CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 01, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Palo
Alto
City
Council
meetings
will
be
held
as
“hybrid”
meetings
with
the
option
to
attend
by
teleconference
or
in
person.
Information
on
how
the
public
may
observe
and
participate
in
the
meeting
is
located
at
the
end
of
the
agenda.
The
meeting
will
be
broadcast
on
Cable
TV
Channel
76,
live
on
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto
,
and
streamed
to
Midpen
Media
Center
https://midpenmedia.org
.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION
CLICK HERE TO JOIN
(
https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238
)
Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
General
Public
Comment
for
items
not
on
the
agenda
will
be
accepted
in
person
for
up
to
three
minutes
or
an
amount
of
time
determined
by
the
Chair.
General
public
comment
will
be
heard
for
30 minutes.
Additional
public
comments,
if
any,
will
be
heard
at
the
end
of
the
agenda.
Public
comments
for
agendized
items
will
be
accepted
both
in
person
and
via
Zoom
for
up
to
three
minutes
or
an
amount
of
time
determined
by
the
Chair.
Requests
to
speak
will
be
taken
until
5 minutes
after
the
staff’s
presentation
or
as
determined
by
the
Chair.
Written
public
comments
can
be
submitted
in
advance
to
and
will
be
provided
to
the
Council
and
available
for
inspection
on
the
City’s
website.
Please
clearly
indicate
which
agenda
item
you
are
referencing
in
your
subject
line.
Multiple
individuals
who
wish
to
speak
on
the
same
item
may
designate
a
spokesperson.
Spokespersons
must
be
representing
five
or
more
verified
individuals
who
are
present
either
in
person
or
via
zoom.
Spokespeople
will
be
allowed
up
to
10 minutes,
at
the
discretion
of
the
presiding
officer.
Speaking
time
may
be
reduced
if
the
presiding officer reduces the speaking time for individual speakers.
PowerPoints,
videos,
or
other
media
to
be
presented
during
public
comment
are
accepted
only
by
to
at
least
24 hours
prior
to
the
meeting.
Once
received,
the
Clerk
will
have
them
shared
at
public
comment
for
the
specified
item.
To
uphold
strong
cybersecurity
management
practices,
USB’s
or
other
physical
electronic
storage
devices
are
not
accepted.
Signs
and
symbolic
materials
less
than
2 feet
by
3 feet
are
permitted
provided
that:
(1)
sticks,
posts,
poles
or
similar/other
type
of
handle
objects
are
strictly
prohibited;
(2)
the
items
do
not
create
a
facility,
fire,
or
safety
hazard;
and
(3)
persons
with
such
items
remain
seated
when
displaying
them
and
must
not
raise
the
items
above
shoulder
level,
obstruct
the
view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed
times
are
estimates
only
and
are
subject
to
change
at
any
time,
including
while
the
meeting
is
in
progress.
The
Council
reserves
the
right
to
use
more
or
less
time
on
any
item,
to
change
the
order
of
items
and/or
to
continue
items
to
another
meeting.
Particular
items
may
be
heard
before
or
after
the
time
estimated
on
the
agenda.
This
may
occur
in
order
to
best
manage
the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
1 June 01, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas
.
CALL TO ORDER
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (5:30 - 5:40 PM)
1. Proclamation Honoring June 2026 as LGBTQIA+ Pride Month Late Packet Report added
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
PUBLIC COMMENT (5:40 - 6:10 PM)
Members of the public may speak in-person ONLY to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda.
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS (6:10 - 6:20 PM) Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
STUDY SESSION (6:20 - 7:20 PM)
2. Study Session on Flock Automated License Plate Recognition Technology; CEQA status – categorically exempt.
CONSENT CALENDAR (7:20 - 7:25 PM)
Items will be voted in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
3. Approval of Minutes from May 11 and May 18, 2026 Meeting
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).
5. Approval of and Authorization to execute Purchase Orders with Jensen Precast and Oldcastle Infrastructure for the Purchase of Electric Utility Underground Boxes Not to Exceed $800,000 per year, for a Total Aggregate Not-to-Exceed Amount of $4,000,000 for Five Years; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
6. Approval of Purchase Order C27197327 with Carahsoft Technology Corporation to Procure DocuSign eSignature Software, Utilizing OMNIA cooperative contract no.
R240303 for a One-Year Term for a Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $145,180; CEQA
2 June 01, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas
.
Status - Not a Project
7. Approval of an Extension to Building Permit 18000-00536 for 429 University Ave; CEQA status – Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENV20718).
8. Approval of Professional Services Contracts with Concourse Tech Inc., Contract No.
C26195689, and Prospect Silicon Valley, Contract No. C26195690, to Support Commercial Efficiency and Electrification Programs for a Term of Three (3) Years for a Total Combined Not to Exceed Amount of $898,500; CEQA Status – Not a Project
9. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C27197243 with Euna Solutions, Utilizing a TIPS Cooperative Contract, to Modernize the City’s Budget Development and Publishing Software for a Five-Year Term, with Two One-Year Optional Extensions for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,322,230. CEQA Status - Not a project.
10. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract C21180768 with Public Safety Innovation, Inc. to Extend Term by One Year and Update the Schedule of Rates at No Additional Not-to- Exceed Financial Authority; CEQA Status - Not a project
11. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 3 to Contract Number C20176367 with LAZ Karp Associates, LLC to Increase the Compensation by $713,311 for a revised total not-to- exceed $3,035,596 and Extend the Term by 18 Months for the Parking Enforcement Program for Residential Preferential Parking Districts; CEQA Status - Not a Project.
12. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to 14 Professional Services Contracts for GIS On-Call Services: C26193271A with Lynx Technologies Inc, C26193271B with Seven Tablets Inc, C26193271C with iSpatial Techno Solutions Inc, C26193271D with Geodesy, C26193271E with UDC, C26193271F with NV5 Geospatial Inc, C26193271G with SSP Innovations, C26193271H with Timmons Group, C26193271I with Infojini Inc, C26193271J with Sybyte Technologies Inc, C26193271K with 360S2G, C26193271L with Enterprise Maps, C26193271M with Farallon Geographics, C26193271N with Arini Geographics, to increase the Not-to-Exceed Compensation by $2,000,000 and Extend the Term for One Year; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
13. Approval of Contract Change Order No. 2 in the Amount of $1,000,000 to Contract No.
C23186274 with Monterey Mechanical Company for On-Call Emergency and Critical Construction Services at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, for a Revised Not-To- Exceed Amount of $4,000,000, and Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S24190553 with Carollo Engineers Inc. for On-call Engineering Services at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant to Increase Compensation by $995,000 for a
3 June 01, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas
.
Revised Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,250,000, and to Extend the Contract Term Through December 31, 2028; CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301
14. Adoption of a Resolution Amending Utilities Rules and Regulations Numbers 02 (Definitions and Abbreviations), 03 (Description of Utility Services), 04 (Application for Service), 05 (Service Contracts), 09 (Disconnection, Termination and Restoration of Service), 10 (Meter Reading), 11 (Billing, Adjustments and Payment of Bills), 18 (Utility Service and Facilities on Customer Premises, 20 (Special Electric Utility Regulations), 21 (Special Water Utility Regulations), 22 (Special Gas Utility Regulations), 23 (Special Wastewater Utility Regulations), and Utility Rate Schedule C-4 (Residential Rate Assistance Program), and Repealing Rule 15 (Metering Equipment); CEQA Status – Not a Project
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS (7:25 - 7:35 PM)
BREAK (15 MINUTES)
4 June 01, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas
.
ACTION ITEMS (Item 15: 7:50 - 8:20 PM, Item 16: 8:20 - 9:20 PM; Item 17: 9:20 - 10:50 PM) Include: Report of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Report of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
15. Adoption of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fiscal Year (FY) 2026- 2027 Annual Action Plan; and Approving Use of CDBG Funds for FY 2026-2027 as Recommended by the Human Relations Commission. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).
16. Outdoor Activation Standards, Pre-Approved Parklet Plans and Public Space Design Concept for the Car-Free Portion of California Avenue; and FIRST READ: Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Sign Code to Streamline Permitting of Signs in Conjunction with a Parklet; CEQA Status - Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
17. Receive Update and Provide Direction to Staff on the Implementation of Senate Bill 79 (SB 79) and the Work Related to the Downtown Housing Plan. Adoption of Two Temporary Ordinances Implementing SB 79, Adopting a Transit Oriented Development Combining District, Excluding Certain Sites from Government Code Section 65912.157, and Authorizing the Planning and Development Services Director to Make Corresponding Updates to the Zone Map. CEQA Status: Exempt Under Government Code section 65912.161(c)(2).
ADJOURNMENT
OTHER INFORMATION
Standing Committee Meetings this week
Finance Committee June 2, 2026 CANCELED
Economic Development Committee June 3, 2026
Public Comment Letters
Schedule of Meetings
5 June 01, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas
.
AMENDED AGENDA ITEMS
1. Proclamation Honoring June 2026 as LGBTQIA+ Pride Month Late Packet Report added
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members
of
the
Public
may
provide
public
comments
to
teleconference
meetings
via
email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments
may be submitted by email to
[email protected]
.
2. For
in
person
public
comments
please
complete
a
speaker
request
card
located
on
the
table
at
the
entrance
to
the
Council
Chambers
and
deliver
it
to
the
Clerk
prior
to
discussion of the item.
3. Spoken
public
comments
for
agendized
items
using
a
computer
or
smart
phone
will
be
accepted
through
the
teleconference
meeting.
To
address
the
Council,
click
on
the
link
below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦
You
may
download
the
Zoom
client
or
connect
to
the
meeting
in-
browser.
If
using
your
browser,
make
sure
you
are
using
a
current,
up-to-date
browser:
Chrome
30 ,
Firefox
27 ,
Microsoft
Edge
12 ,
Safari
7 .
Certain
functionality
may
be
disabled
in
older
browsers
including
Internet
Explorer.
Or
download
the
Zoom
application
onto
your
smart
phone
from
the
Apple
App
Store
or
Play
Store
and
enter
in
the
Meeting ID below.
◦
You
may
be
asked
to
enter
an
address
and
name.
We
request
that
you
identify
yourself
by
name
as
this
will
be
visible
online
and
will
be
used
to
notify
you
that it is your turn to speak.
◦
When
you
wish
to
speak
on
an
Agenda
Item,
click
on
“raise
hand.”
The
Clerk
will
activate
and
unmute
speakers
in
turn.
Speakers
will
be
notified
shortly
before
they
are called to speak.
◦
When
called,
please
limit
your
remarks
to
the
time
limit
allotted.
A
timer
will
be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
4. Spoken
public
comments
for
agendized
items
using
a
phone
use
the
telephone
number
listed
below.
When
you
wish
to
speak
on
an
agenda
item
hit
*9
on
your
phone
so
we
know
that
you
wish
to
speak.
You
will
be
asked
to
provide
your
first
and
last
name
before
addressing
the
Council.
You
will
be
advised
how
long
you
have
to
speak.
When
called
please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN
Meeting ID: 362-027-238 Phone: 1-669-900-6833
Americans
with
Disability
Act
(ADA)
It
is
the
policy
of
the
City
of
Palo
Alto
to
offer
its
public
programs,
services
and
meetings
in
a
manner
that
is
readily
accessible
to
all.
Persons
with
disabilities
who
require
materials
in
an
appropriate
alternative
format
or
who
require
auxiliary
aids
to
access
City
meetings,
programs,
or
services
may
contact
the
City’s
ADA
Coordinator
at
(650)
329-2550
(voice)
or
by
emailing
Requests
for
assistance
or
accommodations
must
be
submitted
at
least
24 hours
in
advance
of
the
meeting,
program,
or
service.
6 June 01, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas
.
California
Government
Code
§84308
,
commonly
referred
to
as
the
"Levine
Act,"
prohibits
an
elected
official
of
a
local
government
agency
from
participating
in
a
proceeding
involving
a
license,
permit,
or
other
entitlement
for
use
if
the
official
received
a
campaign
contribution
exceeding
$500
from
a
party
or
participant,
including
their
agents,
to
the
proceeding
within
the
last
12 months.
A
“license,
permit,
or
other
entitlement
for
use”
includes
most
land
use
and
planning
approvals
and
the
approval
of
contracts
that
are
not
subject
to
lowest
responsible
bid
procedures
and
have
a
value
over
$50,000.
A
“party”
is
a
person
who
files
an
application
for,
or
is
the
subject
of,
a
proceeding
involving
a
license,
permit,
or
other
entitlement
for
use.
A
“participant”
is
a
person
who
actively
supports
or
opposes
a
particular
decision
in
a
proceeding
involving
a
license,
permit,
or
other
entitlement
for
use,
and
has
a
financial
interest
in
the
decision.
The
Levine
Act
incorporates
the
definition
of
“financial
interest”
in
the
Political
Reform
Act,
which
encompasses
interests
in
business
entities,
real
property,
sources
of
income,
sources
of
gifts,
and
personal
finances
that
may
be
affected
by
the
Council’s
actions.
If
you
qualify
as
a
“party”
or
“participant”
to
a
proceeding,
and
you
have
made
a
campaign
contribution
to
a
Council
Member
exceeding
$500
made
within
the
last
12 months,
you
must
disclose
the
campaign contribution before making your comments.
7 June 01, 2026
Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas
.
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 1, 2026
Report #:2605-6410
TITLE
Proclamation Honoring June 2026 as LGBTQIA+ Pride Month This proclamation will be a late packet report published on May 28, 2026.
APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 1
Item 1 Staff Report
Item 1: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 8 of 441
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Police
Meeting Date: June 1, 2026
Report #:2605-6381
TITLE
Study Session on Flock Automated License Plate Recognition Technology; CEQA status – categorically exempt.
BACKGROUND
In April 2023, the City Council approved a three-year contract with Flock Safety (hereinafter “Flock”) for the deployment of twenty fixed automated license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras, as well as the associated Surveillance Use Policy.1 Based on the success of the first twenty ALPR cameras deployed, and the identification of specific areas where additional cameras would be useful, in December of 2024, the Council approved a five-year contract, which deployed ten additional ALPR cameras and extended the term of the contract for all thirty cameras thru December of 2029.2
In mid-2023, unbeknownst to many law enforcement agencies including PAPD, Flock had added a new “Nationwide Lookup” search feature. Using this feature, an out-of-state local law enforcement or federal agency could perform a broad search of data from Flock’s entire nationwide network of over 6000 cameras belonging to more than 4000 agencies, including the 20 cameras then-deployed in Palo Alto. The feature did not enable targeted searches of any specific agency’s data. These searches could only be performed system- wide and only when a full 7-digit license plate number was known. All searches required articulation of a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
1 City Council, April 3, 2023; Agenda Item #11; SR2301-0741, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82232&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=35d2643 9-835f-4015-b198-79ecd7231a2e
2 City Council, December 2, 2024; Agenda Item #11; SR #2408-3360, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83107&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=06637a23 -cd9f-4a28-be10-dbc21253f3c9&cr=1
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 9 of 441
PAPD was first made aware of this issue in December 2025 and subsequently learned that Flock had already disabled the feature for PAPD by late October 2024 and for all California law enforcement agencies by March 2025.
ANALYSIS
Overview
Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology uses a combination of cameras and computer software to scan the license plates of passing vehicles. The cameras, which are mounted to fixed infrastructure (e.g., lamp posts or street signs), capture computer- readable images that allow law enforcement to compare plate numbers against plates of known stolen vehicles or vehicles associated with missing persons or individuals wanted on criminal charges. When a match is found, a real-time alert is generated, notifying police of the location where the image of the stolen or wanted vehicle was captured. ALPR data is also used by investigators, after a crime has been committed, to identify and locate associated vehicles.
PAPD Use
The deployment of Flock fixed ALPR cameras in Palo Alto began in July of 2023, with the first twenty cameras operational by November of 2023, and a total of thirty cameras operational by March of 2025. The Department has used these cameras to great effect. Real-time alerts generated by the ALPR cameras have resulted in the recovery of dozens of stolen vehicles and stolen license plates, and the apprehension of numerous wanted persons. In addition, ALPR has been used to safely locate multiple missing persons. Data captured by the ALPR cameras has also assisted investigators in the after-the-fact identification and arrest of numerous felony suspects. Just a few notable examples to illustrate the variety of successful applications of Flock ALPR in Palo Alto over the past 22 months include:
An elderly man, who suffers from dementia, was discovered to have taken his caregiver’s vehicle without permission and was missing. Flock data was used to determine his path of travel and, ultimately, locate him safely within the hour; A despondent teenager suffering from a mental health crisis had made threats of suicide before leaving home in a vehicle. Flock data was used to determine their path of travel and a Flock real-time alert allowed officers to locate them safely and ensure they received appropriate care;
Two suspects committed an armed robbery in Palo Alto after having just committed an armed robbery in another city. A Flock real-time alert allowed officers to locate the vehicle’s direction of travel within minutes, and additional Flock alerts in another city aided officers as they pursued the vehicle, apprehended the suspects, and recovered multiple firearms;
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 10 of 441
Two suspects committed a robbery at a shopping center and injured a police officer during their escape. Palo Alto Flock data was used to identify the suspects and Flock data in other cities enabled PAPD detectives to locate the suspect vehicle and, ultimately, arrest both suspects within 24 hours.
A suspect was arrested in connection with a series of felony retail thefts in Palo Alto and other cities throughout the region. Investigators were able to strengthen their case by combining Flock data from Palo Alto and other cities to confirm that the suspect’s vehicle had, in fact, been in the area of each of the thefts at the times of the thefts.
Two suspects, responsible for dozens of residential burglaries throughout the region (including multiple occupied burglaries in Palo Alto), were identified and arrested through the investigative use of Flock data captured in multiple jurisdictions. The suspects were ultimately located and arrested in another city with the help of Flock data.
A Flock real-time alert notified officers of the presence in Palo Alto of a vehicle wanted in connection with a shooting homicide in another city. PAPD officers located the vehicle and arrested the homicide suspect.
To derive maximum benefit with the fewest cameras needed, the Department has placed its cameras at strategically selected locations based on several factors: crime statistics, common vehicular ingress and egress points, and traffic volume. The cameras at these locations have proven to be effective at providing officers with real-time alerts when vehicles of interest enter or flee the City via the most common ingress and egress points.
The cameras are placed on roadways with high traffic volume, with an emphasis on ingress and egress routes and commercial and retail areas.
Applicable Law and Policy
California Civil Code § 1798.90.55 expressly prohibits sharing ALPR data with out of state or federal agencies. Additionally, California Government Code § 7284 et seq. (known as the California Values Act) prohibits the use or sharing of ALPR for immigration enforcement purposes.
Beyond the restrictions imposed by California law, the Department’s Fixed ALPR surveillance use policy, approved by the City Council in 2023,5 provides in relevant part:
Data is only accessible to trained PAPD staff with a legitimate law enforcement need, and all queries are logged and subject to audit.
5 Approval of the policy is available at: City Council, April 3, 2023, Action Minutes, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=43006 Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 11 of 441
The Department only shares its data with other local law enforcement agencies with whom an MOU is in place, and does not share data with any non-law enforcement entities.
Data not saved as evidence in a specific criminal investigation is purged after 30 days.
The Department makes accessible to the public, via its ALPR webpage,7 relevant policies as well as information concerning the number of cameras deployed, the data retention period, and the names of law enforcement agencies with whom it shares data by agreement. Flock Safety also maintains a publicly accessible Transparency Portal8 containing much of the same information.
Palo Alto Data Sharing
While its data was unknowingly included in the “Nationwide Lookup” searchable dataset for a period of time ending in October 2024, PAPD has worked with Flock to confirm that no PAPD data (i.e., license plates captured by Palo Alto cameras) was actually received by any out-of-state agency or federal agency as a result of any “Nationwide Lookup” search. In other words, PAPD had no records that matched the “Nationwide Lookup” searches performed by out of state or federal agencies.
Even though no PAPD data was shared, PAPD reviewed a sampling of the searches performed by out-of-state local law enforcement and federal agencies via the “Nationwide Lookup” feature. The searches it reviewed all appeared to be linked to legitimate law enforcement investigations (e.g., burglary, vehicle theft, assault).3 Additionally, PAPD found that no searches had been performed by ICE, Customs and Border Patrol, or the Department of Homeland Security; keyword searches did not identify any searches that appeared to be associated with immigration enforcement or reproductive rights enforcement.
Flock Updates
Flock has implemented several feature changes in response to concerns regarding potential improper use.9 Among those changes:
Disabling the “Nationwide Lookup” feature for all California agencies; Prohibiting any sharing agreements between California and non-California agencies; 7 City of Palo Alto’s Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) webpage; https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Police/Public-Information-Portal/Automated-License-Plate-Recognition- ALPR
8 Flock Safety, Palo Alto Police Transparency Portal webpage; https://transparency.flocksafety.com/palo-alto-ca-pd 9 Flock Safety, Flock Algins License Plate Reader Technology with State-Specific Legal Frameworks Blog, 2026; https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-aligns-license-plate-reader-technology-with-state-specific-legal-frameworks Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 12 of 441
Requiring a documented FBI National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) case type for all searches to make auditing easier;
Filtering and blocking, by keyword, prohibited searches involving immigration or reproductive healthcare. If a search containing a blocked keyword is attempted, California agency data will not be queried and no data will be returned.
Flock has also expanded its compliance team to ensure that new features are thoroughly vetted for state-specific legal compliance. In addition, Flock is in the process of implementing updated processes for notifying customers of new system functionality and any changes to user settings.
Regional Use of Flock
ALPR technology is widely used throughout Santa Clara County, with Flock being the predominant vendor. Nearly all agencies – as well as most agencies in adjoining counties – share their ALPR data with one another. ALPR data sharing among local law enforcement partners allows agencies to collaboratively investigate, identify and apprehend multi- jurisdictional offenders, or those who commit crimes in one jurisdiction but reside in another. No other fixed-ALPR vendor has significant market share in California.
With that, as a result of recent concerns, several Santa Clara County jurisdictions have re- examined their continued use of Flock ALPR cameras.
The City of Mountain View and Town of Los Altos Hills elected to discontinue use of Flock.
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors aborted its planned roll-out of Flock ALPR cameras and is, instead, exploring alternative ALPR vendors. In the interim, the Sheriff’s Office has also ceased accessing Flock cameras owned by the contract cities of Saratoga and Cupertino.
On the other hand, the city councils of San Jose and Sunnyvale recently approved the continued used of Flock ALPR with some minor policy modifications, and the cities of Santa Clara, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and Los Gatos-Monte Sereno have continued to use Flock ALPR without interruption. The Town of Los Altos has indicated that it intends to continue its use of Flock ALPR and has a pending informational session scheduled for its city council. The City of Campbell is the lone city in the county that has been using an ALPR vendor other than Flock.
In the greater Bay Area region, where Flock is similarly the predominant ALPR vendor, notably, the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Berkeley and East Palo Alto have recently approved the continued use of Flock ALPR, while Santa Cruz has discontinued use.
Menlo Park, Atherton, and Redwood City continue to use Flock ALPR uninterrupted.
Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 13 of 441
Nationwide, nearly 6000 law enforcement agencies in 49 states currently use Flock ALPR cameras, including more than 300 law enforcement agencies in California. In total, fewer than 70 agencies (about 1% of user agencies) nationwide have discontinued their use of Flock (for any reason) since 2025, with fewer than 10 of those in California (about 3% of CA user agencies).
Internal Procedures Updates
The Department continues to use best practices to secure Palo Alto ALPR data, including a 30-day limit on data retention, individual user log-in credentials, mandatory dual authentication, individual MOUs with other agencies for data sharing, and other internal policy controls. Previously, on a quarterly basis, the Department had been reviewing a random sampling of PAPD user searches for compliance with applicable law and policy.
These reviews have not revealed any instances of misuse. In April of 2026, the Department began conducting these PAPD user reviews on a monthly cadence. Additionally, the Department has begun conducting a monthly review of a random sampling of outside agency searches for compliance with applicable law, and a monthly hand-check to ensure that searches have only been conducted by agencies with whom PAPD has a sharing MOU.
Publication of Palo Alto Search Logs
In January 2026, the Department added initial information on this issue to its ALPR webpage and updated that information in February and April 2026, respectively. Also, recognizing public interest in this topic, the Department has posted partially-redacted Flock search logs to its ALPR webpage. These logs include information concerning ALPR queries performed by PAPD users, as well as queries performed by other agencies, that has not previously been released pursuant to a legal exemption. The first logs, covering July of 2023 (when the first Flock camera was installed in Palo Alto) thru March of 2026, were posted on April 21, 2026.
Going forward, the Department will proactively post these logs on a monthly cadence.
Third Party Assessment
PAPD has discussed the City’s concerns with Flock’s executive leadership team and, in response to PAPD’s suggestion, Flock has expressed a strong willingness to cooperate with a third party assessment. While the City Auditor was unable to perform this task, the City has enlisted the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) to address this topic in a special report, which staff anticipates will be presented to Council after the summer recess. The goal of the IPA’s review will be to conduct an operational assessment of Flock’s policies and procedures around security, transparency, sharing compliance, and reporting of system features and changes. In addition, while the Department is confident that its training, Surveillance Use Policy, 30-day data retention period, and requirement of an MOU for each agency with Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 14 of 441
which it shares, meet or exceed industry standards, the IPA will also assess PAPD’s internal policies and procedures with an eye toward areas where it may be able to do even better.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Flock is already contracted with the City. The IPA will complete its review within the terms and funding allocated to its existing annual contract.
Under the terms of the City’s contract with Flock, the City may terminate the contract for convenience, subject to a removal fee of $500 per unit of Flock Hardware. Alternatively, the City may terminate for material breach of the contract, but only after giving 30 days notice and opportunity to Flock to cure the breach. In either case, Flock will refund a pro-rata portion of prepaid fees.13
If the City chose to pursue an alternative ALPR vendor, it is estimated that the process of soliciting proposals, executing a contract, and facilitating installation of new equipment would take 6-12 months. Currently, one-third of the cost of the Flock contract is paid via State of California Organized Retail Theft grant funding; it is unknown if that grant funding could be re- purposed for a different ALPR vendor.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City’s contract with Flock is categorically exempt under CEQA regulation 15321 for enforcement actions.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Council-approved surveillance use policy for Fixed ALPR Technology APPROVED BY:
James Reifschneider, Police Chief
13 City Council, April 3, 2023, Item #11, SR #2301-0741, Attachment A, p.68 Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of Exhibit J in Contract S23187316 between the City of Palo Alto and Flock Group, Inc.; https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82232&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 2
Item 2 Staff Report
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 15 of 441
SurveillanceUsePolicyfor fixed AutomatedLicensePlateRecognition ALPR) Technology
In accordancewith PaloAlto MunicipalCodeSectionPAMC2.30.680(d), the SurveillanceUse Policyfor the PoliceDepartment’suseof fixedALPRtechnologyisasfollows:
1. IntendedPurpose. Thetechnologyisusedby the PaloAlto PoliceDepartmentto convertdataassociatedwith vehiclelicenseplatesandvehicledescriptionsfor official law enforcementpurposes, includingbut not limited to identifyingstolenor wanted vehicles, stolenlicenseplatesandmissingpersons, suspectinterdictionandstolen propertyrecovery.
2. AuthorizedUses. Departmentpersonnelmayonlyaccessandusethe ALPRsystemfor officialandlegitimatelaw enforcementpurposesconsistentwith this Policy.
Thefollowingusesof the ALPRsystemarespecificallyprohibited:
a. Harassmentor Intimidation: It isa violationof this Policyto usethe ALPRsystem to harassand/or intimidate anyindividualor group.
b. PersonalUse: It isa violationof this Policyto usethe ALPRsystemor associatedscanfilesor hot listsfor anypersonalpurpose.
c. FirstAmendmentRights. It isa violationof this policyto usethe LPRsystemor associatedscanfilesor hot listsfor the purposeor knowneffect of infringing uponFirstAmendmentrightsof anyperson.
d. Invasionof Privacy: Exceptwhendonepursuantto a court order suchasa searchwarrant, isa violationof this Policyto utilizethe ALPRto recordlicense platesexceptthoseof vehiclesthat areexposedto publicview (e.g., vehicleson a publicroador street, or that areon privatepropertybut whoselicenseplate(s) arevisiblefrom a publicroad, street, or a placeto whichmembersof the public haveaccess, suchasthe parkinglot of a shopor other businessestablishment).
3. Information Collected. A fixedALPRsystemcapturesthe date, time, location, license plate (state, partial, paper, andno plate), andvehiclecharacteristics (make, model, type, andcolor) of passingvehicles. usingthe PaloAlto PoliceDepartment’sALPR’ssystem andthe vendor’svehicleidentificationtechnology.
4. Safeguards. All datawill be closelysafeguardedandprotectedby both proceduraland technologicalmeans. ThePaloAlto PoliceDepartmentwill observethe following safeguardsregardingaccessto anduseof storeddata (CivilCode § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53):
a. All ALPRdatashallbe accessibleonlythrougha login/password-protected systemcapableof documentingall accessof informationby name, date, and time.
City Council Approved: April 3, 2023
Item 2
Attachment A - Council-
approved surveillance use
policy for Fixed ALPR
Technology
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 16 of 441
b. Personsapprovedto accessALPRdataunderthis policyarepermitted to access the datafor legitimatelaw enforcementpurposesonly, suchaswhenthe data relateto a specificcriminalinvestigation
c. SuchALPRdatamayonlybereleasedto other authorizedandverifiedlocal enforcementofficialsandagenciesfor legitimatelaw enforcementpurposes. d. EveryALPRsysteminquirymustbedocumentedby either the associatedcase numberor incidentnumber, andlawful reasonfor the inquiry.
5. Retention. TheCity’s ALPRvendor, FlockSafety, will storethe data (datahosting) and ensurepropermaintenanceandsecurityof datastoredin their datacenters. Flock Safetywill purgethe data30daysafter collection; however, this will not precludePalo Alto PoliceDepartmentfrom maintaininganyrelevantvehicledataobtainedfrom the systemafter that periodif it hasbecome, or it isreasonableto believeit will become, evidencein a specificcriminalinvestigationor issubjectto a discoveryrequestor other lawful actionto producerecords. In thosecircumstancesthe applicabledatashouldbe downloadedfrom the serveronto portablemediaandbookedinto evidence.
Informationgatheredor collected, andrecordsretainedby FlockSafetycameraswill not be sold, accessed, or usedfor anypurposeother than legitimatelaw enforcementor publicsafetypurposes.
6. Accessby non-CityEntities. TheALPRdatamaybe sharedonlywith other locallaw enforcementor prosecutorialagenciesfor officiallaw enforcementpurposesor as otherwiserequiredby law, andasprovidedbelow:
a. Requests
i. A law enforcementagencymaymakea written requestfor specificdata, includingthe nameof the agencyandthe intendedofficiallaw enforcementpurposefor access
ii. Therequestshallbereviewedby the Chiefof Policeor the authorized designeeandapprovedbeforeaccessisgranted
iii. Theapprovedrequestisretainedon file
iv. Requestsfor ALPRdataby non-law enforcementor non-prosecutorial agencieswill beprocessedby the Department’scustodianof recordsand fulfilled onlyasrequiredby law.
b. Memorandaphilipof Understanding
i. Accessto searchabledataby other locallaw enforcementagenciesshall only begrantedpursuantto anMOUwith that specificagency
ii. SuchMOUwill providethat accesswill onlybeusedfor legitimatelaw enforcementor publicsafetypurposes
c. TheChiefof Policeor the authorizeddesigneewill considerthe CaliforniaValues Act (GovernmentCode § 7282.5; GovernmentCode § 7284.2 et seq), before approvingthe accessto ALPRdata. ThePaloAlto PoliceDepartmentdoesnot permit the sharingof ALPRdatagatheredby the Cityor its
contractors/subcontractorsfor purposeof federalimmigrationenforcement.
City Council Approved: April 3, 2023
Item 2
Attachment A - Council-
approved surveillance use
policy for Fixed ALPR
Technology
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 17 of 441
7. ComplianceProcedures. TheInvestigativeServicesCaptain (or other police administratorasdesignatedby the PoliceChief) shallbe responsiblefor compliancewith the requirementsof CivilCode § 1798.90.5 et seq. Thisincludes, but isnot limited to CivilCode § 1798.90.51; CivilCode § 1798.90.53):
a. Onlyproperlytrainedswornofficers, crimeanalysts, andpolicestaff areallowed accessto the ALPRsystemor to collectALPRinformation.
b. Ensuringthat trainingrequirementsarecompletedfor authorizedusers. c. ALPRsystemmonitoringto ensurethe securityof the informationand compliancewith applicableprivacylaws.
d. Ensuringthat proceduresarefollowedfor systemoperatorsandto maintain recordsof in compliancewith CivilCode § 1798.90.52.
e. Thetitle andnameof the currentdesigneein overseeingthe ALPRoperationis maintained. Continuallyworkingwith the Custodianof Recordson the retention anddestructionof ALPRdataasrequired.
f. Ensuringthis policyandrelatedproceduresareconspicuouslypostedon the Department’sdedicatedALPRwebsite.
It isthe responsibilityof the InvestigativeServicesCaptain (or other policeadministrator asdesignatedby the PoliceChief) to ensurethat anaudit isconductedof ALPR detectioninquiriesat leastonceduringeachcalendaryear. TheDepartmentwill audit a samplingof the ALPRsystemutilizationfrom the prior 12-month periodto verifyproper usein accordancewith the aboveauthorizeduses. Theaudit shallrandomlyselectat least10detectionbrowsinginquiriesconductedby departmentemployeesduringthe precedingsix-month periodanddetermineif eachinquirymeetsthe requirements establishedby policy. Thisaudit shalltakethe form of aninternalDepartment memorandumto the Chiefof Police. Thememorandumshallincludeanydataerrors foundsothat sucherrorscanbe corrected. After reviewby the Chiefof Police, the memorandumandanyassociateddocumentationshallbe filed andretainedby the Department.
City Council Approved: April 3, 2023
Item 2
Attachment A - Council-
approved surveillance use
policy for Fixed ALPR
Technology
Item 2: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 18 of 441
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 1, 2026
Report #:2605-6363
TITLE
Approval of Minutes from May 11 and May 18, 2026 Meeting
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the minutes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: May 11, 2026 Draft Action Minutes
Attachment B: May 18, 2026 Draft Action Minutes
APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 3
Item 3 Staff Report
Item 3: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 19 of 441
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Special Meeting
May 11, 2026
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 4:30 P.M.
Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Councilmember Reckdahl Arrived at 5:08 P.M.
Present Remotely:
Absent:
Special Orders of the Day
1. City Employee Years of Service Awards and Proclamation acknowledging Public Service Recognition Week
NO ACTION
2. Recognizing May as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) Heritage Month and May 10, 2026 as AANHPI Mental Health Awareness Day Item Removed Off Agenda
AA1. Proclamation Recognizing National Police Week as May 10 -16, 2026 and National Peace Officers' Memorial Day as May 15, 2026 New Item Added
NO ACTION
Closed Session
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: Anne Kramer vs City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 25CV461517
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Item 3
Attachment A - May 11,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 20 of 441
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/11/2026
Agenda Item Number 3 Heard Out of Order
MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Council member Lu to go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Council went into Closed Session at 9:01 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 9:18 P.M.
Mayor Veenker announced that the City Council authorized the City Attorney by vote of 7-0 to enter into a settlement agreement to pay $85 ,000 to resolve the claims against the city in Anne Kramer vs City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 25CV461517.
Mayor Veenker announced that on May 4, 2026, the City Council authorized the City Attorney by a vote of 7-0 to enter into a settlement agreement to establish a process of consideration of an alternative to the proposed Builder’s Remedy development project at 156 North California Avenue. The settlement agreement was finalized on May 7, 2026.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Public Comment
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Study Session
4. FY 2027 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget - Finance Committee Update and Council Budget Discussion. CEQA Status – Not a project
NO ACTION
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Council member Lauing moved, seconded by Council member Reckdahl to approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-6.
Item 3
Attachment A - May 11,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 21 of 441
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/11/2026
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
5. Approval of Issuing Purchase Order C27197248 with Solutions Simplified, Utilizing a State of California Department of General Services Software Licensing Program Contract SLP-25-70-0181H, to Procure Zscaler Software Maintenance and Support for a Three - Year Term for a Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $329,886; CEQA Status - Not a Project.
6. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 4 to Contract C19174648A with VERTEXONE SOFTWARE, LLC for the WaterSmart Utilities Customer Portal, to Extend the Term for Three Additional Years ending August 12, 2029 and Increase Compensation by $140,000, for a Revised Total Not to Exceed of $677,763; CEQA Status – Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308.
City Manager Comments
Ed Shikada, City Manager
Action Items
7. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI -JUDICIAL. 3781 El Camino Real [24PLN -00161]: Request for Approval of Major Architectural Review Application to Merge Four Existing Parcels to Create a 63,025 Square -Foot Parcel and to Construct a Seven -Story, Multi -Family Residential Housing Development Project with 183 Units. Thirteen Percent of The Base Units Would be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with Builder’s Remedy (California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)).
A Senate Bill 330 Pre -Application was Filed on February 15, 2024. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Assembly Bill 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66).
MOTION: Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to:
1. Consider the project exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66); and
2. Approve the Major Architectural Review application based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
8. Expedited Evaluation of the Potential Temporary Closure of the Churchill Avenue Rail Crossing, Determination of Next Steps, and CEQA Status – Statutorily and Categorically Item 3
Attachment A - May 11,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 22 of 441
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Sp. City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/11/2026
Exempt.
(Continued Item from 4/15/2026 – On April 15, 2026, the City Council Received Presentations and Public Testimony; The Item is Continued to May 11, 2026 for further Council Discussion, Deliberation, and Potential Action – No Additional Public Testimony Will be Heard on May 11, 2026.)
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Mayor Veenker to:
A) Direct staff to explore options for a long -term rail crossing guard contract and engage PAUSD through the City School Liaison Committee regarding a potential long -term cost- sharing agreement;
B) Direct the Jed Foundation, as part of its 2026 deliverables, to return to the Rail Committee with targeted recommendations and evidence -based strategies to address safety risks at all four rail crossings, and authorize any budget adjustments necessary to achieve those deliverables;
C) Direct staff and Rail Committee to prioritize and expedite implementation of Quiet Zones at all four rail crossings, with particular emphasis on accelerating the Churchill Avenue crossing Quiet Zone; and
D) Explore gate(s) or other options in collaboration with Caltrain for enhanced enclosure or safety measures in addition to the quad gates.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 P.M.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ____________________
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Action minutes are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
2.04.160(a) and (b). Summary minutes (sense) are prepared in accordance with PAMC Section
2.04.160(c). Beginning in January 2018, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5423, the City Council found action minutes and the video/audio recordings of Council proceedings to be the official records of both Council and committee proceedings. These recordings are available on the City’s website.
Item 3
Attachment A - May 11,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 23 of 441
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
May 18, 2026
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 P.M.
Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Mayor Veenker departed the meeting at 8:30 P.M.
Present Remotely:
Absent:
Special Orders of the Day
1. Recognizing May as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) Heritage Month and May 10, 2026 as AANHPI Mental Health Awareness Day
NO ACTION
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Public Comment
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Consent Calendar
Mayor Veenker and Councilmember Lu recused from Agenda item Number 11.
Councilmember Lauing, Burt, and Lythcott-Haims requested to pull Agenda Item Number 12.
Item 3
Attachment B - May 18,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 24 of 441
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/18/2026
MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2- 7, 9-1 1 and to pull A genda Item Number 12 off of the Consent Calendar (Agenda Item Number 8 Removed Off Agenda).
MOTION PASSED ITEMS 2-7, 9-10: 7-0
MOTION PASSED ITEM 11: 5-0-2, Veenker, Lu recused
2. Approval of Minutes from May 4, 2026 Meeting
3. 2026 Council Priorities & Objectives Q1 Update
4. Adoption of a Resolution Vacating a Portion of a Public Utility Easement at 590 Maybell Avenue; CEQA Status – Exempt under Cal. Code Regs. Title 14, Section 15305
5. Adoption of a Resolution for Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act, for Fiscal Year 2027, Providing the Project List for the Street Maintenance Project, Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070; CEQA Status – Not a Project
6. Adoption of Resolution Suspending the Levy of Assessments on the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (BID) Assessment for Fiscal Year 2027; CEQA status – not a project.
7. Adopt a Resolution Approving Amendment Number 1 to California Board of State and Community Corrections Agreement Number BSCC 1164 -23 for Organized Retail Theft Grant to Extend the Term One Year with No Change to the Not- To-Exceed Total; CEQA status—not a project.
8. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Borrowing of Funds on an Interim Basis for Improvements to the City's Regional Water Quality Control Plant and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Revolving Credit Agreement and Related Note; CEQA Status - Not a Project Item Removed Off Agenda
9. Approval of Construction Contract No. C26197232 with Selway Construction, Inc. in the Amount Not-to of $261,600 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders for Related Additional but Unforeseen Work that may Develop During the Project Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $26,160 for Site Work for a New Modular Restroom Building at Mitchell Park for the Park Restroom Installation Capital Improvement Project (PG-19000); CEQA status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303
10. Approval of Construction Contract No. C26197180 with Casey Construction, Inc. in the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $544,556 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders for Related Additional but Unforeseen Work that May Develop During the Project Up to a Not -to-Exceed Amount Item 3
Attachment B - May 18,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 25 of 441
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/18/2026
of $54,456 for the Storm Drainage System Replacement and Rehabilitation Project (SD - 06101); CEQA status – Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c)
11. Approve Amendment Number 2 to Contract C3780 with Stanford University, to Extend the Contract Term to September 30, 2027 for Public Safety Dispatch Services Provided to the Main Campus of Stanford University; CEQA status—not a project.
12. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI -JUDICIAL. 4103 Old Trace Road [25PLN -00298]: Request for Approval of a Tentative Map to Allow for the Subdivision of a Vacant 1.02 -Acre Lot to Create Nine Residential Lots and One Private Street to Facilitate Construction of Nine New Single -Family Residences and Seven Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (25PLN - 00296). CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Assembly Bill 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66). Zone District: RE (Residential Estate) Item Removed Off Consent Calendar to Be Heard on Action
City Manager Comments
Ed Shikada, City Manager
Action Items
13. Cubberley Project: Adopt the Cubberley Conceptual Master Plan and a Resolution Adopting the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program; Receive the Fourth Round of Community Polling Results; and Provide Direction on Next Steps for a Possible Sales Tax Ballot Measure. CEQA Status - A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS- MND) Report Circulated for Public Review from March 2, 2026, to April 1, 2026. The City published the Final IS- MND on April 9, 2026.
MOTION: Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to:
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the Final Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and associated Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A); and
2. Adopt the Cubberley Conceptual Master Plan (Attachment B); and
3. Direct staff to pursue a ballot measure for a one -half-cent sales tax in the November 2026 election.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Item 3
Attachment B - May 18,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 26 of 441
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/18/2026
14. Update Regarding the Builder’s Remedy Project at 156 California Avenue and Consideration of Adding Lot B (APN 124 -28-003) Associated with the Development to the City’s Housing Element Sites Inventory.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Council member Lythcott-Haims to direct the Planning and Development Services Director to add Lot A (APN 124 -28-045) to the Housing Element Sites Inventory.
MOTION PASSED: 4-2-1, Reckdahl, Burt no, Veenker absent
15. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Various Sections of Title 16 (Building Regulations) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Retail Vitality Policies in the Comprehensive Plan, including changes to the Zoning Map for parcels zoned CN(GF). CEQA Status: The Ordinance is Consistent with and Represents Implementation of Adopted Policies in the Comprehensive Plan, for Which an Environmental Impact Report (Comprehensive Plan EIR) was Certified on February 5, 2016.
Agenda Item Number 15 not heard and deferred to a date uncertain.
12. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI -JUDICIAL. 4103 Old Trace Road [25PLN -00298]: Request for Approval of a Tentative Map to Allow for the Subdivision of a Vacant 1.02 -Acre Lot to Create Nine Residential Lots and One Private Street to Facilitate Construction of Nine New Single -Family Residences and Seven Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (25PLN - 00296). CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Assembly Bill 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66). Zone District: RE (Residential Estate) MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone to:
1. Consider the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Assembly Bill 130 (Public Resources Code section 21080.66); and,
2. Approve the Tentative Map application pursuant to findings and subject to conditions of approval set forth in Attachment A (Draft Record of Land Use Action) of the supplementary report.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1, Veenker absent
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.M.
Item 3
Attachment B - May 18,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 27 of 441
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 05/18/2026
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ ____________________
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Action minutes are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
2.04.160(a) and (b). Summary minutes (sense) are prepared in accordance with PAMC Section
2.04.160(c). Beginning in January 2018, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5423, the City Council found action minutes and the video/audio recordings of Council proceedings to be the official records of both Council and committee proceedings. These recordings are available on the City’s website.
Item 3
Attachment B - May 18,
2026 Draft Action Minutes
Item 3: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 28 of 441
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 Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 29 of 441
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.
In December 2024, staff held a preliminary discussion on rent stabilization with the Housing Ad Hoc Committee. That committee deferred further consideration until first-year RRP data could inform the discussion. Following the disbanding of the Housing Ad Hoc, Council directed staff to bring the item to the P&S Committee. On March 10, 2026, following the close of the open registration period for Program Year 2 of the RRP, the P&S Committee held a discussion of both the potential expansion of the program and further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization ordinance. This discussion resulted in the recommendation transmitted by this report.
ANALYSIS
The March 10, 2026, P&S staff report3 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.
Rental Registry Program — First Year Findings
The P&S Committee concurred with the staff assessment that RRP Program Year 1 data did not demonstrate a pattern of widespread, acute rent increases that would warrant establishing a new local rent stabilization program. Key findings from the RRP's first year, based on self-reported data from registered properties, include:
• Occupancy and vacancy: A 94.79% occupancy rate and 5.21% vacancy rate across 7,653 registered units.
• Rents: Median monthly rents for non-discounted market-rate units ranged from $2,095 (studio) to $4,495 (three-bedroom).
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
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 30 of 441
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.
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 31 of 441
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.
Next Steps
No additional further action is required if this report is approved. The City Council may direct staff to revisit the extension of the rental registry to more units or local renter protection policy approaches, such as rent stabilization, at any point in the future should data or market conditions change.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact; approval does not require any additional staffing or funding.
If the Council were to pursue a rent stabilization ordinance or expand the RRP to properties with fewer than three units in the future, staff estimate significant resource requirements: approximately five additional full-time employees and approximately $2 million in annual costs for a rent stabilization program, or at least one additional full-time employee for RRP expansion. Any such future program would require separate Council action with accompanying fiscal analysis. More information is included in the attached report.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholder engagement for this item was conducted in connection with the March 10, 2026, Policy and Services Committee meeting. Staff maintained a list of interested groups and individuals and notified them of the P&S discussion following publication of the March 10 staff report. Targeted outreach was also conducted to representatives from the California Apartment Association, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Public Advocates, Tenants Together, Palo Alto Forward, and Silicon Valley at Home. All property owners and representatives who had participated in the Rental Registry Program were also notified of the upcoming policy discussion. Several members of the public provided comment at the March 10, 2026, P&S meeting. Their comments are reflected in the P&S Summary Minutes from that meeting (Attachment A to this report).
Additionally, Staff sent email communications to representatives from the California Apartment Association, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Public Advocates, Tenants Together, Palo Alto Forward, and Silicon Valley at Home in mid-May informing these stakeholder groups of the P&S Committee’s March 10 recommendation and of Council’s expected consideration of this recommendation on consent in early June.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
City Council 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 deferral of further consideration of rental registry expansion and a possible rent stabilization ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 32 of 441
9 6
4 2
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: March 10, 2026 Staff Report
Attachment B: March 10, 2026 Summary Minutes
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 4
Item 4 Staff Report
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 33 of 441
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 and the 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 and responds 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 units registered. Key findings based on landlords’ self-reported data include a 5.21% vacancy rate, median monthly rents for non- discounted market rate units ranging from $2,095 (studio) to $4,495 (three-bedroom), and moderate rent increase activity with almost two thirds of market rate units reporting no change in rent. Detailed Program Year 1 data is provided in Attachment A.
Regarding rent stabilization, this report 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 Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 34 of 441
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
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 35 of 441
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
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 36 of 441
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 Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 37 of 441
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).
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 38 of 441
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 Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 39 of 441
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).
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 40 of 441
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 units28 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).
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 41 of 441
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).
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 42 of 441
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.
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 43 of 441
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.
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 44 of 441
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
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 45 of 441
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
Completed Registration 414 (95.4%) 7,653 (97.9%)
Open/Payment Pending 4 (0.9%) 20 (0.3%)
Exempted from Program Year 1 16 (3.7%) 148 (1.9%)
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.
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 46 of 441
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
Studio ±500 1,197 15.64%
1-Bedroom ±700 3,310 43.25%
2-Bedroom ±1,000 2,689 35.14%
3-Bedroom ±1,250 428 5.59%
4+ Bedroom +1,500 29 0.38%
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 Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 47 of 441
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
Studio $2,095 $1,895 $2,395
1-Bedroom $2,600 $2,300 $3,000
2-Bedroom $3,295 $2,895 $3,846
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 48 of 441
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 Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 49 of 441
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
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 50 of 441
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 Item 4
Attachment A - March 10,
2026 Staff Report,
Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 51 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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
[email protected]
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 52 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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%) 20 Units (0.3%)
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 2 Properties 160 Units
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.
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 53 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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)
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 54 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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 ±700 3,310 43.25%
2-Bedroom ±1,000 2,689 35.14%
3-Bedroom ±1,250 428 5.59%
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
Size of Unit (SqFt)
Number of Bedrooms in Unit
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 55 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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)
506
1405
3790
749
1125 78
Year Built
1. Pre-1940 2. 1940–1959 3. 1960–1979 4. 1980–1999 5. 2000–2019 6. 2020+ Number of Rental Units
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
28 Packet Pg. 56 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 57 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 7
Auto Parking
Figure 5: Program Year 1 Auto Parking Availability for Rental Units (7,653 Registered Units) 6932
251 470
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Parking Included in Rent Parking Available for
Additional Fee
No Parking Offered
Number of Rental Units
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 58 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 8
Stability and Turnover
Figure 6: Program Year 1 Tenure Length for Renters (7,136 Registered Units)
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
31 Packet Pg. 59 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM DATA 9
Figure 7: Program Year 1 Lease Lengths for Renter Occupied Units (7,127 Registered Units)
4749
2027
101 250
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1-Year Lease Month-to-Month
Lease
N/A Other Lease Length
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
32 Packet Pg. 60 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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
Occupied by Property
Manager 46 10 15 1 3 - 75
Occupied by Renter 3,889 1,285 981 554 418 - 7,127
Occupied by Rent-Free
Occupant
12 1 2 - 15
Vacant - Available for Rent 22 - 7 3 1 249 282
Vacant - Not Available for
Rent 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.
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
33 Packet Pg. 61 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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) Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
34 Packet Pg. 62 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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
Discount
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
Discount
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
Discount
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
Discount
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.
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
35 Packet Pg. 63 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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
Unit Tenure Length
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
36 Packet Pg. 64 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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
During Open Registration
(October 1, 2024 – April 6, 2025) 3 1 641 28 59 102 100 105 62 20 21 40 6 20 1,208 Between 0 and 0.5 Years
Prior to Open Registration 8 0 1039 21 86 110 122 103 58 28 16 13 23 11 1,638 Between 0.5 and 1 Years
Prior to Open Registration 4 1 430 13 36 49 71 90 44 17 5 6 11 8 785 Between 1.0 and 1.5 Years
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 249 7 15 11 20 27 15 6 8 8 11 1 378 Between 1.5 and 2.0 Years
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 111 3 4 8 5 14 10 1 1 1 5 0 163 Before
October 2022
Between 2.0 and 2.5 Years
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 181 1 1 5 11 13 5 0 3 7 4 2 233 Between 2.5 and 3.0 Years
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 61 0 0 2 1 0 6 2 2 1 0 1 76 Between 3.0 and 3.5 Years
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 59 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 Between 3.5 and 4.0 Years
Prior to Open Registration 0 1 49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 55 Between 4.0 and 4.5 Years
Prior to Open Registration 0 0 38 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 44 Between 4.5 and 5.0 Years
Prior to Open Registration 1 0 29 1 7 5 11 4 4 1 3 0 0 2 68 Over 5 Years
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
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
37 Packet Pg. 65 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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.
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
38 Packet Pg. 66 of 441
PROGRAM YEAR 1 (FY 2024-2025) 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,
Other)
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%)
Item 4
Attachment A - March 10, 2026 Staff Report, Attachment & Exhibit
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
39 Packet Pg. 67 of 441
POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE
SUMMARY MINUTES
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 P age 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 f ramework discussed by P&S in Nov ember 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 o perates 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 compar ed to City rates for similar facilities . The lease Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
40 Packet Pg. 68 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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 $14 K 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, Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
41 Packet Pg. 69 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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 s uggested 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 cost s $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 c lasses and clubs for youth should take precedent but when the courts are available and not being used, such as weekdays Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
42 Packet Pg. 70 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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 W inter 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 Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
43 Packet Pg. 71 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
Policy & Services Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 3/10/2026
Finance and P&S Committees in th e 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 w ere confirmed though developer interviews . Office sites outperform ed 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.
Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
44 Packet Pg. 72 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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, reduc ing 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 P roject 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 Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
45 Packet Pg. 73 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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 th e 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 s treamlining 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 recommend ation 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 Cit y's rental landscape and offers Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
46 Packet Pg. 74 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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 consider ed 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 estimate d 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 un it. 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 e xpressed 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 B abbar 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 t he recommendation to indefinitely defer a rent stabilization program is a data- driven one.
Anil Babbar p ointed 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 t he 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 Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
47 Packet Pg. 75 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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, r ent 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 increasin g, 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. c alled 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 s tated there is no need for rent control or stabilization and highlighted the many unintended consequences that would go with it.
Vice Mayor Stone exp ressed support for the staff recommendation but noted the importance of the Rental Registry Program in bringing important data t hat 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 t he data does not show it is necessary and the significant cost is alarming. Vice Mayor Stone believed t he 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.
Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
48 Packet Pg. 76 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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 review ing Flock as a vendor is important but Baker Tilly completed its conflict -of-interest check and recuse d 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.
Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
49 Packet Pg. 77 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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 e ncouraged 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 contract s 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 s tated that one of the cameras in Palo Alto is located on the corner where many protests take place and u rged 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. d isagreed 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. i nsisted 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 Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
50 Packet Pg. 78 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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 e xpressed 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 Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
51 Packet Pg. 79 of 441
SUMMARY MINUTES
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.
Item 4
Attachment B - March 10,
2026 Summary Minutes
Item 4: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 80 of 441
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: June 1, 2026
Report #:2603-6178
TITLE
Approval of and Authorization to execute Purchase Orders with Jensen Precast and Oldcastle Infrastructure for the Purchase of Electric Utility Underground Boxes Not to Exceed $800,000 per year, for a Total Aggregate Not-to-Exceed Amount of $4,000,000 for Five Years; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute purchase orders as requested by the Utilities Department with Jensen Precast and Oldcastle Infrastructure for the purchase of electric utility underground boxes not-to-exceed $800,000 per year for a total aggregate amount not-to-exceed $4,000,000 for five years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Utilities Department is requesting Council approve and authorize the purchase orders for precast concrete underground utility boxes and equipment pads with aggregate annual expenditures of up to $800,000 per year, for a total aggregate not-to-exceed amount of $4,000,000 over five years.
Underground boxes and equipment pads are essential components of the City’s electric distribution system, supporting capital improvement projects, system upgrades, undergrounding efforts, and new customer connections. Due to increasing infrastructure demands and capital project activity like Grid Modernization, current annual spending limits have become insufficient to meet operational needs.
Through a formal prequalification process, Jensen Precast and Oldcastle Infrastructure were evaluated and determined to meet the City’s technical, quality, and delivery requirements.
Establishing multiple prequalified manufacturers will enhance supply reliability, maintain competitive pricing, and improve responsiveness to project and service demands.
Item 5
Item 5 Staff Report
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 81 of 441
Under this authorization, the Utilities Department will procure materials on an as-needed basis by soliciting competitive quotes from the prequalified vendors, ensuring best value while maintaining flexibility.
BACKGROUND
The Utilities Department utilizes precast concrete underground boxes and equipment pads as part of the electric distribution system to provide reliable service to customers throughout the City. These facilities house primary and secondary conductors, splices, switching equipment, and transformers necessary for capital improvement projects, underground conversion work, system upgrades, and new customer connections.
Manufacturers supplying underground boxes to the City must comply with City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) technical specifications, structural loading requirements (heavy traffic-rated applications), seismic criteria, and applicable ANSI and ASTM standards. Because these assets are safety-critical, long-lived, and installed in public right-of-way, strict adherence to specifications and consistent product quality are essential.
The City of Palo Alto has previously maintained contracts with Oldcastle Infrastructure for the purchase of underground vaults and equipment pads, with Council authorization to spend up to $350,000 per year. Over the past several years, Utilities expenditures have consistently approached that annual limit due to increased capital project activity, underground conversion work, reconstruction of existing underground districts, and customer-driven service upgrades.
As system demands have grown, the existing authorization level has become increasingly constrained.
Based on historical expenditures and anticipated capital improvement program (CIP) activity— including Grid Modernization, underground conversions, reliability improvements, and customer-driven development—staff estimates that annual expenditures for underground boxes and pads may reach up to $800,000 in aggregate over the next five years.
ANALYSIS
Consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s Policies and Procedures 1–44/ASD, “Prequalification of Contractors,” the Utilities Department conducted a prequalification process for utility underground box manufacturers.
The prequalification evaluation included:
Ability to meet CPAU technical and structural specifications Compliance with applicable industry standards
Demonstrated manufacturing capacity and quality control processes Delivery lead times and supply chain reliability
Product performance history and utility references
Item 5
Item 5 Staff Report
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 82 of 441
Ability to accommodate City-standard designs and custom configurations Following evaluation, Jensen Precast and Oldcastle Infrastructure were determined to meet the City’s requirements and were selected as prequalified manufacturers.
Both manufacturers maintain a significant operational presence within California, with regional production facilities capable of fabricating and delivering heavy precast concrete products to the Bay Area. Underground vaults and transformer pads can weigh several thousand to over 20,000 pounds, requiring specialized handling and transportation. Having manufacturing facilities in relatively close proximity to Palo Alto reduces transportation time, lowers risk of delivery delays, minimizes freight costs, and improves responsiveness for urgent or unplanned system needs. Local production capability also helps mitigate supply chain disruptions and supports timely delivery for capital projects and customer service installations.
The City’s standard underground boxes and pads that will be procured under this authorization include, but are not limited to:
Standard primary splice vaults (e.g., 4’x8’, 5’x10’, and 6’x12’ configurations) Secondary/service pull boxes (traffic-rated and non-traffic-rated) Three-phase pad-mounted transformer pads (various kVA sizes) Single-phase transformer pads
Switchgear and sectionalizing switch pads
Vaults and large equipment enclosures for downtown installations As materials are required, staff will solicit competitive quotations from the prequalified manufacturers. Purchase orders will be issued based on technical compliance, delivery schedule, and lowest evaluated price.
Accordingly, staff requests authorization to spend up to $800,000 per year in aggregate with the two prequalified manufacturers for a five-year period, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $4,000,000. This structure maintains competitive pricing while providing operational flexibility to meet infrastructure needs. The materials come in various sizes and styles to meet unique design requirements and field conditions. With multiple prequalified manufacturers, the City will have more available options and lowest pricing to select from.
Any additional manufacturer may request prequalification in the future and will be evaluated using the same established criteria and under the same aggregate term of $800,000 per year or $4,000,000 over the five-year period.
Item 5
Item 5 Staff Report
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 83 of 441
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding is available within the FY 2026 Electric CIP budget across multiple CIP projects (Electric Customer Connections, Electric System Improvements, Grid Modernization, and Underground District Projects). Funding for subsequent fiscal years will be subject to Council approval through the annual budget process. If additional funding is required in future years, staff will return to Council for approval through the budget process or a budget amendment.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Approval of this prequalification process and expenditure authorization is consistent with existing City procurement policies and supports the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan objectives, including: Ensuring a reliable and resilient electric utility system; Operating utility infrastructure safely and efficiently; and Supporting timely customer service connections and capital project delivery. This action does not modify existing City policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The authorization to purchase underground utility boxes and pads does not constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as it is an administrative procurement action. Environmental review will be conducted as required for individual capital improvement projects that utilize these materials.
APPROVED BY:
Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities
Staff: Jim Pachikara, Principal Engineer Electric & Fiber Utilities Item 5
Item 5 Staff Report
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 84 of 441
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: IT Department
Meeting Date: June 1, 2026
Report #:2603-6181
TITLE
Approval of Purchase Order C27197327 with Carahsoft Technology Corporation to Procure DocuSign eSignature Software, Utilizing OMNIA cooperative contract no. R240303 for a One- Year Term for a Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $145,180; CEQA Status - Not a Project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Purchase Order C27197327 with Carahsoft Technology Corporation, utilizing an OMNIA cooperative contract no. R2403031, to procure DocuSign eSignature software for a one- year term through July 31, 2027, with a total Not-To-Exceed amount $145,180.
BACKGROUND
City of Palo Alto began using DocuSign on April 30, 2015, to improve operational efficiency by enabling digital signatures, electronic forms, and automated workflows.
In July 2018, the City procured DocuSign services through Carahsoft Technology Corporation using the State of California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS), achieving approximately 50% savings off list price and leveraging pre-negotiated terms and conditions. The purchase was made under PAMC section 2.30.360(j) through a CMAS cooperative purchasing agreement. The City renewed DocuSign services through CMAS in 2019, 2020, and 2021. On September 27, 2021, City Council authorized Purchase Order C22183161 with Carahsoft for a three-year term (August 23, 2021 - August 22, 2024), with annual fees of $126,753 and a not-to-exceed amount of $380,2582.
1 OMNIA Software Solutions and Services Contract R240303:
https://www.omniapartners.com/suppliers/carahsoft/public-sector/contract-documents#contract-2098 2 September 27, 2021 Report, Item #6, page 67, is available to view at https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2282&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=2a644ec9- 3994-454c-90bc-d82144741806
Item 6
Item 6 Staff Report
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 85 of 441
Following the CMAS term, City Council approved extensions through OMNIA cooperative contracts. On September 9, 2024, Council approved Purchase Order C25192371 under OMNIA contract no. 23-6692-0115 to extend services through August 2025, not-to-exceed $125,9655.
On August 18, 2025, Council approved Purchase Order C26195602 under OMNIA contract no.
R240303 to extend services through July 31, 2026, not-to-exceed $145,1806.
ANALYSIS
DocuSign supports City operations by allowing staff to route, review, approve, and execute documents electronically from any device. The platform improves visibility into document status through real-time tracking, which helps departments complete approvals more efficiently and reduces manual follow-up.
Since the City began using DocuSign, the platform has also provided sustainability benefits, including an estimated 4,081,716 sheets of paper saved, 441 trees preserved, 432,662 gallons of water conserved, 38,239 pounds of CO2 emissions avoided, and 23,878 pounds of printing-, postage-, and storage-related waste eliminated.
Envelope activity over the last three years demonstrates sustained demand and broad Citywide use of the platform:
2023: 25,671 envelopes
2024: 25,480 envelopes
2025: 26,152 envelopes
Current-term usage and performance metrics for the period August 1, 2025, through July 31, 2026, show continued reliance on the system:
Envelopes purchased: 28,000
Envelopes used to date: 15,852
Projected usage by end of term: 24,242
Active users: 484 staff
Average time to fully execute a document: 3.1 days
Transactions completed within 24 hours: 63.6%
This procurement leverages the OMNIA Software Solutions and Services Contract No. R240303, through which the Region 4 Education Service Center (Region 4 ESC) conducted a competitive solicitation and awarded Carahsoft as an approved vendor. This allows eligible public agencies 5 September 9, 2024 Report, Item #11, is available to view at https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82997&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 6 August 18. 2025 Report, Item # 11, is available to view at https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83556&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 6
Item 6 Staff Report
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 86 of 441
to use competitively solicited terms and pricing, including faster deployment, discounts off MSRP, expedited response times, and 24/7 support.
In addition, because the City is renewing its subscription for the same term length and the same eSignature Enterprise Pro for Local Government – Envelopes offering, the vendor has agreed that the subscription price will not increase over the previous term for up to two one-year renewals.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The costs are expected to occur in FY 2027. Funding for this purchase order is included in the FY 2027 Proposed Budget and is subject to City Council approval consistent with how multi-year technology support contracts are funded in future years.
The Information Technology Department (ITD) is supported through an internal service fund model. Approximately 49% of ITD’s costs are funded by the General Fund, with the remaining 51% supported by enterprise and special revenue funds.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff coordinated with internal stakeholders and the vendor to confirm the renewal aligns with Citywide needs and security requirements, validate user and license counts, and ensure uninterrupted digital signature workflows across departments.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The approval is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Carahsoft - Docusign - Quote No. 64483653 APPROVED BY:
Darren Numoto, Chief Information Officer; Lisa Bolger, Assistant Director Information Technology/CTO
Item 6
Item 6 Staff Report
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 87 of 441
Government - Price Quotation
Docusign Government at Carahsoft
11493 Sunset Hills Road | Suite 100 | Reston, Virginia 20190 Phone (703) 871-8500 | Fax (703) 871-8505 | Toll Free (888) 662-2724 www.carahsoft.com | [email protected]
TO:
Sherrie Wong
City of Palo Alto
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA
EMAIL:
[email protected]
PHONE:
(650) 617-3152
FROM:
Meagan Phillips
Docusign Government at Carahsoft
11493 Sunset Hills Road
Suite 100
Reston, Virginia 20190
EMAIL:
[email protected]
PHONE:
(703) 581-6727
FAX:
(703) 871-8505
TERMS:
OMNIA Software Solutions and Services contract: R240303 Term: January 1, 2025 - December 31, 2027
FTIN:52-2189693
Shipping Point: FOB Destination
Credit Cards: VISA/MasterCard/AMEX
Remit To: Same as Above
Payment Terms: Net 30 (On Approved Credit)
Sales Tax May Apply
QUOTE NO:
64483653
QUOTE DATE:
04/21/2026
QUOTE EXPIRES:
07/01/2026
RFQ NO:
SHIPPING:
ESD
TOTAL PRICE:
$145,180.00
TOTAL QUOTE:
$145,180.00
LINE NO.
PART NO.
DESCRIPTION
-
QUOTE PRICE
QTY
EXTENDED PRICE
1 DSI-0000488
eSignature Enterprise Pro for Gov - Envelope(Annual)
DocuSign, Inc. - DSI-0000488
Start Date: 07/01/2026
End Date: 06/30/2027
$4.2500
COOP
28,000
$119,000.00
2 DSI-0000148
Enterprise Premier Support 22% of Recurring Fees (22%
of List Price per $100 of List License Fees). Annual
DocuSign, Inc. - DSI-0000148
Start Date: 07/01/2026
End Date: 06/30/2027
$26,180.00
COOP
1 $26,180.00
SUBTOTAL:
$145,180.00
TOTAL PRICE:
$145,180.00
TOTAL QUOTE:
$145,180.00
Please reference quote #64483653 along with ONMIA- Region 4- R240303 contract number onto Purchase Order.
Product Details
eSignature Envelope Allowance: 28,000
Overage/Usage Fees
eSignature Enterprise Pro for State and Local Government - Envelope: $12.32 Order Special Terms
Both parties hereby agree that the following Subscription(s), identified by their Subscription # and Order Start Date, will be terminated upon the Order Start Date of this Order Form:
August 01, 2025: Subscription # SUB-3451779-1 (Q-58281526) A prorated credit for the prepaid portion of the remaining Term of all the above Subscription #(s) will be applied toward outstanding invoices and/or payment for this Order Form.
If Customer elects to renew its subscription with DocuSign for the same length of Term as described in this Order Form, DocuSign agrees that the price for such subscription will not increase over the previous Term for the same type eSignature Enterprise Pro for State and Local Government - Envelopes, estimated Envelope Allowance and quantity of subscription(s) as described in this Order Form. This offer applies to two one-year renewals only and does not apply to any third-party products, Professional Services or new products not included in this original Order Form.
This Order Form includes a total of Credits (the “Credit Allotment”), which can be used throughout the Term, subject to the below Conditions (in addition to the terms of the Agreement).
Conditions:
1. Customer’s Credit Allotment begins consuming as of the Order Start Date, expires at the
CONFIDENTIAL
PAGE 1 of 3
QUOTE DATE:
04/21/2026
QUOTE NO:
64483653
Item 6
Attachment A - Carahsoft -
Docusign - Quote No.
64483653
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 88 of 441
Government - Price Quotation
Docusign Government at Carahsoft
11493 Sunset Hills Road | Suite 100 | Reston, Virginia 20190 Phone (703) 871-8500 | Fax (703) 871-8505 | Toll Free (888) 662-2724 www.carahsoft.com | [email protected]
end of the Term, and does not roll over at the end of the Term.
2. Use of Features will result in Credit consumption as listed at (“rate card”): IAM Platform Rate Card
3. Customer’s use of eSignature Features listed on the rate card prior to the provisioning of IAM will also consume credits from Customer’s Credit Allotment. For clarification, this also applies if the Order Start Date is prior to the Order Form execution date.
4. Docusign may release new Features in the future that will require Credits to be consumed in order to be used. Such Features will be consumed from Customer’s Credit Allotment at the then-published rate of such Features.
5. Customer acknowledges and agrees that even though Docusign Navigator is included and available as part of its purchase of the Docusign Services listed on this Order Form, Customer has the option, at any time during the Term, to request that Docusign Navigator functionality be turned on. Docusign will use commercially reasonable efforts to turn on the Docusign Navigator functionality as soon as practicable.
6. Docusign will make commercially reasonable efforts to notify Customer of any Credits that may be consumed in excess of Customer's Credit Allotment; provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing, Customer will remain responsible for managing their use cases and the way in which such use cases consume Customer’s Credit Allotment. If Customer consumes their Credit Allotment prior to the Order End Date, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith any subsequent renewal based on the usage during the Term.
Terms & Conditions
Customer Data uploaded into a Docusign eSignature Government Product will be hosted within Docusign’s FedRAMP Moderate authorized boundary. “FedRAMP” means the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program.
Docusign eSignature Government Products include features and functionality that allow Customers to connect to other Docusign products or to third-party products or services for interoperability purposes. Interoperability refers to multiple computer systems that are connected in a manner that allows them to exchange information. These features are disabled by default but can be enabled by Customer request. Customers may also use “connectors” to connect Docusign eSignature Government Products to other systems to exchange information.
For example, a Docusign/Salesforce Connector can be used to connect Docusign eSignature Government Products to a Salesforce product so that information may be exchanged between the two connected systems.
If Customer chooses to connect Docusign eSignature Government Products to any other Docusign product or to any third-party products or services, Customer authorizes Docusign to export Customer Data outside of Docusign’s FedRAMP Moderate authorized boundary for the processing and use of Customer Data by Customer, Docusign, and/or such third parties (as applicable). For clarity, where Customers connect Docusign eSignature Government Products with any other products or services (including but not limited to by use of Payments, Comments, Connector or Agreement Action functionality), Docusign disclaims all liability for FedRAMP control compliance or Customer's obligations relating to Customer Data exported from Docusign’s FedRAMP Moderate authorized boundary.
If Customer is provisioned a demo or sandbox account (a “Sandbox Account”) Customer’s use of that Sandbox Account is conditioned on the following: Customer acknowledges and is aware that the Sandbox Account is a demo account and may or may not be within the applicable FedRAMP environment. Customer will not input Controlled Information, Covered Defense Information, Personally Identifiable Information, or any other sensitive or confidential information in the Sandbox Account during the Term
CONFIDENTIAL
PAGE 2 of 3
QUOTE DATE:
04/21/2026
QUOTE NO:
64483653
Item 6
Attachment A - Carahsoft -
Docusign - Quote No.
64483653
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 89 of 441
Government - Price Quotation
Docusign Government at Carahsoft
11493 Sunset Hills Road | Suite 100 | Reston, Virginia 20190 Phone (703) 871-8500 | Fax (703) 871-8505 | Toll Free (888) 662-2724 www.carahsoft.com | [email protected]
Customer must reference Quote number on Purchase Order.
Should Customer purchase via Reseller all terms of Carahsoft Quote must be incorporated in Reseller quote and Customer Purchase Order to Reseller.
Any increase in subscription and support pricing will be in accordance with DocuSign's pricing and policies in effect at the time of the renewal or as otherwise agreed to by the parties.
Licensee agrees that any order for DocuSign will be governed by the terms and conditions of the Carahsoft Docusign Service Agreement copies of which are found at https://static.carahsoft.com/concrete/files/2616/5962/5258/DocuSign_Master_Services_Agreement_fo_Public_Sector.pdf and all Schedules and Documentation referenced by the Terms are made a part hereof. The parties agree that any term or condition stated in a Customer purchase order or in any other Customer order documentation (excluding Quotes) is void. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency among the following documents, the order of precedence shall be: (1) the applicable Quotes (and their Contract Vehicle), (2) the TOU, and (3) the Documentation. Licensee acknowledges it has had the opportunity to review the Terms, prior to executing an order.
Should the customer purchase any version of DocuSign's IL-4 licensing the below terms will apply.
Reference the Memorandum previously provided to DISA Authorizing Official (dated October 22, 2023) detailing the Provisional Authorization (PA) granted by DISA, exceptions to/exclusions from the PA, and conditions DocuSign is required to meet in order to maintain the PA for U.S. Department of Defense Impact Level 4 (DoD/IL-4). Customer agrees:
- not to use DocuSign DoD/IL-4 in production without a BCAP connection (or DISA approval); - not to process, store or transmit IL-4 production data without a BCAP connection to NIPRnet; o not to use DocuSign DoD/IL-4 to connect to any DocuSign services or applications via an unauthorized endpoint outside of the NIPRnet or non-BCAP connections; - Customer is responsible for any Customer Data sent to third party applications (regardless of whether such third-party applications are IL-4 certified); Enterprise Premier Support for IL-4 customers is available from 9:00am - 8:30pm Eastern Standard Time.
CONFIDENTIAL
PAGE 3 of 3
QUOTE DATE:
04/21/2026
QUOTE NO:
64483653
Item 6
Attachment A - Carahsoft -
Docusign - Quote No.
64483653
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 90 of 441
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: June 1, 2026
Report #: 2605-6333
TITLE
Approval of an Extension to Building Permit 18000-00536 for 429 University Ave; CEQA status – Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENV20718).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve an extension to building permit 18000-00536 for a term of three months, with additional three-month extensions not to exceed a total of 18 months to March 31, 2027.
BACKGROUND
In March 2017, Bellomo Architects on behalf of Kipling Post LP received the City’s approval to demolish two one-story commercial structures at 425 and 429 University Ave and construct a four-story mixed-use building. Demolition was completed in July 2019, and construction permit 18000-00526 was issued for the new building, comprising of two levels of below-grade parking (18,124 sq ft), commercial space (18,305 sq ft), and three residential units (6,740 sq ft).
The Chief Building Official authorized three 180-day extensions (September 2022, May 2023, January 2024) per Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.04.130, and 141 inspections were completed between 2019 and 2023. In May 2023, the property owner requested a transfer to an owner- builder permit and disclosed to the City a dispute and litigation case with the contractor firm. In June 2024, Council approved further extensions to the property owner, with conditions on the property remaining compliant with City code1. These conditions included planting trees on Kipling Street, removing caution tape and cones surrounding the building.
Based on Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.04.130, the code provides that “the Chief Building Official is authorized to grant no more than three extensions and reactivations of 1 June 16, 2024, City Council staff report agenda item 21 is available online at:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=6490&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=4093ed05- d487-4759-bfbc-5db9052026d1
Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 91 of 441
permits, for periods of no more than 180 days each and may require that construction documents be revised to partially or fully to comply with current codes and ordinances; and payment of fees. Extensions and reactivations shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. Additional extensions or reactivations beyond three may only be granted with the approval of the City Council.” Additionally, Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.04.130 creates California Building Code (CBC) section 105.5.1 which establishes a term limit for permits in that “all work associated with a building permit must be completed and a final inspection issued within 48 months of permit issuance. Once that term limit is exhausted without an approved final inspection, the permit automatically becomes void.” As such, the owner has exhausted all administrative extensions, requiring Council approval for any further extensions
ANALYSIS
The property owner anticipates that the litigation process will conclude by December 2026.
Construction is expected to commence in January 2027 and is projected to take six to eight months to complete. Staff recommends that future extensions be granted in three-month increments, so construction could begin earlier if litigation concludes sooner, and staff expects to maintain contact with the property owner to initiate construction promptly upon the resolution.
As construction of the project is near 90% completion and the property owner has in good faith continued to adhere to all City requirements, permits, and approvals, staff recommend that Council approve an additional three month-extension with up to five additional three-month extensions for a total not to exceed 18-months. The Chief Building Official will execute the extension(s). It is anticipated these extensions would allow the property owner time to resolve the construction dispute and reduce the administrative resources required to maintain the building permits.
Extending the building permit keeps it active and provides time to complete remaining and required construction work. Without the extension, the existing permit would become void and the owner would need to apply for a new permit, which would require building plan revisions to come into compliance with the California Building Standards Code in effect at the time of application. This may require modifications to portions of the building that have already been constructed, significantly extending the timeline before the property can be occupied. As this would not support timely completion and occupancy of the building, staff recommends approval of the building permit extension as described.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact. Any applicable fees will be determined by the Chief Building Official.
Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 92 of 441
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Planning and Development Services staff have been engaged with the applicant to assist with construction progress at this location.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project at 429 University has been reviewed under CEQA and the City approved a mitigated negative declaration in March 2017 (ENV20718).
ATTACHMENTS
None.
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 93 of 441
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: June 1, 2026
Report #:2605-6354
TITLE
Approval of Professional Services Contracts with Concourse Tech Inc., Contract No. C26195689, and Prospect Silicon Valley, Contract No. C26195690, to Support Commercial Efficiency and Electrification Programs for a Term of Three (3) Years for a Total Combined Not to Exceed Amount of $898,500; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to:
1. Execute Contract No. C26195689 with Concourse Tech Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $148,500 over a three-year contract term ending June 4, 2029______ to develop a Commercial Customer Characterization Tool and engagement platform for large commercial and industrial customers as well as small and medium businesses;
2. Extend Contract No C26195689 with Concourse Tech Inc. for up to two (2) additional 12- month periods with an annual not-to-exceed of $15,000 over the contract extension period, subject to mutual agreement and available budget appropriations, for a total contract amount not to exceed $178,500 over a five-year term ending June 4, 2031_______;
3. Execute Contract No. C26195690 with Prospect Silicon Valley (Prospect SV) for a not-to- exceed amount of $750,000 over a three-year contract term ending May 3, 2029_______ to provide Technical Assistance and Equipment Option Analysis to support electrification in commercial buildings; and
4. Extend Contract No C26195690 with Prospect SV Inc. for up to two (2) additional 12- month periods with no additional cost to the City, subject to mutual agreement for a total contract amount not to exceed $750,000 over a five-year term ending May 3, 2031______.
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 94 of 441
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CITY” or “CPAU”) administers a suite of commercial efficiency and electrification programs that support the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) goals. These programs help businesses reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy and water efficiency, and transition from natural gas to efficient electric technologies.
To advance these efforts, staff is seeking approval of two contracts that will support program delivery through customer targeting and technical assistance. The proposed contract with Concourse Tech will provide a tool to help identify, prioritize, and engage commercial customers with the greatest potential for energy and electrification upgrades. The proposed contract with Prospect Silicon Valley will provide technical assistance and project analysis to help customers evaluate equipment and move electrification projects toward implementation.
Together, these services will improve CPAU’s ability to reach the right customers and advance commercial efficiency and electrification projects that reduce utility costs, modernize building systems, and support decarbonization across Palo Alto’s commercial sector.
BACKGROUND
In support of broader climate objectives, the City established an ambitious emissions reduction target in 2016, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 (“80 x 30”). Building on this commitment, a carbon neutrality goal was adopted in 2022, outlining a path to achieve net zero emissions. Electrifying commercial buildings is a key part of achieving these targets. This includes replacing gas-powered space heating and water heating systems, cooking equipment, and other small gas appliances with electric alternatives.
Together, these uses account for about 30 percent of the City’s emissions, and electrification, alongside continued energy efficiency efforts, offers a meaningful opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and modernize buildings in the commercial sector. Past program experience has demonstrated that coordinated service delivery, combining customer characterization, equipment analysis, electrification technical assistance, and efficiency recommendations, results in the most cost-effective and impactful energy savings.
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 95 of 441
In August 2025, CPAU issued three related RFPs for professional services to enhance the City’s commercial efficiency and electrification program offerings:
RFP194784: Category 1 Professional Services for Commercial Efficiency and Electrification Program
RFP195689: Category 2 Develop a Customer Characterization Tool for customer identification, outreach, engagement, and project management RFP195690: Category 3 Technical Assistance and Analysis of Equipment Options to support electrification in commercial buildings
City selected Concourse Tech Inc. for the Category 2 service and Prospect SV for the Category 3 service. Staff will return to City Council later in the summer for the approval of contract with the vendor selected for the Category 1 service to provide commercial efficiency and electrification program services. Together, these three contracts will help commercial customers reduce utility bills, modernize infrastructure, and achieve measurable greenhouse gas reductions.
ANALYSIS
CPAU’s commercial customer programs are designed to address technical, financial, and information barriers that often prevent commercial customers from pursuing comprehensive energy upgrades. These integrated approaches also support customers in modernizing aging infrastructure, reducing utility costs, and implementing projects that deliver measurable emissions reductions.
In order to reach the City’s S/CAP goals and electrify commercial properties, we must first understand what type of equipment is found in facilities in Palo Alto and provide technical assistance to guide businesses through their electrification journey. The Category 2 contract with Concourse Tech Inc. will enable the development of a Commercial Customer Characterization Tool to better understand energy use patterns and identify high-impact opportunities across large commercial and industrial customers, as well as small and medium- sized businesses. The tool will integrate multiple data sources, including past utility consumption data, commercial real estate records, building footprint data, satellite imagery for identifying rooftop equipment, and publicly available ownership records. Using these datasets, the tool will analyze metrics such as energy use intensity, load characteristics and equipment age to prioritize buildings that are most likely to benefit from program services. This data- driven approach will allow staff to focus outreach on customers and facilities with the greatest potential for deep decarbonization and energy performance improvements.
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 96 of 441
The Category 3 contract with Prospect SV will provide technical assistance and equipment option analysis to support electrification of space heating and cooling, water heating and commercial cooking equipment in commercial buildings. These services will help customers evaluate replacement options, assess project feasibility, including assessing existing panel capacity and space requirements of proposed electric equipment option(s), estimate cost ranges of implementing feasible efficiency measures, and make informed decisions that align with both operational needs and climate goals.
Solicitation Process
The City issued separate Requests for Proposals (RFPs) on August 14, 2025, for Category 2 and Category 3 services. Through a competitive RFP process, staff selected Concourse Tech Inc. as the vendor that best meets the City’s needs for Category 2. Through a similar RFP process, staff selected Prospect SV as the vendor that best meets the City’s needs for Category 3.
Concourse Tech Inc. offers configurable cloud-based software solutions, specifically designed for the public sector, that can support CPAU’s needs to characterize its commercial utility customers and their energy use. Their platform provides flexibility to customize workflows, data collection, and reporting, enabling CPAU to characterize and identify commercial customers that would benefit from commercial electrification technical assistance and rebate offerings.
Concourse’s demonstrated experience, technical capabilities, and adaptable software tools position them to successfully deliver the final products and services required for Category 2.
Prospect SV maintains local staff with extensive experience in building electrification, equipment option analyses, permitting support, and project management for commercial and multifamily electrification projects throughout the Bay Area. As part of its proposal, Prospect SV has partnered with engineering firms and consultants with expertise in complex mechanical, electrical and plumbing system designs, building energy modeling, electric load calculations, and load management strategies. Its local presence and electrification expertise position Prospect SV well to meet the electrification needs of CPAU’s commercial customers.
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 97 of 441
Table 1: Summary of details related to RFP #195689 and RFP # 195690 Category 2 Request for Proposal # 195689
RFP Name/Number Professional Services for Commercial
Customer Characterization Tool
RFP No. 195689
Proposals Due September 19, 2025
# of firms notified 25
Total days to respond to RFP 31 days
# of proposals received 4
Non-responsive bidders/Responsive bidders 0/4
Public link to solicitation https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/palo- alto-ca/projects/191814
Proposers price range for rendered services $115,996 - $126,000 Category 3 Request for Proposal # 195690
RFP Name/Number Professional Services for Commercial
Electrification Technical Assistance
RFP No. 195690
Proposals Due September 19, 2025
# of firms notified 25
Total days to respond to RFP 31 days
# of proposals received 8
Non-responsive bidders/Responsive bidders 1/8
Public link to solicitation https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/palo- alto-ca/projects/191820
Proposers price range for rendered services $733,603 - $816,845 The RFP responses were evaluated based on several key criteria, including the quality and completeness of proposals, the specifics of the proposed solutions, the contractors’ experience with utility program services, the proposed program costs, and their prior record of performance with government agencies. For Category 2, the evaluation emphasized experience delivering configurable software solutions and professional services to support utility program administration. For Category 3, the evaluation emphasized experience providing technical assistance for commercial building electrification projects, including reviewing and validating equipment designs and specifications, performing savings calculations and cost evaluations, conducting electrical load analysis, offering design recommendations, and supporting project permitting processes.
The contract with Concourse Tech Inc. includes a one-time implementation cost of $105,000, which covers requirements gathering, system design and development, testing, and deployment. Annual maintenance and support will cost $15,000 per year for two years (Years 2 and 3 of the contract), adding $30,000. Staff has added an Additional Services budget of $13,500 for the purchase of external data sources to the contract, resulting in a total not-to- Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 98 of 441
exceed three-year budget of $148,500 for the contract with Concourse Tech Inc. The two-year extension option will add an annual not-to-exceed amount of $15,000 to cover the annual maintenance and support. Staff will consider exercising the contract extension option if the tool developed by Concourse Tech Inc. performs reliably, meets expectations for effective customer targeting, and there continues to be a demonstrated need for staff use of the tool, with no comparable alternative tool available at that time.
The contract with Prospect SV has an annual budget of $227,500 to cover costs related to providing technical support for customer electrification projects on a time-and-materials basis, with an additional services budget of $67,500. The Prospect SV contract establishes per-project technical assistance budget caps by customer type, with a maximum of $20,000 per project for Small and Medium Business customers and $40,000 per project for Key Account customers. The total not-to-exceed three-year budget for the Prospect contract is $750,000, and the two-year extension option would not add to the total costs. Staff will consider exercising the contract extension option if Prospect SV demonstrates satisfactory performance in providing technical assistance in complex commercial electrification projects, and there continues to be a demonstrated need to offer this service to customers. If the contract budget is fully expended within the first three years, staff will issue a new Request for Proposal (RFP) for similar services.
With the optional two-year extensions, the total budget will be $178,500 over five years with Concourse Tech Inc. and $750,000 over five years with Prospect SV.
Both contracts use the City’s professional services contract template, which permits the City to terminate without cause/for convenience by providing written notice to the contractor. In the event the City finds itself facing a challenging budget situation, and it is determined that City resources need to be refocused elsewhere, the City can terminate for convenience. Other options include termination due to non-appropriation of funds or amending the contract to reduce the cost, for example, by reducing the scope of work or limiting issuance of Task Orders.
The contract may also be suspended by written notice of the City Manager.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Spending authority to cover the first year of both contracts, totaling $346,000, which includes $13,500 to purchase external data under the contract with Concourse Tech Inc, is included in the proposed FY 2027 Operating Budget of the Electric Fund. Funding for the Prospect SV contract will correspond to the customer project being evaluated, utilizing Gas Cap and Invest funds, as well as Electric Public Benefit Demand Side Management funds for projects that deliver energy efficiency savings and Electric Public Benefit Research Development & Demonstration (RD&D) funds for demonstration projects and projects involving emerging technologies. The Concourse Tech contract will be funded from Gas Cap and Invest funds as CPAU will use the platform to identify customers with the highest potential for electrification Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 99 of 441
projects, which aligns with Council’s Cap and Invest policy to promote investment in energy efficiency programs for the natural gas portfolio and retail customers.
Funding for future years is contingent upon Council’s approval through the annual budget process.
The total budget impact for the two contracts, including the optional two-year extensions, will be $178,500 over five years with Concourse Tech Inc. and $750,000 over five years with Prospect SV.
Staff anticipate administering both contracts using existing staffing resources, with no additional personnel required.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Over the past several years, staff has gathered feedback from commercial customers through existing program participation surveys and citywide surveys. Commercial customers have consistently expressed a strong need for help navigating energy efficiency and electrification opportunities. Through conversations, program participation, and general commercial customer engagement, two primary barriers continue to emerge: cost and time. Many commercial customers are interested in pursuing upgrades but do not have the time and/or resources required to explore electrification options without a clearer understanding of the potential benefits.
Staff has also engaged with other public utilities and CCAs to learn from their experiences designing and implementing commercial programs. For example, SMUD has had notable success with their electrification programs, which they attribute to a combination of strong technical support for customers, higher incentive levels, contractor training to build market readiness, and consistent engagement with their commercial customer base. These approaches have helped increase program participation. In addition, discussions with other utilities and CCAs provided useful examples of how rebate programs can be structured to better address commercial customer needs and improve uptake. These conversations have provided valuable perspective on best practices, program challenges, and lessons learned, helping to inform staff’s approach to program design and development. Staff plans to engage the contractor community by offering webinars on the City‘s permitting processes to improve transparency around permitting requirements and help reduce project delays. In parallel, staff is collaborating with the City‘s Planning and Development Services department to streamline permitting processes where feasible, further supporting efficient project implementation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council’s approval of the attached agreements described in this staff report does not meet the definition of a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, as Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 100 of 441
administrative government activities will not result in any direct or indirect physical change to the environment (CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5)).
POLICY IMPACTS
The proposed contracts support the Council-approved Sustainability Plan, and Comprehensive Plan Goal N7.7.2 (explore the transition of existing buildings from gas to electric or solar water and space heating). Specifically, the contracts support the 2026-2027 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Work Plan items “Launch Advanced Heat Pump HVAC Program” (CA-8) and “Launch Pilot Program for Electrification of Centralized Water Heaters and Boilers” (CA-11).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract C26195689 with Concourse Tech, Inc.
Attachment B: Contract C26195690 with Prospect Silicon Valley APPROVED BY:
Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities
Staff: Christine Tam, Manager Utility Program Services
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 101 of 441
P
rofessional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C26195689
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND COQUINA LABS INC. dba CONCOURSE TECH INC.
This Agreement for Professional Services (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of the 4th day of June, 2026 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and COQUINA LABS INC. dba CONCOURSE TECH INC., a corporation, located at 169 Madison Ave., Suite 15520, New York, NY 10016 (“CONSULTANT”).
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement and are fully incorporated herein by this reference:
RECITALS
A. CITY intends to create a customer characterization tool for staff to use for the commercial energy efficiency and electrification program (the “Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide a cloud- based customer characterization tool for customer identification, outreach, engagement, and project management in connection with the Project ( the “Services”, as detailed more fully in Exhibit A).
B. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if any, possess the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY, in reliance on these representations , desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with access to its proprietary cloud-based Customer Characterization Tool software-as-a-service platform and shall perform the related implementation and other Services described in Exhibit A in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. During the Term, CONSULTANT grants CITY a limited, non -exclusive right to access and use such platform solely for CITY’s internal business purposes in connection with the Project. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. CONSULTANT shall use commercially reasonable efforts to make the proprietary cloud-based Customer Characterization Tool software-as-a-service platform available at least 99.5% of the time in each calendar month, excluding scheduled maintenance (for which CONSULTANT shall provide at least forty- eight (48) hours’ prior notice to CITY, and which shall be performed outside of normal business hours to the extent reasonably practicable) and emergency maintenance or outages caused by factors outside of CONSULTANT’s reasonable control.
Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 102 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements.)
CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize on- call Services up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4 (Not to Exceed Compensation).
CONSULTANT shall provide on- call Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section. On -call Services, if any, s hall be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A -1 entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”.
Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of s ervices, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
Compensation for on-call Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum.
To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully exec uted Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation due to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth in Section 4. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for on -call Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. Performance of and payment for any on-call Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the E ffective Date of this agreement through June 4, 2029, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B, entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.
CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed One Hundred Thirty- Five Thousand Dollars ($135,000). T he hourly schedule of rates , if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY.
Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 103 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Optional Additional Services Provision (This provision applies only if checked and a not-to-exceed compensation amount for Additional Services is allocated below under this Section 4.)
In addition to the not-to-exceed compensation specified above, CITY has set aside the not- to-exceed compensation amount of Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($13,500) for the performance of Additional Services (as defined below). The total compensation for performance of the Services, Additional Services and any reimbursable expenses specified in Exhibit C , shall not exceed One Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($148,500), as detailed in Exhibit C.
“Additional Services” means any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit A. CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional S ervices in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section . Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY with a Task Order assigned and authorized by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1, entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”. Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Compensation for Additional Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum.
To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully exec uted Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders authorized under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4 .
CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. Performance of and payment for any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the S ervices performed and the applicable charges (including, if applicable, an identification of personnel who performed the Services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon Exhibit C or, as applicable, CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s invoices shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to CITY’s Project Manager at the address specified in Section 13 (Project Management) below. CITY will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt of an acceptable invoice.
Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 104 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it , its employees and subcontractors, if any, possess the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subcontractors, if any, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All Services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this A greement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS . CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement, as amended from time to time . CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for reasonable direct costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s material errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of correcting such errors and omissions or any change order markup costs; provided, however, that CONSULTANT’s obligation with respect to such material errors and omissions shall be limited, at CITY’s option, to (i) re-performance of the deficient Services, or (ii) refund of fees paid for the deficient Services in lieu of such re -performance. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible or liable for any consequential, incidental, special, exemplary, punitive or indirect damages, except for reasonable direct costs arising from delay or failure to perform the Services.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds the CITY’s stated construction budget by ten percent (10%) or more , CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the P roject design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will act as and shall be deemed at all times to be an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which CONSULTANT performs the S ervices requested by CITY under this Agreement.
CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will not have employee status with CITY, nor be entitled to participate in any plans, arrangements, or distributions by CITY pertaining to or in connection with any retirement, health or other benefits that CITY may offer its employees. CONSULTANT wi ll be responsible for all obligations and payments, whether imposed by federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, FICA, income tax withholdings, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, insurance, and other similar responsibilities re lated to CONSULTANT’s performance of the S ervices, or any agent or Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 105 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
employee of CONSULTANT providing same. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employment or agency relationship between CITY and CONSULTANT or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT. Any terms in this Agreement referring to direction from CITY shall be construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of CONSULTANT ’s provision of the Services only, and not as to the means by which such a result is obtained.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT . The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written approval of the C ity Manager. Any purported assignment made without the prior written approval of the City Manager will be void and without effect. Subject to the foregoing, the covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assignees of the parties.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the Services to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the City Manager or designee. In the event CONSULTANT does subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible for all acts and omissions of subcontractors.
Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 (Assignment) above, CITY agrees that subcontractors may be used to complete the Services. The subcon tractors authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are:
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors . CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of subcontractors . CONSULTANT shall change or add subcontractors only with the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Thomas Smyth as the CONSULTANT’s Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and represent CONSULTANT during the day -to-day performance of the Services. If circumstances cause the substitution of the CONSULTANT’s Project Manager or any other of CONSULTANT’s key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute Project Manager and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s P roject Manager. CITY's approval of any substitute Project Manager or key personnel shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove CONSULTANT personnel who CITY finds materially fail to perform the Services in accordance with this Agreement or engage in documented misconduct . CITY's right to remove CONSULTANT personnel shall be limited to situations involving material failure to perform the Services in accordance with this Agreement or documented misconduct.
CITY’s Project Manager is Shelby Sinkler, Utilities Department, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 106 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
CA, 94301, Telephone: 650-329- 2525, Email: [email protected]. CITY’s Project Manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate Project Manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. “City Data” means all data, information, and materials provided by CITY to CONSULTANT, or generated, collected, or derived from such data by CONSULTANT in connection with the Services. A ll work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, studies, sketches, photographs, plans, reports, specifications, computations, models, recordings, data, documents, and other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement, in any form or media, that are specifically created for CITY and delivered to CITY as part of the Services (the “Deliverables”), including configurations and customizations specific to CITY and CITY Data and compilations thereof, shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the Deliverables pursuant to this Agreement are vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT hereby waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of CITY with respect to the Deliverables.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT retains all right, title and interest in and to its pre- existing software, SaaS platform, and other proprietary tools, materials and technology, and any general improvements or enhancements thereto. To the extent any such items are incorporated in the Deliverables, CONSULTANT grants CITY a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty- free license to use them solely as necessary to use the Deliverables for CITY’s internal purposes .
Neither CONSULTANT nor its subcontractors, if any, shall make any of such Deliverables available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CITY retains all right, title, and interest in and to all City Data, and CONSULTANT may access and use City Data solely for purposes of performing the Services under this Agreement and for no other purpose . CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the Deliverables for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the Scope of Services.
SECTION 15. AUDITS . CONSULTANT agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for four (4) years from the date of final payment, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement, including without limitation records demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 10 (Independent Contractor). CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least four (4) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement or the completion of any audit hereunder, whichever is later.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all third party demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney’ s fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) to the extent that such Claims arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. CITY will reimburse CONSULTANT for the proportionate percentage of Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 107 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
defense costs exceeding CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault as determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from a Claim arising from the active negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party that is not contributed to by any act of, or by any omission to perform a duty imposed by law or agreement by, CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s Services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
16.4 In addition to the foregoing, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY and its Indemnified Parties from and against any and all Claims by any third party alleging infringement or misappropriation of any patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, or other intellectual property right arising out of the use of the Services or CONSULTANT’s software, SaaS platform, or related technology by CITY in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. NO LIMITATION OF LIABILITY SET FORTH ELSEWHERE IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL APPLY TO CONSULTANT’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS SECTION 16.4. CONSULTANT shall have the right to investigate, defend and settle any such Claim. CONSULTANT shall have no liability for any Claim under this Section 16.4 to the extent it is based on (a) CITY’s unauthorized modification of the Services or CONSULTANT’s technology, or (b) CITY’s use of the Services in combination with products or services not provided by CONSULTANT, where such Claim would not have arisen but for such modification or combination.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. No waiver of a condition or nonperformance of an obligation under this Agreement is effective unless it is in writing in accordance with Section 2 9.4 of this Agreement. No delay or failure to require performance of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of that provision as to that or any other instance. Any waiver granted shall apply solely to the specific instance expressly stated. No single or partial exercise of any right or remedy will preclude any other or further exercise of any right or remedy.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D, entitled “INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS”. CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A -:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 108 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primar y coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days ’ prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT , CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT ’s liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. In the event of termination without cause , CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for all work performed through the termination date, including reasonable, documented wind-down costs not to exceed ten (10) percent of the remaining contract value. If CONSULTANT fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided under this Agreement or at law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement sooner upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of any notice of suspension or termination , CONSULTANT will discontinue its performance of the Services on the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination.
19.2. In event of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT wi ll deliver to the City Manager on or before the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination, any and all work product, as detailed in Section 14 (Ownership of Materials), whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in the performance of this Agreement. Such work product is the property of CITY, as detailed in Section 14 (Ownership of Materials).
19.3. In event of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered and work products delivered to CITY in accordance with the Scope of Services up to the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s S ervices provided in material conformity with this Agreement as such determination is made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion . The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 17, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 19.5, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30.
Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 109 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
19.4. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement, unless made in accordance with Section 17 (Waivers).
19.5. Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall, upon request, promptly and in no event later than ten (10) days, provide CITY with a complete copy of all City Data in a commercially reasonable, machine-readable format, at no additional cost to CITY. CITY shall have the option to specify a reasonable method for obtaining such City Data.
Such obligation shall apply to all City Data in the possession of CONSULTANT and its subcontractors, if any. Upon written confirmation from CITY that the City Data has been successfully transferred, CONSULTANT shall promptly delete or securely destroy such data from its systems.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the P roject Manager at the address of CONSULTANT recited on the first page of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT shall provide written notice to CITY of any change of address.
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subcontractors or other persons or parties having such an interest.
CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California, as amended from time to time . CONSULTANT agrees to notify CITY if any conflict arises.
21.3. If the CONSULTANT meets the definition of a “Consultant” as defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT will file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 110 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended from time to time.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION; COMPLIANCE WITH ADA.
22.1. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code S ection 2.30.510, as amended from time to time, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person due to that person’s race, skin color, gender, gender identity, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, pregnancy, genetic information or condition, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section
2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
22.2. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that pursuant to the Americans Disabilities Act (“ADA”), programs, services and other activities provided by a public entity to the public, whether directly or through a contractor or subcontractor, are required to be accessible to the disabled public. CONSULTANT will provide the Services specified in this Agreement in a manner that complies with the ADA and any other applicable federal, state and local disability rights laws and regulations, as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT will not discriminate against persons with disabilities in the provision of services, benefits or activities provided under this Agreement.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with t he CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY ’s Purchasing Department , hereby incorporated by reference and as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include, first, minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste ; and, third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, C ONSULTANT shall comply with the following Zero Waste requirements:
(a) All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to C ITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY ’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable-based inks. (b) Goods purchased by C ONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Department’s office.
(c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT , at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE .
CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 111 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 4.62.060.
SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended from time to time. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This S ection shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 2 6. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS.
26.1. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages and related requirements. CONSULTANT is not required to pay prevailing wages and meet related requirements under the California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations in the performance and implementation of the Project if the contract:
(1) is not a public works contract;
(2) is for a public works construction project of $25,000 or less, per California Labor Code Sections 1782(d)(1), 1725.5(f) and 1773.3(j); or (3) is for a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance project of $15,000 or less, per California Labor Code Sections 1782(d)(1), 1725.5(f) and 1773.3(j).
SECTION 27. CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR “9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS” . For purposes of this Section 27, a “9204 Public Works Project” means the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind. (Cal. Pub. Cont. Code § 9204.)
This Project is not a 9204 Public Works Project.
SECTION 28. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
28.1. In the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT may have access to CITY’s Confidential Information (defined below). CONSULTANT will hold Confidential Information in strict confidence, not disclose it to any third party, and will use it only for the performance of its obligations to CITY under this Agreement and for no other purpose.
CONSULTANT will maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the security, confidentiality and integrity of the Confidential Information.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT may disclose Confidential Information to its employees, agents and subcontractors, if any, to the extent they have a need to know in order to perform CONSULTANT’s obligations to CITY under this Agreement and for no other purpose, provided that the CONSULTANT informs them of, and requires them to follow, the confidentiality Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 112 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
and security obligations of this Agreement.
28.2. “Confidential Information” means all data, information (including without limitation “Personal Information” about a California resident as defined in Civil Code S ection 1798 et seq., as amended from time to time) and materials, in any form or media, tangible or intangible, provided or otherwise made available to CONSULTANT by CITY, directly or indirectly, pursuant to this Agreement, including any City Data. Confidential Information excludes information that CONSULTANT can show by appropriate documentation: (i) was publicly known at the time it was provided or has subsequently become publicly known other than by a breach of this Agreement; (ii) was rightfully in CONSULTANT’s possession free of any obligation of confidence prior to receipt of Confidential Information; (iii) is rightfully obtained by CONSULTANT from a third party without breach of any confidentiality obligation; (iv) is independently developed by employees of CONSULTANT without any use of or access to the Confidential Information; or (v) CONSULTANT has written consent to disclose signed by an authorized representative of CITY.
28.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT may disclose Confidential Information to the extent required by order of a court of competent jurisdiction or governmental body, provided that CONSULTANT will notify CITY in writing of such order immediately upon receipt and prior to any such disclosure (unless CONSULTANT is prohibited by law from doing so), to give CITY an opportunity to oppose or otherwise respond to such order.
28.4. CONSULTANT will notify CITY promptly upon learning of any breach in the security of its systems or unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, Confidential Information in its possession or control, and if such Confidential Information consists of Personal Information, CONSULTANT will provide information to CITY sufficient to meet the notice requirements of Civil Code Section 1798 et seq., as applicable, as amended from time to time.
28.5. Prior to or upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, CONSULTANT will honor any request from the CITY to return or securely destroy all copies of Confidential Information. All Confidential Information is and will remain the property of the CITY and nothing contained in this Agreement grants or confers any rights to such Confidential Information on CONSULTANT.
28.6. If selected in Section 30 (Exhibits), this Agreement is also subject to the terms and conditions of the Information Privacy Policy and Cybersecurity Terms and Conditions.
SECTION 29. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
29.1. This Agreement will be governed by California law, without regard to its conflict of law provisions.
29.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
29.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in connection with that Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 113 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties.
29.4. This Agreement, including all exhibits, constitutes the entire and integrated agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations, representations, statements and undertakings , either oral or written. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the authorized representatives of the parties and approved as required under Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended from time to time.
29.5. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.
29.6. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto (per Section 30) or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the event of a conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the exhibits shall control.
29.7. The provisions of all checked boxes in this Agreement shall apply to this Agreement; the provisions of any unchecked boxes shall not apply to this Agreement.
29.8. All section headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement.
29.9. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which, when executed by the authorized representatives of the parties, shall together constitute a single binding agreement.
SECTION 30. EXHIBITS. Each of the following exhibits, if the check box for such exhibit is selected below, is hereby attached and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein:
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT A-1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
EXHIBIT B: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT C: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT C-1: SCHEDULE OF RATES
EXHIBIT D: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT E: INFORMATION PRIVACY POLICY
EXHIBIT F: CYBERSECURITY TERMS AND CONDITIONS
THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL SELECTED EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED.
Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 114 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
CONTRACT NO. C26195689
SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
City Attorney or designee
COQUINA LABS INC. dba
CONCOURSE TECH INC.
Officer 1
By: ________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Title: _______________________________
Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC)
By: ________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Title: _______________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Thomas Smyth
CEO
Rapolas Binkys
Assistant Treasurer
Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 115 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTANT shall provide the Services detailed in this Exhibit A , entitled “ SCOPE OF SERVICES”. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, CONSULTANT’s duties and services described in this Scope of Services shall not include preparing or assisting CITY with any portion of CITY’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with CITY. CITY shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project.
CONSULTANT’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications.
CONSULTANT shall cooperate with CITY to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Scope of Services.
Phase 1: Discovery and Requirements
Task 1.1 Project Kickoff
CONSULTANT will execute a project kickoff meeting which will include stakeholder interviews with utilities staff and key account representatives to determine data sources needed for the tool.
CONSULTANT will include its Characterization results as .CSV outputs so that City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) can integrate these tables into its Customer Relationship Management (CRM) tools and other future platforms. CONSULTANT will use commercially reasonable efforts to integrate the platform with the CRM tool.
Task 1.1 Deliverables:
• Project Plans
• Requirements document
• Integration assessment report
Task 1.2 Data Inventory and Gap Analysis
CONSULTANT will collect data from the CITY and other resources to obtain the information needed to build the Characterization Tool. All data will be open-source, delivered by the CITY, or paid for by the CITY. CONSULTANT will not be expected to purchase any data for the analysis tool. Exact data requirements will be discussed as part of the initial discovery phase.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for identifying data requirements and notifying CITY of any material data gaps or quality issues that may affect performance of the Services. The tool will provide data including but not limited to commercial property inventory, utility usage, property owner and tenant contact information, rooftop unit inventory, and property level Energy Use Intensity (EUI) analysis. CONSULTANT will report the results and methodologies for the Characterization Tool. Expected data collection needed to develop the tool includes, but is not Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 116 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
limited to:
Inventory of Commercial Properties
• Commercial Property Aggregation: CONSULTANT will utilize multiple data sources such as utility data, meter matching data, County data, commercial real estate data, satellite imagery, GIS, and building footprint data. These sources are used to identify and aggregate individual tax lot information into larger commercial complexes. • Commercial Building Inventory: CONSULTANT will use remote sensing tools, such as LiDAR, to identify individual buildings, rooftop equipment, and building data for each property. Machine learning models are utilized to predict missing building attributes such as number of stories, building vintage and other variables that are often missing at high rates in the property databases.
• Best Contact Information Analytics: To improve CPAU’s ability to contact a decisionmaker building site, CONSULTANT will utilize CoStar, county assessor, the Palo Alto business registry, real estate data, business contact databases, such as Open Corporates, and other sources to integrate contact information from its multiple sources to identify the best commercial customer contact information. • Commercial Property Level EUI: CONSULTANT will utilize monthly gas and electricity consumption data from CPAU to calculate EUI (kBTU/sqft/year) at the property level based on the property aggregation (total property sqft) and with aggregated kWh and therm consumption for matched meters, kWh/sqft, and therms/sqft.
Identify Commercial Rooftop Packaged HVAC Units
• Commercial Rooftop Packaged HVAC Unit (RTU) Classification: CONSULTANT will create a tool that uses high resolution ortho- imagery and supervised image classification tools to identify rooftop units on each commercial building in CPAU territory. • Commercial Energy Disaggregation Analytics: CONSULTANT will utilize building energy modeling tools to identify cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades at commercial properties through its load disaggregation algorithms that will identify different end- uses including heating, cooling, and baseload kWh and therms. This analysis is what will estimate RTU age through property heating and cooling efficiency as a proxy for age.
Task 1.2 Deliverables:
• Data inventory report
• Gap analysis of existing systems
Phase 2 System Design and Development
Task 2 System architecture design and technical specifications Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 117 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
CONSULTANT will deploy a secure online data application for CPAU that allows program staff, program administrators, and analysts at CPAU to access the results. CONSULTANT will develop advanced mapping and visualization tools that can be customized according to CPAU’s needs.
This task includes, but is not limited to:
• Backend development with database and API creation
• Frontend development with responsive user interface
• GIS integration and data processing modules
• Customer segmentation algorithms and analytics
• Integrated testing throughout development process
CONSULTANT will ensure that all the project data will be stored on hyper-secure Amazon Web Service (AWS), easily accessible by staff, which integrates the latest cyber -security tools and standards for software as a service (SaaS) platform. The Characterization dashboard is available as an Application Programming Interface (API) that will enable CPAU to integrate its functions into existing technological tools.
Task 2 Deliverables:
• System architecture
• Working prototype
• Integration modules
Phase 3 Testing and Quality Assurance
Task 3.1 Internal Testing
CONSULTANT shall conduct functional testing of all system components, which includes performance testing, optimization, security testing and vulnerability assessment. CONSULTANT will also conduct integration testing with existing CPAU systems.
Task 3.1 Deliverables:
• Test results
• Performance metrics
• Security assessment results
Task 3.2 User Acceptance Testing with CPAU
CONSULTANT will plan, organize, and facilitate User Acceptance Testing (UAT) in coordination with CPAU staff to validate that the tool meets business and operational requirements. This includes developing a clear UAT plan, defining test scenarios and succe ss criteria, scheduling testing sessions, and providing guidance to staff throughout the process. The consultant will Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 118 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
document feedback, track issues to resolution, and confirm final sign- off to ensure the system is ready for deployment.
Task 3.2 Deliverables:
• UAT summary report
Phase 4 Training and Deployment
Task 4.1 CPAU Staff Training
CONSULTANT shall develop clear, user -friendly user manuals for both system administrators and end users. CONSULTANT will ensure all documentation reflects finalized tool functionality and incorporates feedback from UAT. CONSULTANT is to provide documentation in editable and accessible formats for future updates and internal use.
CONSULTANT is to provide end-user training focused on core functionality, workflows, and best practices aligned with day -to-day operations. CONSULTANT will deliver training sessions in accessible formats (e.g., virtual sessions and recorded materials) to accommodate staff availability.
Task 4.1 Deliverables:
• User training manuals
• User training recordings
Task 4.2 Project Handoff
CONSULTANT will provide CITY with a login to the tool to access commercial customer information and energy data. The tool will allow CITY to export and use the data for program design, customer identification, outreach, and high- level energy analysis. CONS ULTANT will support a structured transition from implementation to operational ownership, ensuring the system is fully deployed, validated, and supported by staff. This includes, but is not limited to:
• Production system deployment
• Data migration and system configuration
• Go-live support and initial user assistance
• Final system validation and acceptance
• Support procedures and escalation setup
Task 4.2 Deliverables:
• Production system
• Procedures document
Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 119 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024
EXHIBIT A-1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. CONSULTANT shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO.
OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE):
1B. TASK ORDER NO.:
2. CONSULTANT NAME:
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION:
4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT $_______________
5. BUDGET CODE_______________
COST CENTER________________
COST ELEMENT______________
WBS/CIP__________
PHASE__________
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:_____________________________________
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable) REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): _____________________________
I hereby authorize the performance of the
work described in this Task Order.
APPROVED:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of
this Task Order and warrant that I have
authority to sign on behalf of Consultant.
APPROVED:
COMPANY NAME: ______________________
BY:____________________________________
Name __________________________________
Title___________________________________
Date ___________________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: 5B9C1927-A269-4007-AA4C-F3F018D8A4F3 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
C26195689 with Concourse
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 120 of 441
Professional Services
Rev. Oct 16,2024