sub-region.
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Interim Director,
reported the City had a September 20th deadline to respond to the June 2018
FINAL MINUTES
Page 17 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Grand Jury report. The report addressed below market rate (BMR) housing
deficits throughout the county and contained a number of findings and
recommendations for each jurisdiction. Thirteen findings and
recommendations applied to the City of Palo Alto. One recommendation
related to the formation of a subregion for the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) process. One key element of the Housing Element,
updated every eight years in accordance with State law, was to identify the
reginal housing needs for each jurisdiction. The California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) in conjunction with the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined housing needs for
each jurisdiction. Formation of a subregion would offer the County of Santa
Clara (County) and participating cities more local control in determining RHNA
allocation throughout the region. The Cities Association of Santa Clara County
(Cities Association) identified formation of a subregion as a top priority and a
task force to advance the issue. The task force was charged with developing
a framework and process to form and implement a subregion for the next
housing cycle of 2023-2031. The Counties of Solano, San Mateo, and Napa
formed a subregion for the current housing cycle. The City had a
September 28th deadline to signal its interest in participating in a possible
subregion. If the Council chose, Staff could return for Council review of a
Resolution to formally participate in the process. A process to form a
subregion could include the County and all cities or the County and at least
two or more contiguous cities. The subregion would develop a methodology
for allocating housing throughout the region, approval of trades and revisions,
and an appeal process. The Cities Association developed a vision to guide the
subregion process and two documents to guide the discussion. Staff
requested Council provide feedback regarding the draft Grand Jury response
letter and signal its interest in participating in a subregion process.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised the Civil Grand Jury was appointed on a
County basis and worked under the auspices of the Superior Court. The Grand
Jury's primary function was to conduct research, gather information, identify
areas for improvement or greater efficiency, and issue a report. Cities were
required to respond to a report. Both the report and response would be posted
to the Civil Grand Jury webpage. The draft response letter did not restrict the
Council's future actions or commit the Council to a set of legislative actions.
The process concluded with submission of a response letter, which was not
available for public review. A future Grand Jury could delve into one or more
aspects raised by the current Grand Jury.
Council Member DuBois clarified that the response letter would not restrict
Council action.
Ms. Stump answered yes. The response did not restrict Council actions.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 18 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
James Keene, City Manager, added that a response was required. Staff
drafted a thoughtful and complete response.
L. David Baron remarked that the response letter appeared to dismiss the Bay
Area housing shortage. Denser housing was important for the environment,
the economy, and innovation.
Matthew Reed, Silicon Valley @Home, believed a subregion could be beneficial
and encouraged the Council to adopt an Ordinance that included higher
density residential developments, reduced parking requirements, streamlining
of the project review process, and expanding areas for multifamily residential
uses.
Mark Mollineaux felt the tone of the response letter reflected poorly on Palo
Alto, and several of the points were laughable. He expected the response
letter to result in the City's zoning powers being rescinded or the
disincorporation of Palo Alto.
Kelsey Banes was disappointed in the response letter as it made the City
appear to shirk its responsibility to the housing crisis. The City should accept
responsibility for actions that led to the housing crisis.
Amy Sung supported higher-density housing and increasing housing supply.
Megan Kanne disagreed with language in the response that downplayed the
importance of the housing/jobs imbalance and housing and transportation
issues. She supported the City joining a subregion.
Stephanie Munoz believed the motivation for joining a subregion would be to
lend more weight to residents' appeals for more affordable housing, which the
City could do without joining a subregion.
Council Member DuBois reiterated that Council policy was not constrained by
the response letter. The draft response letter was excellent.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to:
A. Approve the draft responses to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
regarding the report entitled “Affordable Housing Crisis: Density Is Our
Destiny” dated June 21, 2018; and
B. Support, along with the Cities Association Board of Directors, the
participation of the City in a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
subregion.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 19 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Council Member DuBois felt subregions had worked well in San Mateo County.
The Council should support a county-wide subregion. The idea of employers
contributing to BMR housing was interesting. Palo Alto was the outlier in the
table of jobs to employed residents.
Council Member Scharff did not agree with every point in the response letter,
but revising the response was not worth the Council's time. A subregion would
allow the region to speak with one voice and provide opportunities for
discussion between cities and between cities and the County.
Council Member Holman took exception to the Civil Grand Jury report because
it was not helpful and not appropriate. Use of terms such as "not in my
backyard" (NIMBY) and "yes in my backyard" (YIMBY) were detrimental to
holding a helpful conversation. A serious discussion about practical needs and
potential actions would be healthier.
Mayor Kniss asked Council Member Scharff to talk about the subregion.
Council Member Scharff advised that an important guiding principle from the
Cities Association was nothing would be imposed on any particular city. The
Cities Association wanted to create more housing in a more efficient process
and to provide more local control to jurisdictions. Having a subregion would
provide the opportunity for cities to talk about issues and hopefully achieve
their goals. He did not perceive any disadvantages to participating in a
subregion.
Mayor Kniss inquired about the chances of having a subregion.
Council Member Scharff answered the chances were fairly good based on
positive responses from most cities. ABAG would provide some funding. The
opportunities for Palo Alto lay in the ability to work with Stanford and the
County.
Mayor Kniss asked if the subregion would operate under the auspices of the
Cities Association.
Council Member Scharff clarified that a subregion would be independent.
Mayor Kniss supported the City's participation in a subregion.
Vice Mayor Filseth indicated the overall tone of the response letter was right.
Much of the information in the report was widely known. The report correctly
identified the significant economic challenges of BMR housing and discussed
ways to raise funds for BMR housing. The economic engine in Silicon Valley
generated a lot of wealth without adequately covering its housing and
FINAL MINUTES
Page 20 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
transportation costs. The City should proceed with a subregion. Until the
region solved the economic problem, the risk was subregions would produce
jobs five times faster than dwelling units.
Council Member Fine found the report and response quite anemic. He was not
quire ready to endorse the report. Palo Alto was second to last in housing
production, which the Council could address. A subregion showed promise,
and he was willing to support the City's participation.
Council Member Kou was reassured by the equitable process proposed by the
Cities Association.
Council Member Wolbach stated the Grand Jury report was important but
imperfect. The response letter was anemic and dismissive and underplayed
the importance of the report and the City's role in creating the problem. The
negative reaction to change that prevented construction of new housing
resulted in a housing crisis and massive socioeconomic challenges.
Mayor Kniss indicated the formation of a subregion would be challenging but
a long-term advantage for the City. The question of where businesses would
locate had not been considered.
MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Fine no
14. Colleagues’ Memo From Council Members DuBois, Holman, Kou and
Wolbach Regarding Strengthening Renter Protection for Palo Alto
Residents (Previous Colleagues’ Memo Heard on October 16, 2017).
Mayor Kniss recused herself from this Agenda Item due to a financial interest
in a business that generated rental income and left the meeting at 9:00 P.M.
Council took a break from 9:00 P.M. to 9:10 P.M.
Dennis Backlund suggested the Council consider prohibiting evictions from
large residential units until an application had been submitted and required
permits had been approved and consider stronger enforcement of a
requirement for one-year leases.
Herb Borock noted the Colleagues' Memo seemed to indicate some of the
recommendations were underway; otherwise, addressing the
recommendations could take a long time. Relocation assistance should be
provided to buildings with five or more units. Views expressed in the
Colleagues' Memo appeared to support for Proposition 10.
Harold Justman stated rent control would undermine the economic health of
Palo Alto's operating budget, support of the local economy; and local
FINAL MINUTES
Page 21 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
businesses. Tax revenues generated by rent-controlled properties would be
decrease, and lost revenue would impact the City's operating budget.
Leannah Hunt opposed the Colleagues' Memo. Housing in Palo Alto had been
an issue for 50 years. Palo Alto had constructed its fair share of inclusionary
units with more than 700 units provided by Palo Alto Housing. The Council
should fulfill its priority to the Housing Work Plan rather than implement rental
protections.
Katja Priess shared her experience with finding a Palo Alto home and business
location that she could afford. The Council should take its responsibilities
seriously and exhaust all legal and political avenues to craft laws that would
create immediate relief for residents.
Iqbal Serang proposed reducing the 50-unit cap to 5-10 units. Large
residential buildings such as the Hotel President should be deemed a treasure
and worth protecting and rescuing.
Matthew Reed, Silicon Valley @Home, supported the Colleagues' Memo as it
called for a thorough review of Palo Alto's existing renter protection
Ordinances. He encouraged the Council to consider extending relocation
assistance to moderate-income households; incorporate a reasonable eviction
grace period; and reduce the projected size threshold of the building. Renter
protections should be extended to a broader range of residential developments
in order to protect as many residents as possible.
Mary Sylvester encouraged the Council to adopt the Colleagues' Memo.
Residents needed reasonable eviction mitigations. She urged the Council to
study rental caps and rent control.
Matthew Warren, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, remarked that landlords
should have to state clear and justifiable reasons for evictions. Relocation
assistance should be extended to all tenants. The protection threshold should
be lowered to include quadplexes, triplexes, and duplexes. No-cause evictions
did not penalize landlords but provided stability for tenants.
Pat Burt suggested the Council consider the full range of renter protections
that existed in neighboring communities rather than only the measures that
would provide the least value for renters. Excluding the most important renter
protections from consideration would be a disservice to Palo Alto renters.
Kelsey Banes hoped the Council would strengthen the Colleagues' Memo by
removing the means test, preserving individual multifamily units, and
providing more housing.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 22 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Kathy Edholm commented that instituting rent control was the same as
establishing socialism. Rent control did not provide more housing.
Harold Davis stated just-cause eviction was unnecessary in Palo Alto.
Requiring relocation payments would penalize landlords and discourage
housing developers. He supported relocation payments in the event of
renovation, redevelopment, or rehabilitation of a unit.
Jen Ma believed rent control did more harm than good. Rent control caused
housing shortages and increased housing demand.
Quan He opined that rent control and just-cause eviction were bad policies
because they caused dissension between renters and landlords.
Winter Dellenbach felt power was unequally distributed in favor of the housing
industry. Opposition to a discussion of rent protections was indefensible.
Edie Keating related provisions of Portland's rental protections Ordinance.
Relocation benefits were intended to compensate those being displaced and
were helpful. The least the Council could do was study the issue.
Michelle Kraus hoped the Colleagues' Memo would be referred for study.
Hanxi Chen opposed the Colleagues' Memo. The issue was discussed and
defeated only ten months earlier.
Paul Morris commented on the length of stay of renters in his buildings located
in south Palo Alto.
Jeff Levinsky supported the Colleagues' Memo and urged the Council to
broaden the spectrum of ideas as widely as possible. Rental housing should
be preserved, especially low-income units. As a landlord, he supported rent
control and price caps as appropriate mechanisms to benefit the community.
Rent control led to stable tenants, fair prices, and long-term viability of
apartments.
Joyce Liu urged the Council to consider something other than simply penalizing
landlords.
Richard Mehlinger hoped the Council would adopt the Colleagues' Memo, but
rent control should not be the sole topic of conversation. Palo Alto's 12-month
lease Ordinance needed to be enforced and should require lease terms be
equal or better than any month-to-month lease offered.
Rhovy Lyn Antonio, California Apartment Association, urged the Council to
reject the Colleagues' Memo as it was essentially the same as the Colleagues'
FINAL MINUTES
Page 23 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Memo rejected in October 2017. A government dictating reasonable rent
increases and requiring relocation payments was rent control.
Ryan Carrigan, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, agreed that the current
discussion was essentially the same as the one held in October 2017. The
discussion two weeks ago addressed the one pressing issue. Any type of
relocation payment that was triggered by a rental increase should be viewed
as rent control.
Mark Mollineaux remarked that rent control was a reasonable concept.
Housing did not follow the basic economic model of supply and demand.
Penelope Huang reported additional rental housing in neighboring
communities was easing the housing burden. The solution for renters was
more housing supply.
Johannes Muenzel indicated rent control was not socialism. Rent control would
help people. He urged the Council to adopt the Colleagues' Memo and look at
creative policies such as free legal counsel for people facing eviction.
Kristin Liu stated rent control could benefit a limited group but would not
resolve the housing shortage. She opposed rent control.
Council Member DuBois reported that the Colleagues' Memo asked the Council
to discuss the full range of options. More than 60 percent of Santa Clara
County residents enjoyed increased protections. The Colleagues' Memo did
not prescribe any policy. A continuum of renter protections could include
terms and leases, methods of handling notices, mediation, relocation
assistance, Ellis Act modifications, and evictions. In the last ten months, cities
in California had advanced renter protections. The City owed it to residents
to evaluate the broad spectrum of ideas.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to:
A. Direct Staff to immediately return to Council with specific proposals to
adjust the current renter protection Ordinance potentially as an
emergency Ordinance regarding: reasonable eviction mitigations such
as relocation provisions for tenants facing displacement; and
B. Refer this memo to the Policy and Services Committee for review. The
review should include at least the following:
i. Review of the existing renter protection Ordinance and
comparable ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area;
FINAL MINUTES
Page 24 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
ii. Evaluate reasonable relocation assistance to be provided for
tenants of properties with 5 or more units displaced due to change
of use, sizable rental increases, or eviction without just cause,
while protecting the fair rights of property owners;
iii. Strengthened enforcement measures to ensure compliance with
and penalties for violations of Palo Alto’s existing requirement to
offer an annual lease to tenants;
iv. Consider other updates to existing renter protections and
mediation program as needed to continue a healthy and diverse
community; and
v. Discuss the full range of renter protections. Discussion topics to
include just cause evictions and rent stabilization among other
protections.
Council Member DuBois wanted to ensure a Council discussion of the full range
of options. The approach was reasonable and thoughtful. With the Council
driving the process, the Council could amend provisions over time. If a voter
initiative occurred, the Council could not enact amendments.
Council Member Holman felt not having a discussion would omit existing
options and opportunities for housing.
Council Member Scharff remarked that Subpart v would lead to a discussion
of rent control and rent stabilization, and he could not support the Motion with
Subpart v. He questioned the rationale for limiting properties to five or more
units rather than two or more units.
Council Member DuBois understood five units was based on other existing
laws.
Council Member Holman expressed concern that two or more units would
include every mom-and-pop landlord, which could lead to an unnecessary
firestorm of opposition. Five was a reasonable number based on actions taken
in other communities.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part B.ii., “5 or more” with
“2 or more.”
Council Member Scharff reiterated his objection to Subpart v.
Council Member Kou did not understand Council Member Scharff's objection
to Subpart v.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 25 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Council Member Scharff explained that adding rent control changed the
discussion.
Council Member Kou wanted to involve the entire community in a discussion
of all options rather than a limited number of options. The community wanted
housing, and new housing would be rental housing. Therefore, the community
should prepare for rent protections, rent stabilization, and just cause.
Council Member Wolbach commented that solving the housing crisis would be
hard but worthwhile. The Council and the community increasingly agreed
about the long-term solutions to the underlying problems. Rent stabilization,
rent control, relocation assistance, and one-year lease requirements would
not solve the underlying problem. Renter protections were short-term
solutions; the long-term problem was the jobs/housing imbalance. A broad
discussion of renter protections was needed. He reiterated his reasons for
opposing the 2017 Colleagues' Memo. The implications of the current
Colleagues' Memo were substantially different from the implications of the
2017 Colleagues' Memo. Relocation assistance was not rent control or rent
stabilization. The Motion introduced fear rather than thoughtfulness.
Council Member DuBois understood the intent of the Colleagues' Memo was
to discuss the full range of alternatives, but a multistep process would require
years.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council
Member Fine to remove Part B.v. from the Motion.
Council Member Fine stated Subpart v radically changed the nature of the
Colleagues' Memo and was not appropriate at the current time.
Council Member Holman reiterated that the issue was not rent control. Stating
the conversation would begin with just-cause eviction and rent stabilization
was as detrimental as having the conversation. Not having a discussion of
renter protections showed a lack of leadership. The current Palo Alto tenants
were the most valuable the City would ever have because they were invested
in the community.
Council Member Scharff believed Subpart v turned a non-divisive issue into a
very divisive issue, which was an unfortunate beginning to a conversation.
The addition of Subpart v to the Motion returned the current Colleagues' Memo
to the 2017 Colleagues' Memo. Imposing rent control and rent stabilization
made it impossible for new people to move into the community and raised
rents for everyone living in a post-1995 apartment complex. He supported
the Amendment.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 26 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Council Member Filseth inquired whether the Council could amend the Motion
following a 4-4 vote on the Motion.
Ms. Stump replied yes.
Council Member Wolbach spent several months talking to experts and
stakeholders in an effort to craft a compromise. Palo Alto demographics did
not indicate that Palo Alto would be likely to support rent stabilization and just
cause as a ballot measure. He was disappointed with the addition of Subpart
v as the inclusion of just cause and rent stabilization would not be helpful.
The Amendment complied with the intention of the Colleagues' Memo.
Council Member Kou remarked that a stand for open government was a stand
for a good discussion. The addition of Subpart v did not have to be divisive.
There was talk about the democratic process and transparency, but it was not
allowed to proceed. The vote would show one's principles and convictions.
She wanted a full community discussion that was based on a full analysis and
study so that the Council could craft a meaningful Ordinance for residents.
Council Member Fine supported the Amendment and continued to consider his
support for the remaining subparts. Subpart v radically changed the intent of
the Colleagues' Memo.
Council Member DuBois understood Council Member Wolbach's comments to
mean the original Colleagues' Memo did not prohibit a discussion of just cause
and renter protections; they were not explicitly stated.
Council Member Wolbach stated the original Colleagues' Memo was silent on
that.
Council Member DuBois added Subpart v to eliminate any doubt.
Council Member Holman noted the climate, culture, and circumstances had
changed; therefore, the discussion needed to be more inclusive.
AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no, Kniss absent
Council Member Fine would not support the Motion. This was not the way to
pursue renter protections. Subpart v could be a poison pill, which was
disappointing. The Colleagues' Memo addressed some actions that were
underway. The Colleagues' Memo did not offer any new or concrete solutions
to Palo Alto renters and displayed a lack of effort from the authors. Palo Alto's
residents would change in the future, be diverse, and contribute to society.
All Palo Alto residents were valuable. It was disingenuous and misleading to
include Subpart v about which the public did not receive notice.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 27 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Council Member Scharff hoped the four Council Members who supported the
Amendment would not support the Motion. People who moved to the City in
the future would be valuable residents. He wanted to return to the original
Colleagues' Memo.
Council Member Holman found some of the Council Member comments
insulting.
Vice Mayor Filseth requested Council Member Holman speak to the Motion.
Council Member Holman reflected on the removal of programs from the
Comprehensive Plan.
Vice Mayor Filseth requested Council Member comments focus on the Motion.
Council Member Holman questioned the appropriateness of adding provisions
to the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) Ordinance without public, Staff, or
colleagues scrutiny when the addition of Subpart v was considered
disingenuous.
Vice Mayor Filseth reiterated his requests.
Council Member Holman supported the Motion for the reasons previously
stated.
Council Member Kou supported the Motion.
Council Member Tanaka believed diversity was more than the lucky few who
moved into the community early. Renter protections were a radical change
for Palo Alto because they locked in the existing renters. With rent control,
first-time renters would not be able to find apartments because existing
renters would not give up rent-controlled apartments. Rent control would
cause Palo Alto to change in a new way because it would stop the diversity of
Palo Alto. The Council needed a detailed expert economic analysis of the long-
term impacts of rent control on diversity, housing, housing quality, and crime.
A detailed comparison with all cities that had implemented rent control should
be obtained to demonstrate the impacts of rent control. The Policy and
Services Committee (P&S) should engage experts.
Council Member DuBois suggested Subpart i captured many of the items
requested by Council Member Tanaka. The discussion would clearly include a
review of existing Ordinances in the Bay Area without creating additional work
for Staff.
Council Member Tanaka clarified that his proposal would mean additional work
for Staff.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 28 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Council Member DuBois inquired whether Council Member Tanaka could agree
to review the existing renter protection Ordinance's impacts on housing stock
and comparable Ordinances. That seemed to be the essence of Council
Member Tanaka's request.
Council Member Tanaka wanted an expert economic analysis.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by
Council Member Scharff to conduct a detailed expert economic analysis
including effect on crime, amount of housing generated, quality of rental
protected housing, detailed study of other cities with rent control, and effect
on age diversity, new resident versus existing resident diversity in the City.
Mr. Keene stated the Council could support or reject the Substitute Motion and
the Motion independent of each other.
Vice Mayor Filseth inquired whether the motions would require a great deal of
work.
Mr. Keene noted qualitative and quantitative impact information on important
policies had value.
Council Member Scharff hoped the Council supported the Substitute Motion
and the Motion without Subpart v. A detailed analysis would improve the
quality of the conversation. Council Member Tanaka was correct in requesting
a detailed economic analysis.
Council Member DuBois was willing to entertain reasonable additions to the
Motion.
Council Member Holman requested a timeframe for obtaining a detailed
economic analysis.
Mr. Keene remarked that obtaining the data would require effort.
Council Member Holman inquired whether Council Member DuBois would
accept the Substitute Motion as an amendment to the Motion.
Council Member DuBois responded yes.
Vice Mayor Filseth preferred retaining the Substitute Motion.
Ms. Stump advised that the maker proposed the Substitute Motion as a
standalone item.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Kou, Wolbach no, Kniss absent
FINAL MINUTES
Page 29 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to:
A. Direct Staff to immediately return to Council with specific proposals to
adjust the current renter protection Ordinance potentially as an
emergency Ordinance regarding: reasonable eviction mitigations such
as relocation provisions for tenants facing displacement; and
B. Refer this memo to the Policy and Services Committee for review. The
review should include at least the following:
i. Review of the existing renter protection Ordinance and
comparable ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area;
ii. Evaluate reasonable relocation assistance to be provided for
tenants of properties with 2 or more units displaced due to change
of use, sizable rental increases, or eviction without just cause,
while protecting the fair rights of property owners;
iii. Strengthened enforcement measures to ensure compliance with
and penalties for violations of Palo Alto’s existing requirement to
offer an annual lease to tenants;
iv. Consider other updates to existing renter protections and
mediation program as needed to continue a healthy and diverse
community; and
v. Discuss the full range of renter protections. Discussion topics to
include just cause evictions and rent stabilization among other
protections.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
Tanaka to add to the Motion, “the best renter protection is more supply.”
Vice Mayor Filseth remarked that the type of supply would determine whether
supply was the best renter protection.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-3 Filseth, Holman, Kou no, Kniss absent
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved,
seconded by Council Member Holman to:
A. Direct Staff to immediately return to Council with specific proposals to
adjust the current renter protection Ordinance potentially as an
emergency Ordinance regarding: reasonable eviction mitigations such
as relocation provisions for tenants facing displacement; and
FINAL MINUTES
Page 30 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
B. Refer this memo to the Policy and Services Committee for review. The
review should include at least the following:
i. Review of the existing renter protection Ordinance and
comparable ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area;
ii. Evaluate reasonable relocation assistance to be provided for
tenants of properties with 2 or more units displaced due to change
of use, sizable rental increases, or eviction without just cause,
while protecting the fair rights of property owners;
iii. Strengthened enforcement measures to ensure compliance with
and penalties for violations of Palo Alto’s existing requirement to
offer an annual lease to tenants;
iv. Consider other updates to existing renter protections and
mediation program as needed to continue a healthy and diverse
community;
v. Discuss the full range of renter protections. Discussion topics to
include just cause evictions and rent stabilization among other
protections; and
C. The best renter protection is more supply.
MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED: 4-4 Fine, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach no,
Kniss absent
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to:
A. Direct Staff to immediately return to Council with specific proposals to
adjust the current renter protection Ordinance potentially as an
emergency Ordinance regarding: reasonable eviction mitigations such
as relocation provisions for tenants facing displacement; and
B. Refer this memo to the Policy and Services Committee for review. The
review should include at least the following:
i. Review of the existing renter protection Ordinance and
comparable ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area;
ii. Evaluate reasonable relocation assistance to be provided for
tenants of properties with 5 or more units displaced due to change
of use, sizable rental increases, or eviction without just cause,
while protecting the fair rights of property owners;
FINAL MINUTES
Page 31 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
iii. Strengthened enforcement measures to ensure compliance with
and penalties for violations of Palo Alto’s existing requirement to
offer an annual lease to tenants; and
iv. Consider other updates to existing renter protections and
mediation program as needed to continue a healthy and diverse
community.
Council Member Wolbach did not believe circumstances had changed radically
since July. The reality of the housing crisis had been clear for a very long
time. The Motion would begin a healthy conversation about renter
protections.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part B.ii., “5 or more” with
“2 or more” and add to the Motion, “the best renter protection is more supply.”
Council Member DuBois believed the vote on the Substitute Motion indicated
the Council would hold a broad discussion of renter protections. He
interpreted the Motion as including just cause and other forms of rent
stabilization in the economic study.
Council Member Holman supported the Motion. If the Council had amended
and approved the Colleagues' Memo in October 2017, the discussion could
have begun several months ago.
Vice Mayor Filseth inquired whether Council Member Holman was spoke to the
Motion.
Council Member Holman answered yes.
Council Member Scharff stated explicitly that the Motion did not include a
discussion by P&S of rent stabilization or rent control. The study would be
conducted, and a report provided to Council. The Council would then decide
whether to refer it to a committee.
Vice Mayor Filseth agreed that the process had clarified that.
Council Member DuBois disagreed because Subpart iv stated other updates to
renter protections.
Vice Mayor Filseth recalled the vote against a P&S discussion of rent
stabilization or control. The Council's intent was clear.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 32 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Council Member Kou was disappointed that the discussion in October had not
reached the same point so that a study could have been conducted in the
interim.
Council Member Tanaka expressed concern about the workload on Staff and
the Council.
Council Member Fine concurred with Council Member Scharff and Vice Mayor
Filseth regarding topics to be included in future discussions. He committed to
P&S evaluating all the ideas quickly and fairly.
Vice Mayor Filseth referred to the tendency for the highest earners to obtain
new housing units, which drove out low and mid-earners. The intent of the
effort was to attenuate the loss. There was strong consensus that rent control
tended to hurt many more people than it helped.
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved,
seconded by Council Member Scharff to:
A. Direct Staff to immediately return to Council with specific proposals to
adjust the current renter protection Ordinance potentially as an
emergency Ordinance regarding: reasonable eviction mitigations such
as relocation provisions for tenants facing displacement; and
B. Refer this memo to the Policy and Services Committee for review. The
review should include at least the following:
i. Review of the existing renter protection Ordinance and
comparable ordinances in the San Francisco Bay Area;
ii. Evaluate reasonable relocation assistance to be provided for
tenants of properties with 2 or more units displaced due to change
of use, sizable rental increases, or eviction without just cause,
while protecting the fair rights of property owners;
iii. Strengthened enforcement measures to ensure compliance with
and penalties for violations of Palo Alto’s existing requirement to
offer an annual lease to tenants; and
iv. Consider other updates to existing renter protections and
mediation program as needed to continue a healthy and diverse
community.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part B.ii., “5 or more” with
“2 or more” and add to the Motion, “the best renter protection is more supply.”
FINAL MINUTES
Page 33 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-1 Tanaka no, Kniss absent
Mayor Kniss returned to the meeting at 11:26 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to hear Agenda Item Number 16 before Agenda Item Number 15.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
State/Federal Legislation Update/Action
16. Review and Potential Adoption of Positions on State and Local Measures
on the November 6, 2018 Ballot.
James Keene, City Manager, reported Staff issued an at-places memorandum
regarding the healthcare item and a correction for Proposition 10. Perhaps
the Council could support the Staff recommendation and revise items by
exception so that the Council did not have to discuss each item.
Mayor Kniss suggested the Council consider Proposition 10 and Measure F
first.
Mr. Keene clarified that the Council was not required to take a position on
Proposition 10.
Mayor Kniss suggested the Council take no position on Proposition 10.
Council Member DuBois strongly supported Proposition 10 because it
pertained to local control.
Mayor Kniss announced the Council would consider Measure F regarding
healthcare first.
Stan Bjelajac remarked that healthcare was regulated by the State and
Federal governments. Healthcare issues were not created locally and should
not be managed locally. Measure F was not a plausible means to manage or
reform healthcare in any practical way. The Council should oppose Measure
F.
James Stephens opposed Measure F as the measure would not reduce the cost
of care or increase patient safety.
Teresa Bell-Stephens expressed concern about the impact of Measure F on
healthcare and the residents of Palo Alto. She asked the Council to oppose
Measure F.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 34 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Harry Dennis opposed Measure F as it would not help him or his colleagues
serve their patients. Measure F would not increase access to healthcare or
the quality and safety of healthcare. As a Palo Alto resident, he did not want
to pay for the City to administer Measure F.
David Entwistle, Stanford Health Care President and Chief Executive Officer,
opposed Measure F and asked the Council to oppose it. Measure F would hurt
medical providers' ability to serve patients. Measure F would be detrimental
to the City's ability to provide services. Measure F would not impact quality
of care or accessibility to care but would place patient safety at risk.
Liz Vilardo, Palo Alto Medical Foundation President and Chief Executive Officer,
opposed Measure F and requested the City Council protect Palo Alto's access
to quality medical care by opposing Measure F.
Chris Lee expressed concern about the impact of Measure F on his ability to
care for children in Palo Alto. Measure F would cost him more in overhead
than insurance companies would pay.
Johannes Muenzel noted the Santa Clara County Democratic Party endorsed
Measure F.
MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to oppose
Measure F, City of Palo Alto Health Care Measure.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Mayor Kniss advised that the Council would take up Measure E, an increase in
the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to fund City services.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to
support Measure E, City of Palo Alto Transient Occupancy Tax.
Council Member Tanaka requested clarification of the description for Measure
E given the Council's intention to use funds for a Public Safety Building and
parking structures.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, explained that all materials described Measure E
as a general tax. Proceeds generated by an increase in the TOT would be
placed in the City's General Fund. The City was able to describe generally the
types of projects on which it would expend monies from the General Fund.
Use of funds generated by the TOT increase would not be legally restricted to
the projects in which the Council expressed interest. The impartial statement
drafted by the City Attorney's Office contained more detail on the issue.
Council Member Tanaka felt the description was misleading.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 35 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Ms. Stump noted the description referred to the Public Safety Building project,
which incorporated elements of the description and was a part of the
Infrastructure Plan.
James Keene, City Manager, clarified that the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC), Fire Command Staff, and the Police Department, which provided an
effective 9-1-1 response, would be housed in the Public Safety Building.
Council Member DuBois remarked that the arguments in favor and rebuttal of
the measure expressed the intention to use the funds for infrastructure
projects.
Council Member Kou would not support Measure E because the infrastructure
projects needed reprioritizing and the tax pertained to only one group.
Mr. Keene requested the Council take no position or positions in support or
opposition.
MOTION PASSED: 6-3 Holman, Kou, Tanaka no
Mayor Kniss inquired whether the Staff recommendation was to support
Measure A.
Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager, reported Staff did not make a
recommendation.
Council Member Tanaka requested the Council consider Proposition 10 next so
that members of the public could speak and leave the Chambers.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to
take no position on Measure A.
MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Wolbach no
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to support Measure Z, Palo Alto Unified School District School Bond.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine
to take no position on Measure Y.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to support Proposition 1, Authorizes Bonds to Fund Specified Housing
FINAL MINUTES
Page 36 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Assistance Programs and Proposition 2, Authorizes Bonds to Fund Existing
Housing Program for Individuals with Mental Illness.
Mr. Keene indicated Staff did not develop analyses of the State measures.
Mayor Kniss was uncomfortable taking a position on State measures as the
Council had not studied them.
Council Member Tanaka suggested the Council not consider State measures
because Council Members had no information regarding them.
MOTION PASSED: 6-2-1 Fine, Tanaka no, Kniss abstain
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
Fine to oppose Proposition 6, Eliminates Certain Road Repair and
Transportation Funding. Requires Certain Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees be
Approved by The Electorate.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to support Proposition 3, Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water
Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and
Groundwater Sustainability and Storage.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0-1 Tanaka abstain
Mayor Kniss inquired about Proposition 5, transfer of property tax base.
Council Member Fine explained that Proposition 5 was the portability of
Proposition 13.
At this time Council heard Agenda Item Number 15.
15. Review and Approval of the Recommended City Positions for the 2018
League of California Cities Resolutions.
Mayor Kniss noted the Vice Mayor and City Manager would attend the
conference on Thursday.
Kelsey Banes believed local governments should dramatically increase housing
supply, especially in cities with many jobs and little housing. She was
disappointed by Palo Alto's stance with "not in my backyard" (NIMBY)
communities.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 37 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
James Keene, City Manager, explained that the League of California Cities'
Resolutions pertained to pest control and local control.
L. David Baron asked the Council not to support the Resolution regarding local
control. The burden of building new housing should be fairly distributed
among cities. In many cases, having too much local control prevented a fair
distribution.
Richard Mehlinger urged the Council to oppose Resolution 1. The City of
Beverly Hills was pushing the Resolution. A ballot measure would be inflexible
and would tie the State's hands.
MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Holman
to authorize the City’s voting delegate to vote yes on the pest control
resolution up for consideration at the annual League of California Cities
conference in Long Beach from September 12 – 14, 2018.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to authorize
the City’s voting delegate to vote no on the local control resolution up for
consideration at the annual League of California Cities conference in Long
Beach from September 12 – 14, 2018.
Council Member Fine remarked that local control was sometimes the cause of
housing issues. The City should not encourage the League of California Cities
to blindly support local control. The League of California Cities' resources
could be better used elsewhere.
Council Member Wolbach would not support the Motion. He requested the
Council allow him to learn more about the Resolution before deciding to
support or oppose it.
Mayor Kniss was not comfortable with Council Member Wolbach's request
because the Council should make the decision.
Council Member Holman opposed the Motion because State legislation did not
consider each city individually.
Council Member Scharff referred to the Staff Report, which stated the
Resolution was intended to explore the preparation of a ballot measure.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by
Council Member DuBois to authorize the City’s voting delegate to vote yes on
the local control resolution up for consideration at the annual League of
California Cities conference in Long Beach from September 12 – 14, 2018.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 38 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
MOTION PASSED: 6-3 Kniss, Wolbach, Fine no
Mr. Keene indicated Staff could present ballot language to the Council in the
future, at which time the Council could decide whether to oppose or support
the measure.
Council Member Wolbach hoped any amendments to the Resolution would
provide clarity such that he could fulfill the Council's direction.
Vice Mayor Filseth commented that removing local control was slightly
preferable to sending in tanks.
At this time Council returned to Agenda Item Number 16.
Mayor Kniss recused herself from discussion of the Proposition 10 aspect of
Agenda Item Number 15 due to a financial interest that generates rental
income. She left the meeting at 12:19 A.M.
L. David Baron urged the Council to oppose Proposition 10 because of concerns
about the incentives for development of housing. Under Proposition 10, cities
could institute rent control on new housing units.
Ryan Carrigan, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, asked the Council not to
support Proposition 10 because it would limit rent control and rental
protections on single-family homes, which should be occupied by the owner.
Jennifer Liu strongly opposed Proposition 10 because landlords would lose
control of houses.
Rhovy Lyn Antonio, California Apartment Association, urged the Council to
oppose Proposition 10 because it contradicted the Council's support of more
supply as the best rental protection. Under Proposition 10, an average
California homeowner would lose $39,000 in home value.
Johannes Muenzel stated the League of Women Voters and the California
Democratic Party endorsed Proposition 10. Proposition 10 would allow cities
to remove buildings from rent control.
Council Member Wolbach referred to the at-places memorandum, which
deleted Staff's recommendation for Proposition 10.
MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member
Fine to take no position on Proposition 10, Expands Local Governments’
Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 39 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Council Member Wolbach advised that Proposition 10 could be amended to
change the fixed date to a rolling date so as encourage construction of new
housing. Debate of Proposition 10 would continue.
Council Member Fine was also concerned that Proposition 10 would remove
the City's authority to legislate the topic in the future. If Proposition 10 was
enacted, neighboring cities could enact more strict rent control regimes, which
would negatively affect regional housing outcomes and affordability. No
position seemed to be the best position for the City.
Council Member Scharff felt Proposition 10 was a threat to California
prosperity. He did not believe any company would invest in California if the
Costa-Hawkins Act was repealed. Proposition 10 would cause developers to
build for-sale housing rather than rental housing, which would increase the
pressure for rent control.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by
Council Member Tanaka to oppose Proposition 10, Expands Local
Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property.
Council Member Scharff requested Council Members think carefully about
Proposition 10.
Vice Mayor Filseth asked if consequences would not occur in cities without rent
control.
Council Member Scharff explained that as rent control was imposed in more
cities, investors would not be willing to loan funds, and developers would not
be willing to build rental housing. The supply of rental housing would diminish.
Council Member Fine added that repeal of the Costa-Hawkins Act would allow
cities to implement rent control for single-family homes and homes built after
February 1, 1995.
Ms. Stump clarified that existing State law barred jurisdictions with rent
control from carrying rent control to the next tenant. When a unit became
vacant, a city could not limit the rent on the next tenant. Proposition 10 would
allow cities to hold rents stable through tenants.
Council Member DuBois supported the Council taking no position because local
control was fundamental to democracy.
Council Member Scharff stated the Legislature could not amend a ballot
initiative. Any amendment to Proposition 10 would require approval by the
voters.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 40 of 40
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 9/10/18
Council Member Wolbach opposed the Substitute Motion. A natural tension
between cities and the State was healthy. Regardless of Proposition 10, the
Council should consider advocating for legislative fixes.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-5 Fine, Scharff, Tanaka yes, Kniss absent
Vice Mayor Filseth would support the Motion because he had been persuaded
by Council Member Scharff's argument.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
None.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:41 A.M.