HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2603-6144CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, June 01, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
4.Recommendation from Policy and Services Committee to City Council to Indefinitely
Defer Both Expansion of the Rental Registry Program to Properties with Two or Fewer
Units and Further Consideration of a Possible Rent Stabilization Ordinance. CEQA: Exempt
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Consent Questions, Public Comment
9
6
4
2
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: June 1, 2026
Report #: 2603-6144
TITLE
Recommendation from Policy and Services Committee to City Council to Indefinitely Defer Both
Expansion of the Rental Registry Program to Properties with Two or Fewer Units and Further
Consideration of a Possible Rent Stabilization Ordinance. CEQA: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy and Services Committee and staff recommend that the City Council indefinitely defer the
following two rental policy efforts:
Expansion of the Rental Registry Program to properties with two and fewer units; and
Further analysis or preparation of a draft ordinance related to a local rent stabilization policy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report transmits the March 10, 2026, Policy and Services Committee (P&S) and staff unanimous
recommendation to City Council to indefinitely defer the following two possible rental policy actions:
Expansion of the Rental Registry Program (RRP) to properties with two or fewer units; and
Pursuing further analysis or preparation of a draft ordinance for a local rent stabilization
program.
The P&S Committee voted 3-0 to forward to the Council a recommendation to defer both items
indefinitely, noting that the RRP data did not demonstrate the need for a local rent stabilization program
and that expanding the RRP would result in significant and undesired costs for the City and/or property
owners. This consent calendar item brings that recommendation to the Council for approval.
BACKGROUND
In November 2021, City Council directed staff to bring a proposal on expanding anti rent-gouging
measures addressing gaps in California's Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (TPA) to the Policy and Services
Committee.
In 2023, City Council adopted Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 9.65 and established the Rental
Registry Program (RRP) to collect data on Palo Alto's residential rental landscape, support data-informed
policy decisions, promote awareness of renter protections, and advance the City's Housing Element
9
6
4
2
goals.1 The City Council directed staff to “commence with a phased implementation initially with
multifamily housing (3-units and above), and return to Council to evaluate the potential expansion to all
rental properties including single family homes at the end of year two.”2 The open registration period
for the first program year began in October 2024.
ANALYSIS
3 contains a comprehensive analysis supporting the
recommendation to defer both policy actions. A summary of the key staff findings is provided below.
The P&S Committee discussed both initiatives informed by the analysis provided. Though the Committee
reflected an appreciation for the intention of further policy actions, the committee identified that the
additional resources and program expansion were not appropriate at this time. Key feedback on the
Rental Registry Program included that while collecting additional data on 1- and 2-unit rental properties
would be helpful, the Committee felt it was not a priority since it would also be costly and place
administrative burdens on small landlords. Key feedback on the rent stabilization program included
concern about high costs and acknowledgement that rent stabilization policies often have unintended
consequences that go with them. The Committee also concluded that the City could always revisit these
policy topics if future Rental Registry Program data shows a need for additional regulations, which staff
and the Committee found was not supported based on the first year report.
1 See November 27, 2023, Staff Report #2308-1904 for more information:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/viewer/preview?id=0&type=8&uid=1f60dbbc-bd15-4f17-8ad5-
5e7231151395
2 See November 27, 2023, action minutes for details:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=43088&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=dfdc91d2
-eea7-4f55-a34d-24ff6be8755a
3 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/viewer/preview?id=0&type=8&uid=297911ba-82ea-4397-aaaf-
764df2976be1
9
6
4
2
• Rent increases: Of the 5,174 market-rate units included in rent increase analysis, nearly two-
thirds (62.85%) reported no change in rent. Approximately one quarter of units (25.57%)
experienced an increase of between 0% and 5%, and approximately one tenth of units (10.94%)
experienced an increase above 5%.
• Market adjustments: Approximately 45% of renter-occupied units received some form of market
adjustment, including deed restrictions, rental assistance or subsidies, and rent discounts or
incentives.
From this and other data collected in the first program year, State rent stabilization protections under
the TPA appear to be functioning largely as intended for the majority of Palo Alto's registered rental
units.
Rent Stabilization Analysis
Staff analyzed legal constraints on the scope of a local rent stabilization program, the breadth of existing
statewide rent stabilization protections, and resource requirements.
Key findings included:
•Notable limitations to program scope: The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995
significantly limits the scope of any local rent stabilization ordinance. It precludes regulation of
single-family homes, condominiums, and units built after February 1, 1995, and requires vacancy
decontrol for covered units.
•Existing State-level rent protections for many units: The TPA, enacted in 2019 and expanded in
2023, already caps annual rent increases for covered units at 5% plus local CPI, or 10%,
whichever is lower. The TPA covers nearly all units built over 15 years ago except for single-
family homes not owned by a large corporation or affordable units already subject to other rent
restrictions.
•Significant resource requirements: Based on peer city data, staff estimate that creating a local
rent stabilization program in Palo Alto would require approximately five additional full-time
employees and approximately $2 million in annual operating costs. Unit-level rental registry
program fees could need to rise to over $300 per unit for some units to achieve full cost
recovery, compared to the current Program Year 2 fee of $35 per unit.
Based on these findings and the moderate local rent increases shown in the RRP Program Year 1 data,
P&S supported staff’s recommendation to indefinitely defer further analysis or preparation of a draft
ordinance for a local rent stabilization program.
Rental Registry Program Expansion
With respect to Council's prior direction to evaluate expanding the RRP to properties with two or fewer
rental units, P&S and staff recommend deferring this expansion indefinitely as well. Program Year 1
surfaced the need for a number of operational refinements — including unit count verification
processes, registration notification procedures, and deployment of new reporting and payment tools —
that were still being refined in Program Year 2. Staff believe it is prudent to allow program processes to
mature and stabilize at this time rather than attempting to register an estimated 4,305 additional units
spread across over 4,100 properties, many of which may be owned by small landlords with limited time
and resources, in a still-developing program.
9
6
4
2
Staff also noted that there would be additional staffing costs needed to support program expansion.
These costs would either need to be absorbed by the City at a time when the City budget is already
constrained or passed on to property owners through increased program fees. P&S found that the cost-
saving advantages for both the City and property owners were a strong reason to indefinitely defer
program expansion.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
9
6
4
2
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
1
Policy & Services Committee
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Report #:2508-5120
TITLE
Discussion of the Rental Registry Program First Year Report and Rent Stabilization Analysis,
Including Recommendations to the City Council to Not Expand the Rental Registry Program to
Properties with Two or Fewer Units and to Defer Further Consideration of a Possible Rent
Stabilization Ordinance.CEQA: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the Policy and Services Committee discuss and provide feedback on the
findings from the first year of the rental registry program andthe related rent stabilization
analysis, and recommend the Council defer indefinitely:
a) an expansion of the rental registry program to properties with two and fewer units, and
b) further analysis or preparation of a draft ordinance related to possible implementation
of a local rent stabilization policy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the Rental Registry Program's first year findings andresponds to Council
direction to analyze the feasibility of a local rent stabilization ordinance and evaluate expanding
the Rental Registry Program to properties with two or fewer units.
The Rental Registry Program registered 95.4% of covered properties and 97.9% of covered units
in its inaugural year, with 414 properties and 7,653 unitsregistered. Key findings based on
landlords’ self-reported data include a 5.21% vacancy rate, median monthly rents for non-
discounted market rate unitsranging from $2,095 (studio) to $4,495 (three-bedroom), and
moderate rent increase activity with almost two thirds of market rateunits reporting no change
in rent.Detailed Program Year 1data is provided in Attachment A.
Regarding rent stabilization, thisreport examines state legal protections and constraints, the
effects of local rent stabilization measures in peer cities, and resource requirements. The Costa-
Hawkins Rental Housing Act significantly limits which units a local ordinance could regulate, and
2
the Tenant Protection Act already caps rent increases for most of those units. A local program
would require a conservatively estimated $2 million annual budget, including five new full-time
employees, in direct costs, which may eventually be cost recovered in part or in full through
higher rental program fees. Staff do not recommend pursuing a rent stabilization ordinance at
this time given the other competing priorities and the significant implementation resource
needs.
Staff similarly recommend deferring expansion of the Rental Registry Program to properties
with two or fewer units, pending further program maturation and improved fiscal conditions.
BACKGROUND
In November 2021, City Council directed staff to bring a proposal and discussion on “expanding
anti-gouging measures to address loopholes” to the Policy and Services Committee, referencing
gaps in coverage from California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019, which introduced statewide
rent stabilization.1 In 2024, Council directed staff to prepare an analysis for a possible anti rent-
gouging policy.2
On December 9, 2024, staff held a preliminary discussion on this topic with the Housing Ad Hoc
Committee. Staff reviewed state law with the Housing Ad Hoc Committee and explained the
limits on local regulation imposed by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (Costa-
Hawkins), which precludes the City from implementing the kind of expansive local rent
stabilization program that would cover all units not regulated by the Tenant Protection Act. The
Housing Ad Hoc Committee discussed and deferred the matter until the first year Rental
Registry Program data was able to help inform the discussion. The Housing Ad Hoc has since
disbanded, and Council directed staff to engage the Policy and Services Committee for
additional consideration.
City Council established the Rental Registry Program (PAMC Chapter 9.65) to collect data on
Palo Alto's residential rental landscape, support data-informed policy decisions, promote
awareness of renter protections, and advance the City's Housing Element goals. The inaugural
registration period opened October 1, 2024, and focused on rental properties with three or
more units.
The program achieved a 95.4% property registration rate (414 of 434 properties) and a 97.9%
unit registration rate (7,653 of 7,821 units) by the close of the extended grace period on April 6,
1 See action minutes from November 29, 2021 Council meeting for details and other direction from Council on
renter protection policies:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=42829&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
2 See 2024 Council Objective #55: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/2024-council-priorities-
objectives-4-30_final.pdf
3
2025. Registration fees were waived for Program Year 1; the Program Year 2 fee is $35.00 per
unit, with exemptions for owner-occupied units and 100% affordable housing properties.
Key findings from registered properties include: an occupancy rate of 94.8% and a vacancy rate
of 5.21%; a rental stock comprised of more studio and one-bedroom units (58.89% combined)
than larger units, with units of three or more bedrooms comprising just 5.97% of inventory; and
a building stock where nearly half of units (49.52%) were constructed between 1960 and 1979.
Over half of current renters (53.73%) began their tenancy within the prior three years. Median
monthly rents for non-discounted market rate units ranged from $2,095 for a studio to $4,495
for a three-bedroom unit. Almost two thirds of market rate units (62.85%) reported no change
in rent, while approximately one quarter of renters (25.57%) experienced a rent increase of
between 0% and 5% and one tenth of renters (10.94%) experienced a rent increase above 5%.
Detailed program data and administrative implementation notes from Program Year 1 are
provided in Attachment A. Data and analysis from Program Year 2 are forthcoming.
In addition to directing the Program Year 1 focus on properties with three or more units,
Council's November 27, 2023 action establishing the Rental Registry Program included direction
for staff to return with an evaluation of potentially expanding the program to all rental
properties, including single-family homes and properties with two or fewer rental units. The
American Community Survey estimates approximately 4,305 rental units on such properties in
Palo Alto, with roughly 4,116 being single-family residences 3. Staff's assessment of this
direction is discussed in the analysis section below.
ANALYSIS
State law protects many renters from certain rent increases under the Tenant Protection Act of
2019 (TPA). At the same time, Costa-Hawkins significantly limits the City’s ability to impose local
rent stabilization.
For covered units, the TPA restricts annual rent increases for units to either 10% or 5% plus the
percentage change in the cost of living (whichever is lower). Notable exemptions include units
built in the last 15 years, units already protected by affordability restrictions, and certain single-
family homes.
Costa-Hawkins places significant limitations on the scope of local rent stabilization programs.
Specifically, it prevents local governments from regulating the residential rent of single-family
homes, condos, or any units built after February 1, 1995.
3 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. "Tenure by Units in Structure." American Community Survey,
ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Table B25032,
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2023.B25032?t=Units+and+Stories+in+Structure&g=160XX00US0655282.
Accessed on 24 Feb 2026
4
Costa-Hawkins also requires local rent stabilization programs to include vacancy decontrol –
that is, when a tenancy ends, a landlord must be allowed to set the initial rent for the next
renter notwithstanding local caps.
There were three unsuccessful ballot initiative attempts (2018, 2020 and 2024) to repeal Costa-
Hawkins and therefore reduce barriers to local rent stabilization policies. Meanwhile, the TPA
was enacted in 2019 and expanded in 2023.
If Palo Alto were to establish a local rent stabilization program, it would be limited to following
protections for rental households:
1) Lowering allowed annual rent increases and/or establishing a tenant-initiated rent
increase petition program for units already protected under existing state law, such as:
x Units on market-rate, multi-family properties built before February 1, 1995.
2) Expanding rent stabilization protections to units not protected by existing state law,
such as:
x Affordable housing units not covered by AB 846;
x Duplexes built before February 1, 1995 where one unit is owner-occupied;
x Mobile homes; and/or
x Dorms built before February 1, 1995 (N/A in Palo Alto).
Effects of Local Rent Stabilization Measures
Public and academic opinions on the effects of local rent stabilization measures are mixed.
Furthermore, findings on the effects (positive and negative) of rent stabilization programs vary
by program and by source.
Supporters highlight that those living in units which can be regulated under local rent
stabilization programs benefit generally from increased predictability in housing expenses,
reduced displacement risk, and the promotion of lasting community connections. There is data
that confirms that cities with local rent stabilization policies have lower citywide rates of
residential mobility, however it remains unclear how reduced mobility may affect tenant
welfare.4 In some cases, it may prevent displacement, in others it may limit housing choices
and/or necessitate long commutes.5
Local rent stabilization programs can also provide renters with more direct benefits and
services. For example, Alameda’s rent program refunded $125,918 in invalid rent increases to
4 Chris Alvarez Campbell, Derek Hyra & David J. Schwegman (21 Nov 2025): Evaluating Rent Control Intensity in
California Cities, 2010–2019, Housing Policy Debate, DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2025.2582717
5 Chris Alvarez Campbell, Derek Hyra & David J. Schwegman (21 Nov 2025): Evaluating Rent Control Intensity in
California Cities, 2010–2019, Housing Policy Debate, DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2025.2582717
5
80 different rental households in 2024.6 Similarly, Mountain View’s expansive Rent Stabilization
Program reported offering free legal assistance to 51 households through their Housing and
Eviction Help Center in 2022-2023.7 Palo Alto could offer similar direct benefits to those in
covered units, if it were to adopt a local rent stabilization program.
Opponents argue that local rental stabilization programs can have many unintended, negative
consequences. A 2018 policy brief developed by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC
Berkeley confirmed that there is a significant body of literature showing rent controls without
vacancy decontrols – such as those established before Costa-Hawkins was passed in 1995 –
constrain new housing supply and lead to the removal of existing units from the market 8.
However, the data related to the negative consequences of programs with vacancy decontrol is
less clear. A 2025 study of multiple California cities with local rent stabilization programs with
vacancy decontrol found no consistent or significant relationships between the intensity of local
rent stabilizations measures and the citywide rental supply.9 On the other hand, the same study
did find evidence that cities with local rent stabilization policies had median rents $39 higher
than similar cities without these policies, but the relationship was not statistically significant.10
In some cases, there seems to be conflicting data around the potential negative consequences
of rent stabilization. For example, opponents argue that limited income potential may
disincentivize property owners from investing in maintaining or improving their rental units.11,12
Findings from a recent mail survey in Berkeley seem to support this argument with 65% of
renters in rent-stabilized units reporting that their unit was in the same condition as when they
moved in and 62% of renters considering their unit to be in good or excellent condition.13
However, a 1994 report conducted by the City of Berkeley’s Planning and Development
department analyzed the number and value of permits obtained before and during a period of
6 City of Alameda, City Attorney’s Office. Rent Program Annual Report 2024.
2024. https://www.alamedarentprogram.org/files/sharedassets/housingauth/v/1/resources/2024-rent-program-
annual-report.pdf (accessed February 19, 2026).
7 City of Mountain View Rent Stabilization Program. Annual Report FY 2022–23. January 26,
2024. https://issuu.com/mountainviewrentstabilization/docs/2024.1.26_annual_report_fy_22-23_pdf (accessed
February 19, 2026).
8 “Finding Common Ground on Rent Control: A Terner Center Policy Brief.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation at
UC Berkeley. May 2018. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/Rent_Control_Paper_053018.pdf (accessed February 25, 2026).
9 Campbell, C. A., Hyra, D., & Schwegman, D. J. (2025). Evaluating Rent Control Intensity in California Cities, 2010–
2019. Housing Policy Debate, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2025.2582717
10 Campbell, C. A., Hyra, D., & Schwegman, D. J. (2025). Evaluating Rent Control Intensity in California Cities, 2010–
2019. Housing Policy Debate, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2025.2582717
11 “The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco.”
Diamond, Rebecca, McQuade, Tim, & Qian, Franklin. 4 March, 2019.
12 National Apartment Association. “10 Unintended Consequences of Rent Control Policies.”
https://naahq.org/news/10-unintended-consequences-rent-control-policies (accessed February 19, 2026).
13City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board. 2022 Tenant Survey: Presentation and Results.
2022. https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022%20Tenant%20Survey%20Presentatio
n%20and%20Results.pdf (accessed February 19, 2026).
6
strong rent controls from 1979 to 1991 and found that there was no evidence that rent controls
reduced expenditures on repairs below pre-rent control levels.14
It is important to note that vacancy decontrol requirements under Costa-Hawkins may also
create incentives that work against the goals of many rent stabilization programs. Specifically,
to regain access to market rents, property owners may be incentivized to threaten or pursue
evictions of long-standing tenants.15 A study of San Francisco eviction filing rates from 2003 to
2013 found that living in a rent-controlled unit increases the likelihood of a tenant’s eviction by
approximately 127% per year.16 According to this study’s authors, this “finding is best
understood not as an inherent characteristic of rent control policy in general, but rather as the
result of specific state-wide laws, passed in the years following the adoption of rent control in
San Francisco, which granted rent-controlled property owners an economic incentive to evict
and the legal means to do so.”17 A local rent stabilization program in Palo Alto would be subject
to the same state-wide laws.
In conclusion, numerous arguments exist both for and against local rent stabilization, but most
lack strong, conclusive data to support them.
Resource Requirements
Staff reviewed recent rent stabilization program operating data from a variety of cities to
determine the resources required to administer different programs. Based on published data
from the peer cities of San Leandro, Mountain View, Alameda and Berkeley, local rent
stabilization programs required dedicated teams of anywhere from six to 29 full-time
employees and total program budgets up to and over $9 million annually. These programs
provided varying levels of services to up to 40,000 units and all had program fees to offset the
program costs at least partially. Staff estimates that expanding Palo Alto’s Rental Registry
Program to include rent stabilization would require approximately five additional full-time staff,
approximately $2 million in additional funding. Net program cost would depend on fees
assessed and based on other organizations, cost recovery is estimated to ramp up over 2-6
years.
14 City of Berkeley Planning Department. Historical Berkeley Rent Control, 1978–1994 (Planning Department
report). 1998. https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
01/Historical_Berkeley_Rent_Control_1978-1994_1998_Planning_Dept_report%20%281%29.pdf (accessed
February 19, 2026).
15 Gardner, M., & Asquith, B. (2025). The Effect of Rent Control Status on Eviction Filing Rates: Causal Evidence
From San Francisco. Housing Policy Debate, 35(2), 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2393629
16 Gardner, M., & Asquith, B. (2025). The Effect of Rent Control Status on Eviction Filing Rates: Causal Evidence
From San Francisco. Housing Policy Debate, 35(2), 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2393629
17 Gardner, M., & Asquith, B. (2025). The Effect of Rent Control Status on Eviction Filing Rates: Causal Evidence
From San Francisco. Housing Policy Debate, 35(2), 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2393629
7
The need for additional funding for a potential rent stabilization program should be balanced
against the City's current fiscal constraints and its efforts to prioritize resources. While program
costs could eventually be recovered, doing so comes at the expense of the landlord, who may
pass these costs through to the tenant despite anticipated local efforts to limit such pass-
throughs. Establishing a rent stabilization program is a significant undertaking requiring
specialized functions, administrative procedures, adjudication, and enforcement. Standing up
the program would require considerable staff time across several city departments, diverting
resources from other priorities at a time when the City is focused on reducing rather than
expanding its workforce.
A brief summary of peer jurisdiction’s rent stabilization programs and commensurate resource
needs are below.
Summary of Peer Program Resourcing
San Leandro established a new rent stabilization and registry program in February 2026. The
program will have six full-time employees in addition to the City’s existing five-person Rent
Board.18 The program requires a $1.3 to $2.2M General Fund loan to initiate both the rent
stabilization and rent registry portions of the program.19 The program will register and
regulate rents for approximately 7,700 units beginning this year.20 San Leandro staff
anticipate the program will achieve full cost recovery though collected program fees over the
next three to six years.21
Mountain View offers another relevant case study. The Rent Stabilization Division of the
Housing Department has 8 full-time employees and supports the City’s five-person Rental
Housing Commission. The Division currently has an approved annual budget of approximately
$2.6M, with recent annual revenues totaling $1.8M.22 Mountain View’s program registers
and regulates rents for approximately 14,500 units.23
18 City of San Leandro, Community Development Department, First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the San
Leandro Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 4-46 to Establish Residential Rent Stabilization,
https://sanleandro.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?M=R&N=Text&GID=191&ID=6605505&GUID=BB2A856A-77CB-
4893-885E-603BADCC2F95&Title=Legislation+Text (accessed February 19, 2026).
19 ibid
20 City of San Leandro, Community Development Department, Draft Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance and
Preliminary Cost Options, https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/14185/Powerpoint_101325_Draft-
Rent-Stabilization-Ordinance?bidId= (accessed February 19, 2026).
21 City of San Leandro, Community Development Department, First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the San
Leandro Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 4-46 to Establish Residential Rent Stabilization,
https://sanleandro.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?M=R&N=Text&GID=191&ID=6605505&GUID=BB2A856A-77CB-
4893-885E-603BADCC2F95&Title=Legislation+Text (accessed February 19, 2026).
22 City of Mountain View, City Manager, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2025-26,
https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/12247/638950076197470000 (accessed
February 19, 2026).
23 City of Mountain View, Rent Stabilization Division, Activity Report Fiscal Year 2025-26,
https://issuu.com/mountainviewrentstabilization/docs/rent_stabilization_division_report_fy_25-26 (accessed
February 19, 2026).
8
Alameda’s rent program registers and regulates rents for approximately 16,500 units.24 The
program has five full-time staff housed in the City Attorney’s Office. The current annual
expenses associated with the program total $2M.25 Alameda collected $1.8M in Rent Review
Fee revenue in 2022.26 Petitions and similar issues are resolved by hearing officers and/or the
program administrator.
Berkeley’s Rent Board is supported by 29 full-time employees.27 The program registers and
regulates rents for 40,000 units 28 with a FY 2025-2026 annual budget of just over $9M.29 The
Rent Board reported revenue of just under $7M in FY 2023-2024.30 Berkeley’s Rent Board is
made up of nine elected commissioners.31
Program Considerations
By law, any rent stabilization program must allow a landlord to make a fair return on their
investment. The following program components ensure landlords can make a fair return, as
required:
x Annual general adjustments: Automatically allowed increases in rent based on a
formula determined by ordinance or rent board.
24 City of Alameda, City Attorney’s Office. Rent Program Annual Report 2024.
2024. https://www.alamedarentprogram.org/files/sharedassets/housingauth/v/1/resources/2024-rent-program-
annual-report.pdf (accessed February 19, 2026).
25 City of Alameda, City Attorney, “FY 2023-25 Biennial Budget”,
https://stories.opengov.com/alamedaca/published/KHkeRFzR4J (accessed February 19, 2026).
26 City of Alameda, “FY 23-25 Budget Summaries: Rent Review Fee”,
https://alamedaca.opengov.com/transparency#/69813/accountType=revenues&embed=n&breakdown=types&cur
rentYearAmount=cumulative¤tYearPeriod=years&graph=bar&legendSort=desc&proration=true&saved_vie
w=255143&selection=BD4055BF9DE56E9E99F25064297A4AB0&projections=null&projectionType=null&highlightin
g=null&highlightingVariance=null&year=2025&selectedDataSetIndex=null&fiscal_start=earliest&fiscal_end=latest
(accessed February 19, 2026).
27 City of Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board, Recommendation to Board on FY 2025/26 Line-Item Budget, Staffing
Model & Expenditure Level,
https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Budget_Rent_Board_Staff_Report.pdf (accessed
February 19, 2026).
28 City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board. “About/Contact Us.”
https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/services/aboutcontact-us (accessed February 19, 2026).
29 City of Berkeley, Rent Stabilization Board, Recommendation to Board on FY 2025/26 Line-Item Budget, Staffing
Model & Expenditure Level,
https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Budget_Rent_Board_Staff_Report.pdf (accessed
February 19, 2026).
30 ibid
31 City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board. “Elected Rent Board.” https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/elected-rent-
board (accessed February 19, 2026).
9
x Landlord-Initiated Petitions: Ability to petition for a greater increase if landlord is
unable to make fair return on their investment from the annual general adjustment.
Programs may optionally include tenant-initiated petitions to help tenants resolve concerns
such as an unlawful rent increase, failure to maintain a habitable premise, or a reduction in
housing services.
To administer these various program components, some cities primarily used their own staff
while others engaged consultants to provide customer support, legal services, administer
hearings, conduct mediations and/or complete property inspections. Some cities used either an
appointed or elected rent board with staff support to hear cases instead of hearing officers.
The City currently offers tenants and landlords (and all community members) access to free,
confidential and impartial mediation services through the Palo Alto Mediation Program to
resolve disputes.32 The Palo Alto Mediation Program is administered by Project Sentinel, a local
nonprofit, on behalf of the City. Chapter 9.72 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires landlords
to register with the City and requires parties to respond in many types of disputes involving
rental housing properties.33 Funding from the City is provided annually to support Project
Sentinel.
Rental Registry Program Data Considerations
Viewed alongside the preceding analysis of state law, the effects of rent stabilization measures,
and the resource implications of program administration, the Program Year 1 data offers
additional context. Ultimately, none of the below findings are intended to suggest that
affordability pressures do not exist for Palo Alto renters. Pressures clearly exists in a market at
these price points. Staff’s interpretation of the data in aggregate does not appear to
demonstrate a pattern of widespread, acute rent increases that would warrant standing up a
new local regulatory program.
When considered alongside Palo Alto's limitations under California's Costa-Hawkins Rental
Housing Act, the protections already afforded to many renters through the TPA and expanded
local just cause eviction protections beyond those required by state law under the TPA, and the
relatively narrow universe of units a local ordinance could reach, the practical impact of a rent
stabilization program would be limited. Paired with the significant resource requirements of
establishing such a program and the budgetary constraints currently projected for FY 2026 and
beyond, staff recommend indefinitely deferring implementation of a rent stabilization program
at this time.
Current Data Considerations Summary: Of the 5,174 units included in the rent increase analysis,
approximately one quarter of units (1,323 units; 25.57%) were reported with a rent increase of
32 Palo Alto Mediation. “Home.” https://www.paloaltomediation.com/home (accessed February 19, 2026).
33 City of Palo Alto. “Landlord Resources”. https://www.paloalto.gov/City-Hall/Housing/Tenant-Landlord-Resources/Landlord-
Resources (accessed February 19, 2026).
10
between 0% and 5% and one tenth of units (566 units; 10.94%) were reported with a rent
increase above 5%. Nearly two-thirds of units (62.85%) were reported with no change in rent.34
A very small percentage (3 units in total) reported a rent decrease. See Exhibit 1 Figure 9 and
Table 7 in Attachment A for more information.
Arguably, these findings suggest that existing state protections aimed at keeping rent increases
below 10% (or 5% plus the percentage change in cost of living, if that’s lower) for covered units
are functioning largely as intended for the majority of Palo Alto's registered rental units.
Further analysis would be needed to determine what percentage of units that reported a most-
recent rent increase over 5% may have violated state law.35
A meaningful share of the rental stock already operates with some form of market adjustment
based on the self-reported data. About 26% of renter-occupied units carry deed restrictions,
rental assistance, or informal rent discounts, which may reduce the practical reach of additional
rent regulation on the units most in need of affordability protections.
The age of the housing stock is also a relevant consideration. With 74% of registered units in
buildings constructed before 1980, property owners face rising maintenance and potential
retrofit costs. Staff has heard directly from property owners that the market is price-sensitive
and that even modest cost increases are difficult to absorb. Constraints on rent adjustments
could, over time, affect the capacity to maintain these aging properties, a concern that takes on
added significance as the City explores mandatory retrofitting requirements for seismically
vulnerable buildings, which may represent a substantial additional cost obligation for many of
these same property owners.
Palo Alto renters also benefit from existing local protections beyond TPA. The City's ordinance
requiring landlords to offer one-year leases provides tenants with 12 months of rent
predictability at each lease term, addressing one of the more common concerns that rent
stabilization is designed to resolve.
Rental Registry Program Expansion
With respect to Council's direction to evaluate expanding the Rental Registry Program to
include single-family homes and properties with two or fewer rental units, staff recommend
deferring this expansion indefinitely. Program Year 1 was the City's first year administering the
registry, and the process surfaced a number of operational refinements, including unit count
36 Rental Registry Program participants were asked to report both the date and amount of the last rent increase for each unit.
Many participants reported a “$0.00” rent increase for a unit and a corresponding date in the past, confirming that the unit had
not experienced rent increases since that date. For example, reporting of “$0.00” for a rent increase frequently coincided with
known tenancy start dates, meaning that there was no change in rent since initial occupancy. However, some renters have
tenure lengths longer than the date of last rent increase reported as “$0.00,” so it is unknown if those renters had a rent
increase at some point earlier in their tenure.
35 In order to complete this analysis, staff would need to compare the rent increase amount to the TPA rent cap at the time the
rent was increased and then determine that the rent increase occurred in a covered building and was not associated with any
tenancy changes.
11
verification against Santa Clara County Assessor data, registration notification challenges
associated with property sales, clarifications around senior housing and condominium
registration requirements, and the deployment of new reporting and payment functionality.
Program Year 2 is the first year in which returning participants are updating existing
registrations, paying the newly adopted registration fee, and using improved event-based
reporting tools. Staff believe it is prudent to allow these processes to mature and stabilize
before introducing a significantly larger population of property owners into the program.
Indeed, the estimated 4,305 units on properties with two or fewer units, predominantly single-
family residences, would require coordination with a substantially larger number of individual
property owners, many of whom may be owner-occupiers who would be exempt from
registration fees and/or would be navigating the program for the first time. Staff have
previously identified that expansion at this scale would require at least one additional full-time
employee.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. However, if Palo
Alto were to pursue a local rent stabilization program or expand the Rental Registry Program
(RRP), it would need to be resourced. Because rental registries are often tied to rent
stabilization programs, many cities fund their rent stabilization program partially or entirely
through rental registry fees. The City’s current Rental Registry Program fee of $35 per unit in
Palo Alto supports approximately one full-time employee and specialized contract work needed
to run the rental registry program at its existing scale. The RRP is currently focused on
establishing and maintaining a multi-family rental unit inventory and does not regulate rents.
This program’s fee for covered units would need to be significantly increased if it were to be the
sole funding source to develop, implement and enforce a local rent stabilization program.
Based on a rough analysis, staff estimate that covered units may need to pay a fee up to or
above $300.00 per unit 36 in order to achieve full cost recovery for an expanded program. While
staff estimate that approximately five additional staff may be needed to run a rent stabilization
program in Palo Alto, the final size of the team needed would be based upon the number of
registered units (which would increase if the program were to be expanded to one- and two-
unit properties), the complexity of the program, the level of customer support provided to both
renters and landlords, the potential use of contracted services, enforcement procedures, and
other factors.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
This agenda item was publicly noticed as part of the March 10, 2026, Policy and Services
Committee meeting. City staff maintains a list of groups and individuals interested in renter
36 For reference, Berkeley currently charges $344 per fully covered unit, Richmond charges $267 per fully covered
unit and Alameda currently charges $170 per fully covered unit.
12
protection policy development and the implementation of the rental registry program; an email
advertising the March 10, 2026 Policy and Services Committee meeting and discussion on this
topic was sent to this list after publication of this report. Staff also sent targeted emails to
representatives at the California Apartment Association, Alliance of Californians for Community
Empowerment, Public Advocates, Tenants Together, Palo Alto Forward and Silicon Valley at
Home after publication of this report. Lastly, staff sent an email after the publication of this
report to all property owners and/or representatives who have participated in the Rental
Registry Program to date, upon the publication of this staff report to inform them of this
upcoming policy discussion.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Committee action on this item is exempt from review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with
certainty that discussion and direction regarding regulation of residential rental units will not
have a significant effect on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Program Year 1 (FY 2024-2025) Summary Report
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
Page 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RENTAL REGISTRY PROGRAM
Program Year 1 (FY 2024–2025) Summary Report
Program Overview
City Council established the Rental Registry Program by adopting Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
Chapter 9.65. The program serves four purposes: understanding the residential rental landscape as
experienced by renters and landlords; supporting data-informed policy decisions that protect
public health, safety, and welfare; promoting community awareness of existing renter protections;
and supporting the City’s Housing Element goals for rental unit protection, preservation, and
production.
The City launched its inaugural registration period on October 1, 2024, running through January
15, 2025, with a grace period extended through April 6, 2025. Per City Council direction, Program
Year 1 focused exclusively on rental properties with three or more units. All information was self-
reported by property owners and property managers. Please see Exhibit 1 to this report for
additional program data analysis.
Registration Results
The program achieved a 95.4% property registration rate (414 of 434 properties) and a 97.9% unit
registration rate (7,653 of 7,821 units) by the close of the grace period on April 6, 2025. See the
summary table below or Exhibit 1 Table 1 for more information.
Registration Status Properties Units
Total Required 434 7,821
The majority of registrations were completed later in the registration period; only 55% of
properties (237) and 33% of units (2,581) completed by the initial January 15, 2025 deadline. The
remaining registrations arrived steadily through the extended grace period. Staff conducted
outreach through postcards, registration letters, direct email campaigns, staff-hosted workshops,
and one-on-one customer service. Only four properties did not complete registration by the close
of the grace period and received administrative citations.
Page 2
The 16 exempted properties (an estimated 148–162 units) were deferred to Program Year 2
because recent property sales resulted in new owners not receiving registration notice letters.
Key Findings from Registered Properties
Occupancy and Vacancy Rates
Of the 7,653 registered units, 94.79% were occupied and 5.21% were vacant. Among occupied
units, 93.13% were occupied by renters, 0.98% by property managers, 0.48% by owners, and
0.20% by rent-free occupants. Among vacant units, 3.68% were available for rent and 1.53% were
not available for rent. See Exhibit 1 Table 3 and Figure 1 for more information.
Unit Diversity
The registered rental stock is predominantly composed of smaller units. Studios and one-bedroom
units together account for 58.89% of all registered units. Two-bedroom units represent another
35.14%. Units with three or more bedrooms constitute 5.97% of the inventory. See the summary
table below or Exhibit 1 Table 4 and Figure 2 for more information.
Unit Type Avg. Size (sq ft)Units % of Total
Age of Building Stock
The registered rental stock spans buildings constructed from 1893 through 2022. Nearly half of all
registered units (3,790 units; 49.52%) were built between 1960 and 1979, and nearly three fourths
of registered units were built before 1980 (5,701 units; 74.49%). Only 1,203 registered units
(15.72%) are in buildings constructed after 2000. See Exhibit 1 Figure 3 for more information.
Properties that are 15 years old or newer are exempt from the rent stabilization provisions of the
California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (TPA).
Amenities, Services, and Auto Parking
Among the most commonly included amenities for renter-occupied units were outdoor common
space (4,010 units), bicycle parking (3,853 units), laundry (3,650 units), and pool/spa access (3,073
Page 3
units). Utilities included in rent varied: refuse/recycling was included for 2,953 units, water for
2,916, and sewer for 2,233. Internet (347 units) and cable (370 units) were rarely included. EV
charging was available for 924 units. See Exhibit 1 Figure 4 for more information.
Parking was included in rent for 6,932 units (90.58%). An additional 231 units (3.28%) had parking
available for an additional fee and 410 units (6.14%) had no onsite parking offered. See Exhibit 1
Figure 5 for more information.
Stability and Turnover
Over half of current renters (3,834 units; 53.73%) started their tenancy within three years of the
April 2025 registration close. The next largest group (1,283 units; 17.98%) had tenures exceeding
10 years. Approximately 300 renter households (4.21%) have lived in their units for over 20 years.
See Exhibit 1 Figure 6 for more information.
The most common lease arrangement was a one-year lease (66.63%), followed by month-to-
month leases (28.44%). Under Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.68.030, all landlords must offer
a one-year lease term in writing, but renters or potential renters may decline this offer in favor of
a shorter, negotiated lease term (such as month-to-month).
Rental Discounts and Incentives
Of 7,127 renter-occupied units, 3,889 (54.57%) were market rate units without formal market
adjustments. The remaining 3,238 (45.43%) renter-occupied units received some kind of market
adjustment. Specifically, 981 units (13.76%) were deed-restricted, 554 units (7.77%) were deed-
restricted with rental assistance or subsidies, 418 units (5.87%) had rental assistance or subsidies,
and 1,285 units (18.03%) were market rate but with other rent discount or incentive, such as a
rent concession during the course of the lease term or an employee housing rate. See Exhibit 1
Table 5, Figure 8, and Table 6 for more information.
Rents for Market Rate Units
Rent data can be reported in aggregate for market rate studio, 1-, 2-, and 3- bedroom units. Rent
data for 4- and 5-bedroom units are known but excluded from aggregate reporting due to few and
potentially identifiable numbers. See Exhibit 1 Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6 for more information.
Median monthly rents for non-discounted market rate units were as follows:
Unit Type Median Rent 25th Percentile 75th Percentile
Page 4
3-Bedroom $4,495 $3,993 $4,993
Rent Increases for Market Rate Units and Market Rate Units with Other Rent Discounts
Among the 5,174 market rate units or market rate units with other rent discounts included in rent
increase analysis, almost half of units (2,470 units; 47.64%) reported no change in rent between
October 2022 and April 2025, including units with renters who had been in their unit for less than
one year. Another group of units (787 units; 15.21%) reported no rent increase over an even
longer timeframe, such as since before October 2022 or even beyond five years prior to open
registration. Approximately one-third of units (1,685 units; 32.57%) reported a rent increase
between October 2022 and April 2025. A small number of units (204 units, 3.94%) reported their
last rent increase in the more distant past, since before October 2022 and even beyond five years
prior to open registration.
Of the 5,174 units included in the rent increase analysis, only approximately one quarter of renters
(1,323 units; 25.57%) experienced a rent increase of between 0%-and 5% and approximately one
tenth of renters (566 units; 10.94%) experienced a rent increase above 5%. A very small
percentage, accounting for 3 units in total, reported a rent decrease instead of a rent increase. See
Exhibit 1 Figure 9 and Table 7 for more information.
Some reported rent increases may exceed Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (TPA) limits (5% plus local
CPI, or 10%, whichever is lower). However, the program data notes that caution is warranted in
interpreting these figures: the TPA does not apply to all units, allowable percentages vary year to
year, and some data entry errors may remain in this initial round of self-reported information.
Additionally, it is likely that some of the larger recent rent increases reported in Program Year 1
were associated with a change in tenancy, which is allowed under the TPA; however, change in
tenancy data was not collected during Program Year 1. Staff introduced an occupancy/tenancy
change reporting form in Program Year 2 to better understand the nature of reported rent
increases going forward.
Geographic Distribution
Most registered rental units were located within a half-mile of a commercial area (88.1%) and a
public park (77.6%). The majority of units (59.5%) were within a half-mile of a public school and
were within 500 feet of an arterial road (62.2%). Proximity to transit was lower: 27.4% of units
were within a half-mile of a Caltrain station and 33.0% were within a half-mile of a major bus stop.
Program Administration and Implementation Notes
Data Quality
The initial property inventory relied on Santa Clara County Assessor data. Staff identified minor
unit count discrepancies on approximately 30% of properties, which were resolved through
Page 5
systematic verification during registration review. Property owners and property managers reliably
reported accurate unit counts with no instances of over- or underreporting identified.
Property Inventory Refinement
The initial inventory methodology did not capture all 3+ unit rental properties. Staff identified
additional properties, primarily smaller rental properties and those in non-residential zoning
districts, estimated at approximately 852 units across roughly 229 properties. These have been
added to the inventory for Program Year 2.
Registration Clarifications
During implementation, staff clarified several registration requirements. Properties with three or
more units where the owner or manager occupied some units were still required to register.
Condominiums where a single owner holds three or more units and rents at least two were also
included. Units lacking independent cooking, bathing, or sleeping facilities (such as certain Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units) and units in hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, or continuing care
retirement communities were determined not to require registration.
Senior housing presented particular complexity. Some units, while residential in form, either
shared core living facilities or included individualized healthcare services in their rates. These were
exempted through a City-administered affidavit verification process.
Registration Fees
Program Year 1 registration fees were waived by City Council direction. For Program Year 2, City
Council approved a registration fee of $35.00 per unit, with exemptions for owner-occupied units
and units on 100% affordable housing properties. Staff has received feedback from property
owners that the Palo Alto rental market is price-sensitive and that the fee, combined with other
rising costs, may be impactful.
Event-Based Reporting
In addition to annual registration, the program requires property owners to report certain events
as they occur: rent increases, notices to quit, unlawful detainers, and evictions. Rent increases are
the most frequently reported event. Some property owners expressed unfamiliarity with these
requirements, and staff received complaints questioning the need for event-based reporting. In
response, staff released improved reporting forms, clearer rent increase reporting, and a new
optional rent decrease form.
Looking Ahead: Program Year 2
Page 6
Program Year 2 (FY 2025–2026) registration opened on October 1, 2025, with the annual open
registration period running through January 15, 2026. The City extended a grace period through
February 16, 2026 and is presently preparing to send administrative citations to unregistered
properties. The program continues to focus on properties with three or more units.
Program Year 2 incorporated the 16 properties previously exempted due to recent property sales
(148–162 units), as well as the approximately 229 additional properties (~852 units) identified
through improved inventory methodology during Program Year 1, and two newly constructed
properties (160 units).
City Council previously directed staff to evaluate potential expansion of the program to all rental
properties, including single-family homes and properties with two or fewer units. The American
Community Survey estimates approximately 4,305 rental units on such properties, with an
estimated 4,116 being single-family residences. Staff has noted that expansion at this scale would
represent a more than 600% increase in the number of property owners requiring coordination
and would require additional staffing. Based on FY 2025–2026 budget discussions, no additional
staffing was requested, and Program Year 2 has proceeded without this expansion.
As the Rental Registry Program’s online portal retains baseline registration information from
Program Year 1, staff anticipate a less time-intensive update process for returning participants,
though learning the new fee payment module will be part of the Year 2 experience.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Program Year 1 (FY 2024-2025) Supplemental Program Data
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 1
Exhibit 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
RENTAL REGISTRY PROGRAM
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025)
SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA
October 30, 2025
Planning & Development Services Department
Rental Registry Program
rentalregistry@paloalto.gov
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 2
Property Inventory and Registration Status
Table 1: Rental Registry Program - Program Year 1 Property Registration Status (as of April 6, 2025)
Registration Status Number of Properties Number of Units
Properties in Completed Registration Status 414 Properties (95.4%) 7,653 units (97.9%)
Properties in Open Registration Status/Payment Pending 4 Properties (0.9%)
Properties Exempted from Program Year 1 Registration Requirement 16 Properties (3.7%)* 148 Units (1.9%)*
Total Number of Properties in RRP Requiring Program Year 1 Registration 434 Properties 7,821 Units
Additional Property Disposition Information
Properties Vetted/Removed from Program Year 1 Property Inventory 6 Properties** N/A
Properties Retained in RRP for Recordkeeping Purposes, but Not Registration 26 Properties*** N/A
Properties/Units Added for Program Year 2 ~229 Properties**** ~852 Units****
Properties/Units Added for Program Year 2 due to New Construction/Occupancy
Notes:
• The anticipated number of rental units in Palo Alto on rental properties with 3+ units (8,673 units) exceeds the American Community Survey estimates (7,545 units), which would be verified at the close of Program Year 2.
• *These properties were exempted from the Program Year 1 registration requirement because property owners did not receive critical registration notice letters because of incorrect contact information due to recent
property sales. Registration of these 16 properties will be required in Program Year 2. The estimated total unit count for these properties ranges from 148 units to 162 units and will be confirmed at Program Year 2
registration.
• **These properties were found to be either residential non-rental/entirely owner occupied (3 properties) or commercial property (3 properties).
• ***These properties are retained in the Rental Registry Program property inventory for administrative/recordkeeping purposes, but not for registration in Program Year 1 or Program Year 2. These properties are retained
because they were either rental properties with two or fewer units (18 Properties) or properties with one or more units as part of a hospital, extended medical care facility, skilled nursing facility, health facility, or continuing
care retirement community (8 Properties).
• ****The unit count for these properties is estimated at ~852 units across ~229 properties.
Table 2: American Community Survey (ACS) Distribution Estimate of Palo Alto Rental Households by Rental Unit Property Type
Mobile
Home
Boat, RV, Van,
etc.
Single Family
Detached
Single Family
Attached Duplex Triplex
and Fourplex
Small Sized
Rental Property
(5 to 9 Units)
Medium Sized
Rental Property
(10 to 19 Units)
Medium Sized
Rental Property
(20 to 49
Units)
Large Sized
Rental Property
(50 or More
Units)
Total
# of Units 89 0 3,289 827 189 715 1,343 1,234 1,621 2,632 11,939
% of Total Units 0.75% 0% 27.55% 6.93% 1.58% 5.99% 11.25% 10.34% 13.58% 22.05% 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table, B25032 Tenure by Units in Structure: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2023.B25032?g=160XX00US0655282.
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 3
Occupancy and Vacancy Rates
Table 3: Program Year 1 Occupancy Rate and Vacancy Rate by Occupancy Type (7,653 Registered Units)
Occupant Type Number of Units Percentage Combined Percentages
Occupied by Owner 37 0.48%
Occupancy Rate 94.79% Occupied by Property Manager 75 0.98%
Occupied by Renter 7,127 93.13%
Occupied by Rent-Free Occupant 15 0.20%
Vacant - Available for Rent 282 3.68%
Vacancy Rate 5.21%
Vacant - Not Available for Rent 117 1.53%
TOTAL 7,653 100.00%
Figure 1: Program Year 1 Unit Vacancies by Number of Bedrooms in Unit (399 Registered Units)
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 4
Unit Diversity
Table 4: Program Year 1 Rental Units by Number of Bedrooms (7,653 Registered Units)
Unit Type Average Size (sq ft) Number of Units Percentage of Units
Studio ±500 1,197 15.64%
1-Bedroom
2-Bedroom
3-Bedroom
4+-Bedroom +1,500 29 0.38%
TOTAL N/A 7,653 N/A
Figure 2: Program Year 1 Comparison Between Unit Size and Number of Bedrooms in Unit (7,653 Registered Units)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Si
z
e
o
f
U
n
i
t
(
S
q
F
t
)
Number of Bedrooms in Unit
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 5
Age of Building Stock
Figure 3: Program Year 1 Number of Registered Rental Units Built by Decade (7,653 Registered Units)
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 6
Amenities and Services
Figure 4: Program Year 1 Amenities/Services Included in Rent for Renter Occupied Units (7,127 Registered Units)
347
370
2953
2916
2233
982
1036
1562
3650
1459
3853
924
2761
3073
4010
2432
853
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Internet
Cable
Refuse/Recycling
Water
Sewer
Natural Gas
Electricity
Outdoor Private Space
Laundry
Storage
Bicycle Parking
EV Charging
Gym
Pool/Spa
Outdoor Common Space
Indoor Common Space
Community Kitchen
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 7
Auto Parking
Figure 5: Program Year 1 Auto Parking Availability for Rental Units (7,653 Registered Units)
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 8
Stability and Turnover
Figure 6: Program Year 1 Tenure Length for Renters (7,136 Registered Units)
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 9
Figure 7: Program Year 1 Lease Lengths for Renter Occupied Units (7,127 Registered Units)
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 10
Occupancy of Market Rate Units and Units with Market Adjustments
Table 5: Program Year 1 Distribution of Market Rate Rental Units Versus Units with Market Adjustments by Occupancy Type (7,653 Registered Units)
Occupancy Type Market Rate Units Market Rate Units with
Other Rent Discount Deed Restricted Units
Deed Restricted Units with
Rental Assistance/
Subsidy
Units with Rental
Assistance/
Subsidy
Other/
Unknown if Market Rate Total
Occupied by Owner - - - - - 37 37
46 10 15 1 3 - 75
Occupied by Renter 3,889 1,285 981 554 418 - 7,127
12 1 2 - 15
Vacant - Available for Rent 22 - 7 3 1 249 282
6 - - - 3 108 117
TOTAL 3,963 1,307 1,003 559 427 394 7,653
Notes:
• Some market rate rental units do not have any rent discounts, whereas others do have some sort of rent discount. Examples of rent discounts in Program Year 1 data include:
o rent concessions, such as a free month during the lease term;
o lower rent rates offered to employees; or
o informal rent discounts, such as a lower rent rate for a family friend or for helping with property maintenance tasks.
• Market rate adjustments include deed-restrictions so that the unit is offered at below the market rate rent at a specified percentage level of area median income.
• Other market adjustments include a unit having some form of subsidy or rental assistance, such as a utility allowance or a Section 8 voucher to cover the difference between what a renter could afford and the market rent for the
unit.
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 11
Figure 8: Program Year 1 Distribution of Market Rate Rental Units Versus Units with Market Adjustments by Number of Bedrooms in Unit (7,105 Registered Units)
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 12
Rents for Market Rate Units
Table 6: Program Year 1 Median Monthly Rent for Market Rate Units by Number of Bedrooms in Unit (5,164 Registered Units)
Number of
Bedrooms
in Unit
Unit
Rent Type Number of Units Median Q1
(25th %)
Q3
(75th %)
IQR
(Inter-quartile
Range)
Min Max Avg Stnd Dev
Studio
Market Rate Unit 338 $2,095 $1,895 $2,395 $500 $0 $3,825 $2,176 483
Market Rate Unit
with Other Rent 118 $2,223 $2,064 $2,334 $271 $1,590 $3,453 $2,283 449
1
Market Rate Unit 1911 $2,600 $2,300 $3,000 $700 $0 $100,120 $2,757 2311
Market Rate Unit
with Other Rent 547 $2,800 $2,565 $3,330 $765 $1,000 $5,800 $2,971 575
2
Market Rate Unit 1463 $3,295 $2,895 $3,846 $951 $400 $398,508 $3,738 10373
Market Rate Unit
with Other Rent 573 $3,531 $3,291 $4,300 $1,009 $1,630 $6,138 $3,815 672
3
Market Rate Unit 167 $4,495 $3,993 $4,993 $1,000 $1,685 $18,000 $4,862 2265
Market Rate Unit
with Other Rent 47 $5,024 $4,929 $5,120 $191 $2,262 $6,694 $4,914 789
Notes:
• Number of Units is the total number of units included in this group (based on bedroom count and rent type). This tells us how large the sample size is — the bigger the number, the more reliable the rent statistics.
• Median is the "middle" rent value — half of the units rent for less than this amount, and half rent for more. This is often the most accurate reflection of typical rent because it isn’t skewed by outliers.
• Q1 (25th Percentile) shows that a quarter of the units rent for less than this amount. This shows the lower end of the rent range.
• Q3 (75th Percentile) shows that a quarter of units rent for more than this amount. This shows the upper end of the typical rent range.
• IQR (Interquartile Range) shows the range between Q1 and Q3 — it shows where the middle 50% of rents fall. A smaller IQR means rents are more consistent. A larger IQR suggests wider variability in rent pricing.
• Minimum is the lowest rent reported, which may sometimes reflect data errors (like a typo or missing zero). It is to be used as a flag, not a benchmark.
• Maximum is the highest rent reported. Like the minimum, maximum may include typos or unusually high figures, which can skew the average — so it's important to view this in context with the median and IQR.
• Average is the total of all rents divided by the number of units. While average gives a general sense of rent levels, it is sensitive to data errors or extreme values (too high or too low).
• Standard Deviation is a measure of how much rent values vary from the average. A low number means most rents are similar; a high number means there’s a lot of variation — which could reflect different unit sizes, locations, or
data errors.
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 13
Rent Increases for Market Rate Units
Figure 9: Program Year 1 Number of Market Rate Units Reported with No Change in Rent by Unit Tenure Length (3,254 Registered Units)
Notes:
• 3,254 units included in analysis; excludes units with rent decreases and date of last increase reporting errors
1277
802
352
184
116
52
56
47
55
37
276
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
1 year or less
>1 to 2 years
>2 to 3 years
>3 to 4 years
>4 to 5 years
>5 to 6 years
>6 to 7 years
>7 to 8 years
>8 to 9 years
>9 to 10 years
Over 10 years
Number of Units with No Change in Rent
Un
i
t
T
e
n
u
r
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 14
Table 7: Program Year 1 Frequency of Rent Increases and Rent Increase Percentage for Market Rate Units (5,174 Registered Units)
Rent Increase Percentage
Rent Increase
Timeframe Date of Last Rent Increase
Rent
Increase
Reporting
Error
Rent
Decrease
No
Change
0% and
1%
1% and
2%
2% and
3%
3% and
4%
4% and
5%
5% and
6%
6% and
7%
7% and
8%
8% and
9%
9% and
10%
Over
10%
Grand
Total
Between
October 2022
and
April 6, 2025
(October 1, 2024 – April 6, 2025) 3 1 641 28 59 102 100 105 62 20 21 40 6 20 1,208
Prior to Open Registration 8 0 1039 21 86 110 122 103 58 28 16 13 23 11 1,638
Prior to Open Registration 4 1 430 13 36 49 71 90 44 17 5 6 11 8 785
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 249 7 15 11 20 27 15 6 8 8 11 1 378
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 111 3 4 8 5 14 10 1 1 1 5 0 163
Before
October 2022
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 181 1 1 5 11 13 5 0 3 7 4 2 233
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 61 0 0 2 1 0 6 2 2 1 0 1 76
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 59 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
Prior to Open Registration 0 1 49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 55
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 38 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 44
Prior to Open Registration 1 0 29 1 7 5 11 4 4 1 3 0 0 2 68
Prior to Open Registration 2 0 370 0 6 8 10 19 24 5 2 0 6 6 458
Date of Last Rent Increase Reporting Error 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7
Grand Total 18 3 3,262 76 215 300 353 380 228 81 63 77 66 52 5,174
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 15
Notes:
• For Program Year 1 initial registration, the City asked for the current monthly rent for each unit, as well as the initial monthly rent (if known) and the date and amount of last rent increase. Consequently, the City was able to gather
past rent increase information for Palo Alto rental units.
• This analysis reflects rent increase information gathered between October 1, 2024, through the close of the open registration period on April 6, 2025. Initial findings are provided for studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom
market rate units (5,164 units), both without and with some form of rent discount.
• Reported dates of the last rent increase were sorted into the open registration period of October 1, 2024, through April 6, 2025, and otherwise in half year increments prior to the October 1, 2024, start of open registration.
• The California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (TPA; AB 1482) came into effect January 1, 2020, during the timeframe included in this analysis. Units regulated by TPA are limited to annual rent increases of no more than 5% + local CPI
(CPI = inflation rate), or 10%, whichever is lower. Properties that are 15 years old or newer are exempt from the rent stabilization provisions in TPA.
• Program Year 1 information shows possibility of some rent increases exceeding 5% + local CPI. However, caution is recommended for interpreting this Program Year 1 information for at least the following reasons:
o TPA does not apply to all residential rental units;
o Allowable rent increase percentages vary from year to year;
o TPA does not apply when a rent increase is associated with a change in occupancy;
o Staff were able to filter out clear errors, but other data entry errors might remain; and
o Future reporting may correct data entry errors.
-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 16
Geographic Distribution
Figure 10: Program Year 1 Registered Rental Unit Locations (7,653 Registered Units)
Table 8: Program Year 1 Proximity of Registered Units to Special Features (7,653 Registered Units)
Feature Number of Registered Units
within Proximity
Number of Registered Units not
in Proximity
Public schools (1/2-mile radius) 4,553 units (59.5%) 3,100 units (40.5%)
Public parks (1/2-mile radius) 5,935 units (77.6%) 1,718 units (22.4%)
Caltrain stations (1/2-mile
radius) 2,100 units (27.4%) 5,553 units (72.6%)
Major bus stops (1/2-mile
radius; include VTA, SamTrans, 2,528 units (33.0%) 5,125 units (67.0%)
Commercial Areas (1/2-mile
radius) (Only if Possible) 6,744 units (88.1%) 909 units (11.9%)
Arterials (500 foot radius) 4,760 units (62.2%) 2,893 units (37.8%)
POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 1 of 13
Regular Meeting
March 10, 2026
The Policy & Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers
and by virtual teleconference at 6:00 p.m.
Present In-Person: Lythcott-Haims (Chair), Reckdahl, Stone
Absent: None
Call to Order
Chair Lythcott-Haims called the meeting to order. The clerk called the roll and all were present.
Public Comment:
1. David Page expressed concerns about the City helping ICE by sharing traffic camera
footage and requested data sharing with ICE be stopped as soon as possible.
Action Items
1. Nonprofit Partnership Workplan: Follow-up Recommendation on Winter Lodge Tennis
lease extension and Status of Phase I Grant Funding Process. CEQA Status: Not a Project.
Lupita Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, provided background on the Nonprofit Workplan
Phase II, which stems from an audit report in 2022 that reviewed and recommended best
practices on nonprofit management. Nonprofit guiding principles are 1) impact-oriented focus
and accountability, 2) service alignment, 3) fairness, open access, equity, and inclusion, and 4)
flexibility for special circumstances. Four major bodies of work make up the Nonprofit
Partnership Workplan: NPW Phase I Funding Requests, Nonprofit Lease Agreements, Nonprofit
Multi-year Service Agreements, and comprehensive review of all grant programs including
Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) and Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG). The framework discussed by P&S in November 2025 addresses public benefit,
financial relationship, and ensuring stability of the partnership. The Committee determined the
framework is good but wanted more information about the public benefit of Winter Lodge and
Lawn Bowl leases. Winter Lodge operates City leases for the ice rink and tennis courts, which
expire in 2040 and 2026 respectively. The presentation included a table summarizing Winter
Lodge Tennis public access and pricing compared to City rates for similar facilities. The lease
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 2 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
terms allow pricing to be comparable to the market so funds can be accumulated for continued
maintenance and capital improvements. For the Nonprofit Workplan Phase I process, which
provides a structured approach to evaluate nonprofit funding requests that fall outside
established processes, staff recommends a broader discussion with the Council on purpose and
HSRAP alignment, tentatively scheduled for April 6, 2026. Staff is working on the materials to
give Council a broader, big-picture look at all the nonprofit contracts, including grants and
service agreements. A draft timeline from the packet was presented, which explores options to
keep Phase I within the original plan for the budget adoption process in June.
Public Comments:
1. Linda Jensen, Winter Lodge Executive Director, offered to answer any questions and
highlighted the long and successful partnership with the City of Palo Alto for almost 40
years and Winter Lodge's record of providing award-winning facilities and programs.
Their tennis programs are for all ages and abilities with a special focus on youth, whom
Winter Lodge sees as an at-risk, underserved population in Palo Alto. Linda Jensen
expressed support for recommending the tennis lease renewal to City Council so Winter
Lodge can continue serving the people of Palo Alto.
2. David Siegel, 35-year Palo Alto resident and president of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club,
shared concerns about the Kim Grant/Winter Lodge lease's rent, stating the lease calls
for only $100 to be paid over a 10-year period while Tom Sarsfield pays the City $14K
annually plus a 6-figure revenue share on City-sponsored classes. David Siegel also
shared concerns about the facility's public access, noting that City athletic facilities and
fields are open to the public at no charge when not in use while Winter Lodge charges
$40/hour, though the lease describes intent for public use. David Siegel expressed
concern about proposals to continue the Winter Lodge Lease for 14 more years. David
Siegel recommended 1) Winter Lodge tennis courts be open to the public at no charge
when not in use for instruction and 2) the lease be restructured with market-rate rent or
a revenue-sharing arrangement. David Siegel asserted that a revised lease could provide
meaningful financial benefit to the City, align Winter Lodge with standard practices for
City-owned athletic facilities, expand public access, and offset reduction in tennis court
availability if/when pickleball expands. It was suggested that the lease be extended a
few months rather than rush into a long-term renewal.
Councilmember Keith Reckdahl stated that Winter Lodge is an incredible community asset and
noted that price differences are apples and oranges when comparing their pricing to the City
because Winter Lodge pays for its own maintenance while City facilities are maintained using
taxpayer funds. Councilmember Reckdahl expressed concerns about resident discounts adding
pricing complexity because Winter Lodge would have to verify if someone is a resident, which
the City take that on instead, perhaps via the Enjoy! catalog. Councilmember Reckdahl
highlighted the expense of maintenance and wondered if the City's volume discount on tennis
court resurfacing could be applied to Winter Lodge so they don't have to pay market price,
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 3 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
which would be a value add and not cost the City anything. Councilmember Reckdahl expressed
overall support for the Winter Lodge lease renewal.
Vice Mayor Greer Stone agreed that Winter Lodge fits within the parameters of nonprofits that
the City wants to support. They offer the third place for many members of the community,
providing recreational opportunities for countless children and adults. Due to the unique nature
of their lease agreement, they need to be fully self-funded, so allowing them to charge for their
facilities makes sense but the idea that the courts are public but not accessible without a $40
fee is problematic. Vice Mayor Stone acknowledged a lack of information on how much Winter
Lodge makes annually and wondered what removing the $40 fee would do to the Lodge's
ability to fund their own upkeep.
Real Estate Manager Sunny Tong confirmed a lack of financial information on Winter Lodge's
operations but noted it can be added as a reporting requirement if needed.
Vice Mayor Stone agreed more financial information would be useful. Vice Mayor Stone noted
that different rates for residents and non-resident complicates things, so making it free is
preferable and staff should have the freedom to pursue that in negotiation but also have the
information to know when it is no longer feasible from Winter Lodge's perspective.
Chair Lythcott-Haims shared about her own family's enjoyment of Winter Lodge and provided
some insight into Winter Lodge's history. Their site was threatened by the owner who wanted
to build condos there, so the citizens got a voter mandate and Winter Lodge land became City
land at the insistence of the voters. The City is required to keep the land for recreation and
programs are run on the site with no funding from the City, which creates the challenge of how
they pay their operating and capital expenses. Chair Lythcott-Haims asked Linda Jensen to
share annual operating expenses and respond to the idea of an alternate fee structure that
would create more sense of benefit for Palo Alto residents.
Linda Jensen responded that the fee comparison between the City's courts and Winter Lodge's
are apples to oranges because taxpayers fund City court expenses but Winter Lodge funds
itself. Linda Jensen suggested that when courts are not in use for classes and lessons, they
could be scheduled at the City rate or less. Linda Jensen emphasized that anyone can walk in
and sign up for classes. Linda Jensen stated the annual operating expenses for tennis are not
separated out from the other expenses but agreed to get that number for staff. Winter Lodge is
a 501(c)(3) operation, so profits can be held over year to year to cover major expenses like
tennis court resurfacing every 5 to 7 years, which now costs $160K for a single resurfacing.
Linda Jensen expressed interest in Councilmember Reckdahl's suggestion of working with the
City to take advantage of their volume discount with resurfacers.
Vice Mayor Stone clarified his earlier comments, stating that Winter Lodge's tennis school is the
only public one in the region, the rates are wonderful, and the classes and clubs for youth
should take precedent but when the courts are available and not being used, such as weekdays
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 4 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
during school, that is when it makes sense to renegotiate pricing. Vice Mayor Stone asked staff
if members of the public can reserve public courts and what it costs.
Kristin O’Kane, Community Services Director, confirmed individuals cannot reserve City tennis
courts for individual tennis play and they are free.
Councilmember Reckdahl noted the USTA is allowed to reserve public courts when they have
tournaments and some public facilities do have fees, such as Rinconada Pool and Foothills Park.
Councilmember Reckdahl asked about the potential for the City to do Winter Lodge's
maintenance and what the lease charge might be as a result. Lupita Alamos clarified that
Winter Lodge has always fully maintained and operated the courts. Sunny Tong confirmed no
analysis has been done on the possibility of the City doing maintenance.
Linda Jensen shared that the 1985 voter mandate required the site to be operated for
recreation but at no cost to the City. This is also listed in City Ordinance 3650, which requires
the City to provide this site for community skating at no cost to the City. Councilmember
Reckdahl wondered whether the City could roll maintenance costs into the lease. Linda Jensen
said that would be great because resurfacing has become so expensive but the mandate of the
citizens stated it be at no cost to the City and the programs should be able to maintain
themselves.
MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims, to
recommend the City Council:
1. Approve the Winter Lodge tennis contract and align its term with the Winter Lodge
skating lease,
2. Explore feasibility of mutually beneficial maintenance agreements,
3. Direct staff to engage Winter Lodge through the lease renewal negotiations to explore
opportunities to provide free access to the tennis courts when not in use.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
Chair Lythcott-Haims called attention to the continued discussion on the Phase I process. Lupita
Alamos reminded the Committee that Phase I information was presented as a status report and
will be continued for discussion with the Council on April 6. Chair Lythcott-Haims expressed
discomfort with the Phase I next steps implying a recommendation to Council and Lupita
Alamos suggested it be presented to Council not as a recommendation but a discussion.
Ed Shikada, City Manager, clarified that the discussion is meant to be done together with
Council to acknowledge the crossover between P&S and Finance that occurred with the new
year. It is an opportunity to make sure everyone is on the same page about the roles of the
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 5 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
Finance and P&S Committees in the upcoming budget cycle. Staff are not prepared to answer
questions or come to resolutions at this time. It was agreed that Councilmember Reckdahl's
feedback on this item be sent to staff offline and brought to full discussion at the April 6 study
session.
2. Consider Policy Options to Encourage Multi-Family Development in Mixed-Use Districts
(2023-2031 Housing Element Program 3.9(A)) and Potential Recommendation for City
Council on Next Steps. CEQA Status: The Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved by the City Council on April 15, 2024,
analyzed potential environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Housing Element including
Program 3.9(A).
Robert Cain, Principal Planner, shared a presentation on Housing Element Program 3.9(A),
which aims to incentivize housing in areas currently dominated by office use. Robert Cain
emphasized that this is 1 of about 100 Housing Element programs and subprograms and is not
designed to be the primary way to encourage housing in the City but looks specifically at areas
where office is the dominant desire of developers. Palo Alto's housing needs and jobs/housing
imbalance are high and the City is focused on proactive solutions to better align housing needs
and job growth. Four submarkets throughout the City were studied and findings were
confirmed though developer interviews. Office sites outperformed housing at 3 of the 4
locations. This was used as the basis for the rest of the analysis. For policy options, City levers
being considered for locations where office outperforms residential are 1) fees, 2) taxes, 3)
building standards, 4) land use regulation. The Committee was asked to discuss policy options
and provide direction on which, if any, they want pursued.
Ed Shikada expressed amazement that there are 100 programs related to encouraging housing
and opined this is a good illustration of the numerous ongoing efforts.
Robert Cain highlighted that the number of housing initiatives in the last 8 years is
unprecedented and includes area plans, incentives, fees, and other ways to incentivize housing.
Councilmember Reckdahl thanked the team and noted townhouses are very popular but are an
inefficient use of space. Councilmember Reckdahl noted that more density would allow more
housing and asked what can be done to disincentivize townhouses or incentivize density.
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director, responded they did not study how
to incentivize density but how office developments impact housing. Jonathan Lait shared that
rental housing is very different from for-sale housing and plays out over decades as developers
get their return through rents, which increase over time. Jonathan Lait noted that other
policies, such as the San Antonio Area Plan, are looking at increasing density in many areas of
the City. Jonathan Lait asserted that townhomes are more accessible entry-level homes and
having a variety of housing types is important.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 6 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
Ben Sigman, Managing Principal at Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. confirmed that their
focus was on disincentivizing office and how it relates to housing. This point in the building
cycle favors lower-density and for-sale ownership housing and townhomes are very popular
because they are much less expensive to build on a per-square-foot basis; they sell quickly and
at a premium, so the economics are very strong. When switching to a rental product, the
overall value per square foot is much less than condos or for-sale product, which influences the
economy. The costs associated with building at multi-family densities, which often include
things like structured parking, creates a less favorable revenue-to-cost ratio. Ben Sigman noted
that the other 99 initiatives likely cover things like lowering the cost for multi-family
developers, reducing policy burdens, and contributing directly to project costs. This project
spoke with about 4 prominent developer firms active in Palo Alto who all said they can build
more housing if they are allowed to build at lower densities. Multi-family is likely to come into
favor again but today's economics are very challenging for dense housing.
The Committee reviewed the 4 main lever options for incentivizing residential and agreed
against the tax option. It was noted that the building standards option, which would increase
standards and thereby building costs, seemed to be a punitive approach to disincentivizing
office. Councilmember Reckdahl suggested that limiting office FAR and increasing it for
residential is most effective but noted relaxing FAR for residential complicates urban planning
by modifying already modified zoning. Councilmember Reckdahl expressed concern around
grandfathering practices around existing offices and how that can affect developments and
redevelopments.
Jonathan Lait highlighted other initiatives the City has implemented to incentivize housing and
reiterated that Housing Element 3.9(A) is focused on disincentivizing office. Jonathan Lait
agreed that FAR is one of the best levers in this area and cautioned against standard reductions
that freeze current office in place, never to be redeveloped.
It was noted that 3,371 new housing units are currently in the pipeline. Vice Mayor Stone
celebrated this number as evidence that policies and implementation over recent years are
paying off. Vice Mayor Stone opined there is not much more to be gained from the land use
regulations option but the building standards and fees options are interesting. Vice Mayor
Stone asserted that the building standards should require Project Labor Agreements on any
development, especially City projects. It is an opportunity to require labor contracts in
construction projects, which is morally right, fits within City goals of livable wages and adequate
working conditions, and has the added benefit of incorporating higher business and building
standards to make housing more attractive to developers. Vice Mayor Stone acknowledged it
could be challenging for the full Council and community to accept but this is a great opportunity
to try it out. Vice Mayor Stone suggested that increasing fees on office development is a great
way to disincentivize new office and encourage housing; current fees are $68.50 per square
foot, far below the 2015 nexus study's determined maximum of $177 per square foot.
Chair Lythcott-Haims offered that FAR is already being limited and there are square footage
caps in place, so that is not something to tinker with right now. Chair Lythcott-Haims expressed
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 7 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
concerns about using desirable design standards like skilled and unionized labor, TDM, and
increased community benefits to disincentivize building. Chair Lythcott-Haims agreed that the
City is not charging near what it could in fees per the 2015 nexus study.
Public Comment:
1. Jeremy L. thanked the Committee and staff for their hard work and stated support for
the City's efforts to implement the Housing Element. Jeremy L. stated that proposals to
disincentivize office may have value on their own but are not clearly furthering the
Housing Element goal to support housing in mixed use zones because there is not much
office being proposed in mixed use zones. The picture of the pipeline is partly a picture
of the City's real, meaningful progress and partly a picture of unplanned housing that
came from things like the builder's remedy. Jeremy L. noted that studying and
decreasing impact fees for housing and updating zoning in the downtown area and Cal
Ave can make a big difference and streamlining permitting can go hand-in-hand with
zoning. Jeremy L. asserted that the City should work on facilitating a zoning and fee
regime that makes it quick and easy to build housing in the places the City wants
housing. Jeremy L. acknowledged this is like preaching to the choir because much of this
is already in progress.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl, to forward for City
Council’s consideration:
1. Require PLAs for new office development,
2. Additional building standards for new office development as appropriate,
3. Increase the commercial linkage fee for office development.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
3. Discussion of the Rental Registry Program First Year Report and Rent Stabilization
Analysis, Including Recommendations to the City Council to Not Expand the Rental
Registry Program to Properties with Two or Fewer Units and to Defer Further
Consideration of a Possible Rent Stabilization Ordinance. CEQA: Exempt pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Julia Knight, Senior Program Manager for Development Services, presented an outline of
several renter protection policy options and stated the staff recommendation to indefinitely
defer further discussion of expanding the Rental Registry Program (RRP) or establishing a local
rent stabilization program at this time. The presentation included a timeline of key policy
developments and an overview of further P&S discussions on the calendar. Julia Knight shared
that the RRP's first year provides a clearer picture of the City's rental landscape and offers
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 8 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
useful insights for policy discussion. The first year saw very high participation with a 97.9
percent unit registration rate. Several slides covered information collected from the program's
first year, including rental housing and market data (Attachment A). Expansion considered for
the program would include 1 and 2-unit properties, which would increase staff by 1 to 2 full-
time employees and double the registry fee per unit to cover costs. A local rent stabilization
program, if implemented, would need to remain within limits set by Costa-Hawkins Rental
Housing Act of 1995 and the California Tenant Protection Act (TPA) of 2019. Staff examined
programs in nearby peer cities and estimated a rent stabilization program in Palo Alto would
require 6 full-time employees, an annual budget of $2M, and an increase in the Rental Registry
Program fee to over $300 per unit. Staff recommended the P&S discuss findings from the first
year of the Rental Registry Program and recommend the Council indefinitely defer expanding
the program and further analyze or prepare a draft ordinance related to a possible future rental
stabilization program.
Public Comments:
1. Martha Stern is owner and manager of a 7-unit residential building in Palo Alto and has
owned the building for close to 18 years. Martha Stern expressed doubt that the
benefits of the Rental Registry outweigh the cost. While the information gathered is
interesting, the cost ends up being paid by renters. Martha Stern noted the cost of living
challenges in the Bay Area, including property insurance rising 140 percent from 2023 to
2025. Martha Stern emphasized the State already has a strict rent increase ceiling and
implored the City to leave it to the State. Martha Stern currently raises rent 1 to 3
percent a year to cover cost and keeps increases low to avoid unit turnover. A cap of 1
to 2 percent increase would force some landlords to increase rent the maximum
amount in order to bank for future cost increases. Martha Stern shared that an
unintended consequence of the rental registry is the public listing opens exposure to
charges for a myriad of reasons, all of which will be passed on to tenants.
2. Anil Babbar from the California Apartment Association spoke in support of the staff
recommendation and thanked them for the work that went into this report. Anil Babbar
noted the RRP data shows Palo Alto housing providers making rent decisions based on
the market, which has led to nearly two-thirds of market-rate units receiving zero rent
increases and a quarter of them receiving a rent increase below 5 percent, so the
recommendation to indefinitely defer a rent stabilization program is a data-driven one.
Anil Babbar pointed out a comparative study done by the Los Angeles Times that
concluded San Diego has higher development and unit count than L.A. in part because
L.A. has rent control and San Diego does not. Anil Babbar suggested that adoption of a
Rent Control Ordinance would add to the policy burden and make it harder to
incentivize multi-family housing.
3. Eileen Kim asserted that the registry creates a climate of surveillance and bureaucracy
that deters mom-and-pop housing and is redundant because California already has
robust statewide rent control under AB 1482. Eileen Kim noted that several peer cities
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 9 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
have rejected registries because it was too heavy for a city of their size and an exercise
in redundancy. Eileen Kim stated the City is spending public funds to build a shadow
registry for information that already exists for free on platforms like Zillow, Trulia, and
MLS, costing taxpayers $2M annually to research a problem that does not exist. Eileen
Kim noted that builders will see this registry as a headache, expense, and invasion of
privacy, which creates a barrier to the housing the City wants to create. Eileen Kim
pointed out that the Registry exposes residents to data brokers and predatory
marketing and urged the City to discontinue it.
4. Jennifer L., Palo Alto resident of 26 years, spoke in support of removing rent control
from the City's agenda. Though it protects some people temporarily, rent control scares
investors away, makes it hard to find housing, and is bad for the economy. The data
from staff showed most landlords did not increase rent at all and those who did
increased only moderately, so rent control is not necessary for Palo Alto. The cost of
owning homes is increasing, with insurance more than doubling in the past year and
maintenance and utilities also increasing. Jennifer L. emphasized the $2M expense and
asked P&S not to implement it.
5. Hamilton H. expressed support for the staff's thoughtful recommendations, especially
not expanding to 1-person units, which are individuals who are non-professional
property managers and are busy with their kids, working overtime, and trying to hold
their lives together. If they have to go through this bureaucracy, they are going to be
pushed toward doing Airbnb, regardless of if it is legal. Hamilton H. emphasized the data
that showed landlords not raising rent at all or very little, which shows there is no
problem. Hamilton H. called attention to the City's budget problem and how this will
contribute to that as well as creating a privacy issue for residents. Hamilton H. noted
that the registry form is designed for multi-family professional properties and is out of
touch with individual renters. Hamilton H. asked P&S to follow staff recommendation
and realize City effort and funds can do much more valuable things.
Councilmember Reckdahl stated the Rental Registry is good information from a policy
perspective and while data on 1 and 2-bedroom units is desirable, the cost does not justify it.
Councilmember Reckdahl stated there is no need for rent control or stabilization and
highlighted the many unintended consequences that would go with it.
Vice Mayor Stone expressed support for the staff recommendation but noted the importance
of the Rental Registry Program in bringing important data that informs decision-making. The
RRP surpassed expectations for data and registration rate, thanks to staff and property owners.
Vice Mayor Stone stated there is no strong need to continue pursuing a Renter Stabilization
Ordinance at the moment because the data does not show it is necessary and the significant
cost is alarming. Vice Mayor Stone believed the Council may revisit the ordinance after the City
comes out of its deficit if the data shows a need for it. On expanding the RRP to 1 and 2-
bedroom units, Vice Mayor Stone agreed the data would be helpful but is not a top priority.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 10 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
Jonathan Lait noted the annual report will provide some insight into whether the issue needs
revisiting at some point.
Chair Lythcott-Haims agreed on not expanding the RRP to include 1 and 2-bedroom units, which
are single-family homes. Chair Lythcott-Haims empathized with landlords about the challenges
a new administrative requirement would pose and agreed with the staff report's statement that
State protections aimed at keeping rent increases low are functioning as intended for the
majority of Palo Alto's registered rental units. Chair Lythcott-Haims asked how the Fair Chance
Ordinance is related to, different from, or enhancing to this.
Julia Knight clarified that the Fair Chance Ordinance would provide additional anti-
discrimination protections for renters. It does not regulate rent but creates opportunities for
more people of diverse backgrounds and histories to access the rental market in Palo Alto.
MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone, to recommend
the City Council defer indefinitely:
1. An expansion of the rental registry program to properties with two and fewer units,
2. Further analysis or preparation of a draft ordinance related to possible implementation
of a local rent stabilization policy.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
AA1. Recommend Approval of New Task Order 4.42 - Flock Safety Assessment for Inclusion in
the City Auditor's FY 2026 Audit Plan and Amend FY 2026 Task Order budgets to Support
this New Task Order with a Net Zero Financial Impact; CEQA – Not a project.
City Auditor Kate Murdock shared that the City reviewing Flock as a vendor is important but
Baker Tilly completed its conflict-of-interest check and recused itself from this assessment to
avoid a conflict of interest. As the City and vendor coordinate to set the scope for the
assessment, specific firms can be recommended to conduct this work. Baker Tilly will also
commit previously identified funds for the proposed assessment from the City auditor's
contracted budget.
Ed Shikada confirmed Baker Tilly will not be able to proceed with the audit and this item is an
opportunity for public input and recommendation from the Committee to the Council on next
steps.
Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager, clarified the Committee may recommend going
forward with an audit or discuss the scope of that audit but a general discussion of the benefits
of ALPR or whether or not to move forward with the Flock contract is beyond the scope of this
agenda item.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 11 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
Public Comments:
1. Austin M. appreciated the update that Baker Tilly is not handling the audit but asserted
that no audit can assuage concerns about Flock, ALPR in general, and the inherent risks.
Austin M. acknowledged it is not on the agenda but encouraged the Committee to focus
on canceling the Flock contract and cautioned them from relying on an audit to make
future decisions.
2. David Page from Midtown suggested ICE will be getting ALPR data from Flock and using
it to support their activities. David Page requested the Committee do the right thing by
shutting off the cameras now and getting out of the Flock contract when it expires in
June.
3. Cara Silver, long-term Midtown resident, stated it is unfortunate that the conflict of
interest was not caught sooner, as the data related to it was in the staff report. Cara
Silver stated the audit is unnecessary. California Sanctuary State Law SB 54 prohibits
cities from sharing personal information about immigration status with ICE and the
proposed audit fails to address this particular issue. Cara Silver stated Flock has
submitted data to federal agencies, such as in recent breaches in Colorado. Peer cities
have cancelled or delayed entering into contracts with Flock. Cara Silver noted there are
no federal or state regulations of the ALPR system and the recent proposed state
regulation was vetoed by Governor Newsom. Cara Silver stated that one of the cameras
in Palo Alto is located on the corner where many protests take place and urged the
Council to turn off the cameras.
4. Hamilton H. expressed strong support for the City to conduct a Flock Safety audit and
stated that Baker Tilly recusing itself is a positive development. Hamilton H. suggested
the audit should assess whether at least 2 PAPD staff are trained at the highest
administration level so the system can be properly configured and monitored at all
times. PAPD admin should review new software releases and notes promptly to ensure
settings remain properly configured. Hamilton H. disagreed with fellow residents who
want the system shut down because only 30 days of data is returned before it is purged
on the Flock servers, no out-of-state agency searches resulted in data being shared, the
data is only available to properly trained staff with legitimate enforcement needs, all
queries are logged and subject to audit, and all out-of-state access was automatically
disabled as of March 2025 across all Flock systems in California. Hamilton H. insisted
that ALPR cameras make the community safer and should remain in operation.
5. Anne M. opposed the ALPR cameras and questioned the need for an audit, suggesting it
is a backward-looking operation and evidence of uncertainty. Anne M. emphasized that
many cities in the county have discovered leaks from Flock data despite the assertion of
no public data sharing. Anne M. stated Baker Tilly recusing itself is proper and supported
the City auditor and police department taking a look at what has been happening with
Flock camera data. Anne M. asked the City to remove the inherent risk and danger
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 12 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
presented by the cameras to residents' First Amendment rights and privacy by capping
and turning off the cameras until the issues are resolved.
6. David preferred the Flock contract be cancelled, as Flock is a bad actor and lies
repeatedly. David posed several questions: 1) How does Flock ensure future changes to
their system will not lead to sharing outside of California or the City? 2) How can the
City ensure that federal law enforcement cannot gain access to the system, including
unauthorized credential sharing by in-state agencies? 3) What will the City's data be
used for when there is a focus on machine learning and sales data in and after the
contract terms? David noted that Flock retains data after cancellation and can do what
they want with it, such as training AI models, so more clarity is needed on what will
happen to the City data. David suggested that any audit done should be thorough.
The Committee agreed that the entirety of the question around the Flock contract needs to
come before the Council. Vice Mayor Stone expressed concern about the timeline for
addressing this and whether the Council can make a full decision while an audit is pending or if
the cameras can be turned off in the interim.
Ed Shikada responded that if an alternative service provider is found at $30K, staff can proceed
with the audit without Council approval. The Council agendas are packed through June, so the
Committee needs to clarify their sense of urgency about this item to determine when to put it
on the Council agenda. Ed Shikada also clarified that the Flock contract does not end in June but
extends for another year or two and noted they would not suggest the cameras be shut off
absent further direction from the Council.
The Committee discussed the risks of ALPRs and their potential for good and bad and debated
whether an audit is necessary to determine whether to continue with or terminate their
contract with Flock. It was suggested that the Independent Police Auditor could be a good
resource in auditing Flock in terms of City and Police Department policies and procedures.
Chair Lythcott-Haims expressed a feeling of urgency for this larger question of the contract with
Flock to come before the Council sooner than later. The Committee agreed this item should
come before the Council before July recess. Vice Mayor Stone added that it should be an action
item to give flexibility to make a decision.
Ed Shikada agreed to set expectations for the timeline when setting up their report to Council
and stated staff direction is to continue working with the IPA and independent auditor to bring
as much factual data and information to a Council discussion no later than June.
Councilmember Reckdahl suggested a study session where the Council can learn about the
situation, what happened, why Palo Alto did not lose data while other cities did, and how City
data is not going to ICE.
Vice Mayor Stone agreed the community needs to be updated on the facts because there is a
lot of troubling misinformation. Vice Mayor Stone asked if upcoming city manager comments
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 13 of 13
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
could concede time to the acting police chief to speak directly to the community about this and
show that the City is on top of it and their data is safe.
Chair Lythcott-Haims agreed that factual information and reassurances to the public are
important and should not be delayed.
NO ACTION
Future Meetings and Agendas
Chantal Cotton Gaines reported that the next meeting is set for Tuesday, April 14, and the
tentative items include legislative updates; the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, which may
move to May; and 2 audit reports.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to questions from Vice
Mayor Greer Stone regarding the Monday, June 1st Council Meeting consent agenda item.
Item 4:
Title: Recommendation from Policy and Services Committee to City Council to Indefinitely Defer Both
Expansion of the Rental Registry Program to Properties with Two or Fewer Units and Further
Consideration of a Possible Rent Stabilization Ordinance. CEQA: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3).
Council Question 1
I have a question regarding item #2 on the 6/15 CC agenda regarding the P&S recommendation to
indefinitely defer rent stabilization. In reflection on the P&S discussion, I realized that we never
discussed whether there should be a threshold of the average percentage increase in rent that might
trigger a reexamination of the decision to continue pursuing a potential rent stabilization ordinance. For
example, if in the future the rent registry shows an average increase of 8%, would we reexamine the
need to pass a rent stabilization ordinance then? Is this an issue that P&S could address later this year or
would this issue be precluded if the Council approves this item on consent? If the latter, can a consent
item be pulled and sent back to committee or does a pulled item need to first be heard by the full
Council?
Staff response:
No, this action does not preclude the City Council from initiating reconsideration in the future. Staff will
annually prepare an Information Report for the City Council and public to review self-reported rent
increase data. Councilmembers could make this a referral to Policy & Services during the annual work
plan process, submit a colleague's memo, or raise through any other future opportunity.
From:Vanessa Hernandez
To:Council, City
Subject:On Behalf of Don Peterson - Item No. 4 on the June 1, 2026 Council Meeting Agenda
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 11:28:58 AM
Attachments:Letter June 1 Counsil Hearing 6.01.26.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good Morning,
On behalf of Don Petterson, Senior Vice President of Development at Prometheus Real Estate Group,
please find the attached letter for City Council review.
Thank you,
Vanessa Hernandez | Sr. Administrative Assistant-Legal & Finance
PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. | Est. 1965 | Certified B Corporation™
p: 650.931.3447 | Prometheusapartments.com | vhernandez@prometheusreg.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message, including attachments, is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for
the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy,
disclose, or distribute the message or the information contained in it. If you have received the
message in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete the message.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Rob Nielsen
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 12:25:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Venker and other Council members.
My name is Rob Nielsen and I live in Midtown. I am writing you on Tenant Protections
and the rental registry (Item 3 on the June 1 agenda).
My reason for writing is to request that you plan to revisit expansion of the rental
registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make
up a growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help
the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Sincerely yours,
Rob Nielsen
From:J L
To:Council, City
Subject:June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 7:25:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Jing Liu
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Meina Young
To:Council, City; Meina Young
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 3:01:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of the Business and Housing Network (BAHN) and the thousands of small property
owners we represent, I respectfully urge you to follow the staff recommendation to
indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further analysis or
preparation of a local rent stabilization policy. This position is also supported by the city’s
Policy and Services Committee.
As highlighted in the staff report, implementing these policies will require significant staffing
and millions of dollars, which will worsen the city’s budget deficit and housing costs in Palo
Alto.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to follow the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Meina Young
President, Business and Housing Network
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Henry
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 5:29:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you
to support the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer both the
expansion of the rental registry and any further analysis or
preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing
these policies. The city would need to hire additional staff, spend
millions of dollars to administer new programs, and increase the cost
of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs
are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have
on housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar
budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act,
is working as intended and that further local intervention is not
necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also supported the
staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the
staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Henry Liang
From:Gina Dalma
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 11:15:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
My name is Gina Dalma and I live in Midtown. I support efforts to promote more homes and
protect tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into
effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan
area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. I
want to live in a diverse and inclusive community. We need to embrace state law in the places
near transit where we want more homes.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental
registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a
growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help the city make
more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Please support more homes for all in our community,
Gina
From:Garrett Clark
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 5:13:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
My name is Garrett Clark and I live in Downtown North. I support efforts to promote more homes and protect
tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where
the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the
Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should
embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental registry next year, as
opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a growing share of the rental market, and having
more data about them can help the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Garrett Clark
From:Jean Pressey
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 4:12:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
My name is Jean Pressey and I live in downtown. I very strongly support efforts to promote
more homes.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into
effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan
area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas.
Palo Alto should embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
Near transit is the logical place. We should be spending city dollars on more effective ways to
implement this law, rather than fighting it.
We often hear arguments that new housing creates more traffic, but that is not true. The
number of cars that drive into Palo Alto every day for jobs exceeds the available housing by a
vast number. If we have more housing, it will mean fewer cars and parking issues,
especially if it is near transit.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental
registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a
growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help the city make
more informed decisions about tenant protections. In fact, what we need is an effort to make
more homes available for rent by legislating against "ghost" homes that have been
purchased purely for investment without any intent to live in them. I'm sure we all can name a
few; I personally could point out three. This is an outrage and harmful for neighborhoods.
Thank you for supporting homes for all in our community,
Jean Pressey
850 Webster
Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Bill Fitch
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 1:51:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
My name is Bill Fitch and I live in Evergreen Park. I support efforts to promote more homes and protect tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where
the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the
Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should
embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
I spoke at city council some years back, in favor of then SB50. We should build housing near existing transit,
especially Caltrain.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental registry next year, as
opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a growing share of the rental market, and having
more data about them can help the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Bill Fitch
From:Lawrence Markosian
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 10:49:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I am writing as a potential Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the
staff recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any
further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
--Lawrence Markosian
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Grace L
To:Council, City
Cc:Gracegg2000@gmail.com
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:24:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Grace Lee
927 Colorado Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Kerei Yuen
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:55:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to ask you to support the staff recommendation
to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further work on a local
rent stabilization policy.
Providing rental housing in Palo Alto has become increasingly expensive. Property taxes,
insurance premiums, maintenance costs, utilities, and other operating expenses have all risen
significantly in recent years. For many small “mom and pop” housing providers, these
increases are becoming difficult to absorb.
The staff report makes clear that moving forward with these policies would add even more
costs and administrative burdens. The city would need to hire additional staff, spend millions
of dollars to create and manage new programs, and increase fees on housing providers to pay
for them — all while the city is already facing a multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
More regulation and higher costs will not create more housing. In many cases, they will have
the opposite effect. Continued financial pressure on small property owners will only
encourage more housing providers to sell properties, remove units from the rental market, or
avoid renting units altogether. That reduces rental housing supply, lowers vacancy rates, and
makes it even harder and more expensive for residents to find housing.
The staff report also found that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is already working as
intended and that additional local regulations are unnecessary. The Policy and Services
Committee also supported the recommendation to indefinitely defer these proposals.
We respectfully ask the Council to follow the staff recommendation and avoid creating costly
new programs that could further reduce rental housing availability in Palo Alto.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Al and Kerei Yuen
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Minya Dai
To:Council, City
Subject:Support P&S recommendation (Item# 4 of 06/01 council meeting)
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 2:11:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear city council Members,
As a Palo Alto resident, I respectfully urge you to support the P&S recommendation to
indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry program and any further analysis or
preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The P&S staff investigation shows that these policies, even though well-intended, bring poor
additional benefits and high additional cost to both the city and landlords. And this is
consistent with what I've observed, as a PA owner resident for nearly a decade.
All the neighboring landlords/tenants I know throughout the years seem happy with their
landlord-tenant relationship. Most tenancy lasted for years and these tenants have maintained
good relationships with us neighbors and their landlords. I do not see the need for the RRP,
given how responsible the Palo Alto landlords are and especially how well the existing tenant
protection policies work. It'd unnecessarily add burden to the landlords, which would
eventually boost the housing price, reduce availability, and negatively impact the tenants.
If anything needs revision, the council may want to investigate ABOLISHING the RRP
rather than expanding it.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the P&S staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Minya
Resident in the Greer Park neighborhood
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:hermesmh1@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 2:09:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto resident to respectfully urge you to support the staff recommendation to indefinitely
defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization
policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city would need to hire
additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs. These costs are especially concerning given
the impact these policies would have add on more costs to the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Mona He resident on Wilkie Way
Sent from my iPhone
From:jianminlicausa@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 2:08:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff recommendation to
indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further analysis or preparation of a local rent
stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city would need to hire
additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and increase the cost of providing housing by
raising fees on property owners. These costs are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have
on housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and that further local
intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also supported the staff recommendation to
indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
James Li
Sent from my iPhone
From:Jeanne Cox LeVett
To:Council, City
Subject:My Request to Defer Indefinitely Extending Rental Registry Program to Properties with Two or Fewer Units AND
Pursuing a Local Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 1:18:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
As a housing provider in Palo Alto, I would like to urge you to act on the recommendation of your
staff and your Policy and Services Committee to indefinitely defer the two issues referenced in the
“Subject” line of the email above.
The process of managing the Rental Registry Program is not only onerous and costly to both the
city and landlords, but has been found to be an unnecessary burden for us all.
Continuing and expanding the program is not recommended by your own staff, having found that
landlords are not taking advantage of the market, a result that I am personally proud to see.
Thank you,
Jeanne LeVett
President
LeVett Properties Palo Alto & Carmel, CA
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Minwen Ji
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 1:04:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Minwen Ji
858 Ames Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94303
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Phoebe Kuong
To:Council, City
Subject:city.council@paloalto.gov
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 12:17:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Subject: Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely my name is Phoebe,Thanks
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:shirley
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 11:09:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any
further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new
programs, and increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners.
These costs are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on
housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as
intended and that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and
Services Committee also supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer
these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff
recommendation.
Sincerely,
Shirley Feng
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Ron Granville
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:39:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any
further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new
programs, and increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners.
These costs are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on
housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as
intended and that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and
Services Committee also supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer
these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff
recommendation
Ron Granville, CPM®
CEO
Woodmont Real Estate Services
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
1050 Ralston Avenue | Belmont | CA | 94002
(p) 650.802.1653 | (f) 650.591.4577
rgranville@wres.com www.wres.com
BRE License No. 00688241
From:mingxia zhang
To:Council, City
Subject:Subject: Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:38:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Mingxia Zhang
Corina Way Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:Ellen Zhu
To:Council, City
Cc:Ellen Zhu
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:36:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Ellen
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Steve Stern
To:Council, City
Subject:June 1 council meeting
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:01:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Subject: Item No. 4 on the June 1council meeting agenda
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the
staff recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry
and any further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The
city would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new
programs, and increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property
owners. These costs are especially concerning given the impact these policies would
have on housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as
intended and that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and
Services Committee also supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer
these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff
recommendation.
Sincerely,
Steve Stern
580 Ruthven Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Wonewok@gmail.com
From:Sanjeet Thadani
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:42:02 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any
further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs,
and increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs
are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in
Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended
and that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services
Committee also supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Sanjeet Thadani
Sent from my mobile device
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:ywei@missionpathway.org
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:33:38 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any
further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new
programs, and increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners.
These costs are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on
housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as
intended and that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and
Services Committee also supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer
these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff
recommendation.
Sincerely,
Yi-Hen Wei & Mary Neou
Owner of 380 W Meadow Dr. Palo Also
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report