HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-15 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
October 15, 2001
1. Honoring the Presence of and Welcoming Visitors from Sister City Albi, France ................................... 3
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ................ 3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 4
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................. 4
1. Policy and Services Committee recommendations to the City Council re Escalating Rents and Mandatory
Mediation Ordinance and Security Deposit Interest .......... 4
2. Resolution 8095 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting and Authorizing
Execution of Program Supplement No. M001 to the Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans
for Federal-Aid Projects, Relating to the Traffic Signal Upgrade Project (Capital Improvement Program Project Number 0117) ....................................... 39
3. Resolution 8096 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for
Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 8000, 8027, 8060, and 8073 ................................. 39
4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Trees for El Camino Project (Trees for El Camino) in the Amount
of $78,000 to conduct a Fundraising Program for an Enhanced Tree Planting Program along the El Camino Real Corridor .............................................. 39
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and ASAP Software in the Annual Amount of $176,580 for a Three-
Year Microsoft Enterprise Agreement ........................ 39
10/15/01 93-1
6. Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. C1129753 Between the City of Palo Alto and Bragato Construction Company
in the Amount of $28,000 to Provide Replacement of Walkways Adjacent to the Duck Pond Parking Lots ............ 39
7. Change Order No. 4 to Contract No. C1135134 Between the City of Palo Alto and Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc., in the Amount of $3,730 to Provide Installation
of a Booster Pump for Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Irrigation Project at J.L. Stanford Middle School .............................................. 39
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Landfirst Consultants, Inc., in an Amount not to exceed $100,000
for Removal of Surplus Green Waste from the Palo Alto Composting Facility to Alternate Recycling Facilities ...... 40
9. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council re Mission of City/School Liaison Committee, approval of a ordinance establishing a new
City School Liaison standing committee with the following changes: 1) the date and time of the meetings would be determined by the newly-created City/School Liaison Committee; 2) the place and chair would be rotated between the City and the Palo Alto
School District on an annual basis; and 3) the appropriateness of Sections 2.04.190(c) and (d) would
be clarified by the City Attorney in light of the State Attorney General’s recent ruling. .................... 40
9A. Resolution 8099 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Declaring the City of Palo Alto to be a Hate Free Zone ..................................... 40
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................. 41
10. Conference with City Attorney - Pending Litigation ......... 41
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. ................ 41
10/15/01 93-2
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in
the Council Chambers at 6:50 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Honoring the Presence of and Welcoming Visitors from Sister City Albi, France No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
10/15/01 93-3
Regular Meeting October 15, 2001
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in
the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 8:00 p.m. via teleconference from Sandton, South Africa), Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar,
Ojakian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Sharon Rayner, 1556 University Avenue, spoke regarding the flag issue.
Margo Dutton, 3990 Ventura Court, spoke regarding the Ventura project.
Lisa Hendrickson, 450 Bryant Street, spoke regarding the Ventura project. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding zoning
housing. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding world
politics. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Ojakian,
to approve the Minutes of September 10, 2001, with the
correction that Council Members Beecham, Kleinberg and Mossar were not present at the meeting due to their not being able to participate in Agenda Item No. 1, the Four-
Party Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the Third Middle School Challenge, due to a conflict of interest; and
to approve the minutes of September 19, 2001, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
1. Policy and Services Committee recommendations to the City Council re Escalating Rents and Mandatory Mediation Ordinance and Security Deposit Interest
10/15/01 93-4
Council Member Mossar said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee discussed the issue the prior June and had a
lively discussion. The staff report at the time was based on recommendations to the P&S Committee from the Human Relations Commission (HRC). Representatives from Project Sentinel and Tri-County Apartment Association were present at that meeting and shared their ideas for ways to improve
the potential ordinance. The P&S Committee supported the recommendations of the HRC with some exceptions to be discussed at a later time. The P&S Committee gave clear
direction to all parties that it wanted the City Attorney and interested parties to have an opportunity to discuss
and work out differences prior to the ordinance returning to the Council for discussion. Director of Human Services Kathy Espinoza-Howard said the HRC held hearings in November 1995 and January 1996 on
escalating rent issues. In February 1996, the HRC sent a memo to the Council asking for consideration of the issue. In March 1996, Mayor Wheeler convened a Mayor’s Round Table on escalating rents that resulted in the establishment of an Escalating Rents Committee. In February 1997, the
Escalating Rents Committee issued a report citing specific recommendations. In October 1997, the P&S Committee
directed staff to return with the recommendations, and the item was agendized for a February 1998 Council meeting. In November 2000, the City Attorney provided an analysis of
the escalating rent issues to the P&S Committee. The P&S Committee asked the HRC to look at the recommendations in
December 2000. The HRC discussed the issue and made final recommendations, which were reviewed by the P&S Committee in June 2001.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the rental inspection
program was not recommended by the City Manager, and the security deposit interest portion of the P&S Committee recommendation would go back to the Council at a later date. While staff did not have clear direction from the P&S Committee or Council, staff realized that the best product
came out of a collaborative effort. The P&S Committee was quick to examine the problem of taking a consensual process such as mediation, and tagging it with the label
“mandatory.” In some schools of thought, that defeated the purpose because mediation worked by bringing people
together, allowing the free exchange of communication and ideas and finding new ways to solve a problem. The ordinance required people to “come to the table.” The
10/15/01 93-5
ordinance said, “participation in mediation shall be voluntary after the mediator’s opening statement.” The
mandatory part of the ordinance was that it was mandatory that both parties show up at mediation. The legislative purpose was about improving communications. Political and legislative findings were crafted based on what he heard from the P&S Committee, the HRC recommendations, and other
mediation ordinances. The core policy determination that the Council had to make was whether mandatory mediation would result in improved communications between landlords
and tenants. The Council could spend months or years trying to examine whether legislation would a) solve every problem
or b) solve the right problem. The problem to be solved was a communication issue. Many of the concerns raised were peripheral to the communication issue. The Council needed to consider whether the imbalanced rental housing market hindered communication between landlords and tenants. The
Council. The ordinance indicated that the result of the imbalance was a grossly disparate balance of bargaining power between landlords and tenants. The ordinance concluded that as a consequence of the imbalance and bargaining power, tenants were frequently unwilling or
unable to assert their legal rights or other concerns. The notion that tenants were inhibited from raising their own
concerns by the imbalance and bargaining power drew considerable attention from the Tri-County Apartment Association. Many of the property owners viewed that as
pejorative and as an attack on property owners. The ordinance said a fair and reliable process for conciliation
and mediation would help the problem and that communication had to be two ways. Participation by all affected parties was essential. The ordinance included a finding that
protection against retaliation for participating in mediation was important to protect communication. The
findings were “value neutral” and were not directed at deciding that one side or the other was wrong. The ordinance provided that “any issue based on facts regarding occupancy or use of rental property could be subject to mediation.” That was done by using broad language regarding
occupancy or use of rental property and listing examples. The scope of mediation needed to be put in context of the existing rental housing stabilization ordinance. The
Council had, since the early 1980s, an ordinance that required apartment owners to offer one-year leases for
properties. The ordinance exempted single-family homes and singly-owned condominiums. The ordinance was successfully challenged in the trial court by a property owner. The City
10/15/01 93-6
participated as a friend of the court in an appeal of the ruling and was still waiting for results. The context was
the existing rental regulation in Palo Alto exempted single-family homes. The proposed ordinance carried that theme forward and applied to rental properties with two or more dwelling units. The proposed ordinance applied to two or more dwelling units and could apply to single-family
homes if the owner owned more than one home and rented the homes. With regard to timing and process of mediation, there were short time lines and extensive process
safeguards to avoid abuse. His principle concerns with the ordinance were that it (1) not impact rental housing stock
in Palo Alto; and (2) not become polarized or make worse the situation that currently existed. If a problem arose, the person seeking mediation had 21 days to file a request for mediation. The mediation session had to happen no more than 28 days following the 21-day filing period. The
ordinance required the mediation administrator to attempt to conciliate and talk to the parties prior to scheduling the mediation. The mediator had broad administrative authority to dismiss factually unfounded, frivolous, malicious or vexatious cases. Findings in the ordinance
indicated “Council monitoring and oversite of the process is required.” The ordinance required the City Manager to
return in 12 months to review how things worked. His expectation was the Council would have information at that point about how many unfounded, frivolous, malicious, or
vexatious cases the City had to deal with. The explicit training requirements for the mediators who were involved
were a safeguard. There was no bias in the ordinance toward any particular side. Mediations were confidential. One of the themes the Escalating Rents Committee came up with in
1996 was tenant and landlord education. The City sent mailings advising property owners of the one-year lease
ordinance and prepared a tenants rights handbook. The proposed ordinance included a requirement that rental agreements and notices of rent increase or other changes in terms of tenancy had to include a short summary of the fact that people had the right to request mediation when they
received the notice. If the landlord did not include the notice, the 21-day short time line was automatically extended. Many of the interactions staff had with landlords
about the one-year ordinance, resulted in realizing the landlords were not aware of the law. The warning provision
made sense if the City’s goal was communication and education. The ordinance asked landlords to register rental property addresses and the name and address of a contact
10/15/01 93-7
person who handled the mediation. The City would request that information, and no fee would be involved at the
current time. The ordinance included an anti-retaliation clause that indicated if a person asked for mediation, it was unlawful to retaliate or be retaliated against. The anti-retaliation protection was strictly limited to prevent abuse. The anti-retaliation clause applied within a six-
month time frame following mediation and was enforceable only by the City Attorney. There was no eviction defense remedy in the ordinance. The Council would direct the City
Manager to bring the ordinance back in one year for review, which would allow the opportunity to amend the ordinance if
problems arose. The ordinance expressly provided that mediation would not happen unless there was a volunteer mediator available at no cost. Harold Justman, 828 Ramona Street, was familiar with
mandatory mediation provisions which would be included in contracts by parties to the contract. All contractual, mandatory mediation provisions provided and required that the parties agreed on a mediator. Courts that enforced contractual, mandatory mediation provisions did not attempt
to select the mediator but required the parties to select a mediator. The Palo Alto ordinance selected a mediator for
the parties and imposed a mediator upon the parties. The selection by a mediator by anyone other than the parties was a violation of a fundamental principle of mediation.
The failure to obtain the landlord or tenant’s agreement as to who the mediator would be prior to a dispute would
impair the appearance of impartiality of the process. The imposition of a mediator was foreign to the concept of mandatory mediation as selected by parties in contractual
agreements.
David Jacobs, 275 Ventura Avenue, #23, Palo Alto Area Chapter of the Santa Clara County Tenants Association, said the Association was a group of concerned individuals who came together in order to make heard the voice of renters in the community with the goal of achieving a meaningful
improvement in the situation of renters in Palo Alto. The Council had an opportunity to take a stand on renters’ issues. During the prior year, at many community forums and
Council meetings, the Council heard horror stories of dramatic rent increases, of people who faced economic
hardship, and of renters who had to move out of Palo Alto. The last affordable areas in Palo Alto were in jeopardy of disappearing. If present trends continued, Palo Alto ran
10/15/01 93-8
the risk of becoming a “gated” community with only the most affluent people being able to live in Palo Alto. The
landlords were in a situation where they had the power to dictate rent increases to the tenants. The existing, voluntary mediation program was meaningless. The proposed mandatory mediation ordinance represented a small step forward for tenants. The landlord registry portion of the
ordinance enabled tenants to know who was the owner of a rental property. The mandatory mediation process required that owners met with their tenants in case of a dispute
over rent increases. The ordinance did little more than require a meeting. The Council needed to include language
that encouraged actual negotiation as opposed to only showing up for an initial meeting. The Council should try to ensure that real mediation took place in the case of disputes between landlords and tenants. Mediators should have the power to make proposals in the cases which were
before them and in cases that were not resolved by the parties. A mechanism was needed to keep track of the outcome of cases of mediation in order for the City to see what benefits there were to the mediation process.
Laura MacDougall, 2875 Ramona Street, quoted from a newspaper article that indicated the Bay Area remained the
most expensive place in the nation for rental housing. Other cities proposed mandatory mediation ordinances. The Council was encouraged to adopt the ordinance.
Mayor Eakins announced that Council Member Fazzino arrived
at 8:00 p.m. via teleconference from Sandton, South Africa. Paul Stewart, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors,
thanked the City Attorney for putting together the negotiation sessions to redraft the ordinance. A percentage
of membership of the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors engaged in the management of investment property, and most were small owners. Concerns were raised that impacted small owners. The City Attorney crystallized the controversial issues that the Association had concerns: 1)
that the City might include the costs of lights, electricity, or space as part of a registration fee and what that fee would be; 2) the code on penalties and fines
where reference was made to jail time and stiff fees; and 3) that someone who did not show up for a mediation hearing
would go to jail. Another issue was the expansion of application. Single-family homes were exempted under previous ordinances. The current ordinance implied that
10/15/01 93-9
people who owned two single-family homes fell under the ordinance. The Association felt the ordinance was too
burdensome and overregulated. Chris Lundin, 2756 Ross Road, Peninsula Interfaith Action, said he represented the Hispanic-speaking people at the St. Thomas Aquinas Church. The Hispanic people saw the power
imbalance, and the renters he represented needed to have a voice in a situation where they were at disparate power. The ordinance improved communication and allowed the
renters to deal with a trained mediator.
Todd Lewis, 70 Tulip Lane, was concerned about imposing ordinances on rental housing. Often a renter would take an owner to mediation over unwarranted, frivolous reasons. The risk was that the small property owners’ attitudes would change if they were asked to comply with new bureaucracies.
The loss of housing units was a concern. He did not support the ordinance. Kathy Thibodeux, Tri-County Apartment Association (TCAA), 792 Meridian Way, Suite A, San Jose, thanked the Council
for the collaboration on the issue before the Council. The TCAA had a long history of supporting mediation as an
effective way to resolve disputes and to reduce tensions between landlords and tenants. The TCAA backed up that support with an outstanding track record of convincing
reluctant owners to enter into mediation discussions. The TCAA was concerned about the challenge that many in the
community had in finding affordable housing. The TCAA strongly supported mediation, but the current proposal was overreaching and could be abused. The City Attorney
attempted to address concerns within the confines of the broad recommendations offered by the HRC. The proposed
ordinance indicated that the mediation administrator had the power to decide matters over which to invoke the ordinance that could lead to stiff penalties and jail time. She asked the Council to consider: (1 no government regulation could guarantee that everyone would get along,
and approval of the untested proposal sent the wrong message to the landlords of Palo Alto; and (2 the City did not definitively know whether the nature and degree of the
problem warranted a regulatory response. To date, the basis for the ordinance, was strictly opinion and anecdotes. Data
was limited. Project Sentinel acknowledged their system for tracking the disposition of landlord/tenant disputes did not yield definitive information about the degree of
10/15/01 93-10
landlord cooperation with the voluntary mediation process. The tenants talked about the issue of rent increases. TCAA
indicated it would not oppose an ordinance that was focused on rent increases. The TCAA suggested that rather than implement mandatory mediation for all other issues, the ordinance be returned to staff to work with Project Sentinel to develop a better system for categorizing and
recording the disposition of landlord/tenant disputes in Palo Alto.
Bruce Rueppel said property owners’ names were public record and easily accessible on the Internet. He did not
want renters to pay the fee because that would mean a rent increase to them, and he did not want to pay the fee because anything that increased his operating costs was passed on to his tenants. The ordinance should be limited to rent increases. He questioned how many complaints the
City received during the prior three years. Sophia H. Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, relied on the TCAA leadership to speak for her and defend her.
Eve Agiewich, 3427 Janice Way, Human Relations Commission Chair, recommended passage of the ordinance. She thanked
the City Attorney for the painstaking job he did with the ordinance. The ordinance was about more than only rent. The HRC heard from City residents who were being squeezed out
because of the lack of affordable housing and the exorbitant rents. The residents told the HRC that landlords
refused to mediate. The proposed ordinance would go a long way to make the playing field even and encourage real communication between landlords and tenants. Prior to being
on the HRC, she was a volunteer mediator with the Mediation Program and had always been a staunch supporter of the
program. Each year, the HRC held a program related to housing issues. The Mediation Program played key roles in the programs by demonstrating the role that mediation played in the resolution of disputes or facilitating meetings. The panel of mediators included skilled,
professionally trained, and highly dedicated people who served the City without compensation. The HRC recommended that landlords and tenants be required to attend a
mediation session. Types of issues that should be subject to the ordinance included security deposits, repairs and
maintenance, utilities, occupants, parking, storage, privacy and quiet enjoyment in the use of common areas. Mediation on those issues worked.
10/15/01 93-11
Martin Eichner, 3944 Park Avenue, Director of Dispute Resolution Program for Project Sentinel, said the current
mediation rate for Palo Alto the prior year was only 11.8 percent. On the tenant side, there were two overwhelmingly common reasons for not using mediation, which included fear of retaliation and the concept that landlords had strong power and the right to remove a tenant on a 30-day notice
without reason. Mediation would work if people were brought together with a trained mediator who could conduct a safe and confidential discussion. TCAA supported mediation and
mandatory mediation of rental increases. Seventy-three percent of the cases in Palo Alto the prior year were over
issues other than rent increases. Council Member Beecham asked Mr. Eichner to further explain the issues.
Mr. Eichner said mediation and the right to initiate mediation was a two-way street. Tenants often complained that landlords came over at late hours to make repairs, and the landlords complained that they were unable to get into the units. Both sides needed access to each other in a safe
and confidential environment where issues of privacy, repair and maintenance, and other types of disputes listed
in the ordinance were involved. The strongest part of mediation was that it could preserve an ongoing relationship.
Council Member Beecham said the ordinance referred to
“quiet enjoyment” and asked about Mr. Eichner’s experience with that.
Mr. Eichner said “quiet enjoyment” was the issue of the ability to live in the premises quietly, which had to do
with noise and garbage pick up. Council Member Wheeler clarified Mr. Eichner’s experience was that both tenants and landlords were reluctant to go to mediation and asked what he thought bothered landlords
about going to mediation under the current circumstances. Mr. Eichner said landlords had two primary concerns: (1)
going to mediation was time consuming and troublesome; and (2) feeling they were right.
Council Member Mossar clarified there were other cities in the area that had mandatory mediation.
10/15/01 93-12
Mr. Eichner said that was correct.
Council Member Mossar asked about Mr. Eichner’s experience with the notion of vexatious complaints. Mr. Eichner said Campbell and Los Gatos had mandatory programs. The City of Campbell had mandatory mediation of
rent increases and service reductions, which included issues such as repair and maintenance. Project Sentinel had no experience in Campbell of repeat cases. The Town of Los
Gatos was a rent control jurisdiction and had arbitration in the process that gave tenants more power than what was
included in the proposed ordinance. Los Gatos had one repeat case out of 65 cases. The notion of vexatious tenants was a theoretical concern and one that Project Sentinel had not experienced.
Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, said she was a member of the working group that worked with the City Attorney to draft the ordinance and had been a member of the HRC for six years. She was privy to the complaints and meetings and discussions where the HRC heard from tenants. She did not
recall hearing any frivolous complaints, but was aware that many tenants did not want to call their landlords for fear
of retaliation. Palo Alto’s vacancy factor was small compared to other jurisdictions, and rent increases were beyond most peoples’ ability to pay. The proposed ordinance
was a win-win proposition. The tenant won by having protection against retaliation and a disinterested third
party to whom to explain problems, and the landlord won because the mediator provided the balance between the tenant and landlord.
Bruce Herrmann, P.O. Box 3007, Los Altos, said he owned a
16-unit building in Midtown and managed the adjacent 8-plex. Because he had a regular day job, he managed the properties in the evenings and weekends. The residents were known by name and were given his phone number. Three to four calls per year about problems were received at his
house. Most owners viewed their apartments as long-term investments that would provide owners with income once mortgages were paid off. The City was punishing the
majority for the sins of a few. The friendly relationship that landlords enjoyed with their tenants might be damaged
by new City bureaucracy. Only one resident requested mediation. A mediation ordinance was not necessary. If
10/15/01 93-13
necessary, the ordinance should be limited to serious issues. The real issue was large rental increases.
Ed Barry, P.O. Box 685, Los Altos, said his family owned apartments in Palo Alto for 30 years, had excellent relationships with all the people who lived in his buildings, and had not once gone to mediation. Problems
were dealt with on a personal basis. Small property owners had social conscious about the issues faced by people renting in Palo Alto. Issues about maintenance items and
landlords going into apartments at unauthorized hours were usually addressed in legal rental agreements.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said he could not understand why landlords were opposed to the ordinance. The ordinance had no penalties or “teeth.” Landlords in the County were sent to jail for their actions of failure to maintain
property, keep property safe and vermin free, and to maintain a safe living condition. The Council was urged to endorse the ordinance. Important issues that needed to be discussed had to do with large numbers of people living in one-bedroom apartments, people who wanted to complain but
feared the landlord would evict them, and violations of standard building codes and practices.
Margie Galdes, 1130 Channing Avenue, did not think all landlords were vicious. As a landlord, she had renters for
many years and never raised rents. Her tenants were asked to call her if there were any problems. The ordinance was
not necessary. Terry Feinberg, 1600 Sand Hill Road, Oak Creek Apartments,
said Oak Creek Apartments was the largest apartment community in Palo Alto. Concerns expressed included the
administrative impacts, the potential fees, and the proposed solution would not achieve the intended results or policy findings. The noticing, tracking, documentation, potential criminal penalties, jail time, and fines placed a tremendous administrative burden, even without frivolous
mediation hearings. The ordinance provided for a registration fee but none was established at the current time. An ordinance that proposed a fee but did not identify
the fee was unusual. If a fee were based on a per unit charge, the residents at Oak Creek would pay the largest
share of the fee when it was instituted. Mediation was a successful and positive process but was a consensual rather than compulsory process. Forcing owners or residents to
10/15/01 93-14
show up for a government mandated process did not contribute to a consensual environment or positive outcome.
The City had an effective, voluntary mediation process available for Palo Alto residents that would be more effective if more people were aware of the benefits of mediation. A public education and marketing campaign was needed rather than an expensive, bureaucratic forced
participation program. Dave Arellano, 1020 Corporation Way, said the Town of Los
Gatos had a rent control ordinance rather than a mandatory mediation ordinance. As an operator managing 51 units in
Los Gatos, he did not know the ordinance existed. The issue of rent increases would not be on the table for many landlords for quite some time. The residents of his units were seen as customers who were needed to live in the units and help pay the bills for the landlords.
Reverend Kurt Kuhwald, 1107 Second Avenue, #711, Redwood City, said he was trained as a mediator in San Diego in one of the first mediation programs. Mediation was one way to make peace. The landlords who did not respond and did not
see their tenants as “customers” were a concern. Mediation demonstrated respect through leveling the playing field.
Mediation encouraged communication and was a peaceful process. The ordinance was open ended and not coercive. He urged the Council to adopt the ordinance.
Martin Gerotwol, 633 Channing Avenue, said, as a landlord,
he had no complaints or disagreements by any of his tenants. People in Palo Alto lived in a democracy, in a capitalist system where the market place regulated prices
and commodities. Federal, state, and local government only entered the picture when there were tremendous,
unacceptable abuses. The proposed ordinance established an unnecessary, dictatorial bureaucracy. He did not understand why the Council had a right to enact such an ordinance and impose additional penalties on landlords. The landlords provided a required necessity.
Harold Davis, 2225 Showers Drive, Mountain View, said during the past 12 years, he had no requests for mediation
by his tenants. Units were well maintained, and communication was open with the tenants. Mediation should
only be for rental disputes and cases that could not be agreed upon by landlord and tenants in a sufficient amount of time. The proposed ordinance was unnecessary and a waste
10/15/01 93-15
of time for City government, landlords and tenants. The qualification of mediators was questioned. Substantiated
evidence was necessary to prove there was a need for the ordinance. The HRC needed to present facts on how it arrived at the proposed ordinance. The vast preponderance of owners worked closely with their tenants and treated them in a fair manner, working through disputes themselves.
Rent increases were an item that had not been fully addressed. During the prior year, rental rates at his properties dropped 35 to 40 percent.
Edie Keating, 3511 Waverley Street, was disappointed at the
concerns that were raised by property owners despite all the reassurances that there would be no abuse and good property owners would not be subjected to time constraints. Renters feared rent increases and not knowing how much security deposit would be given back. The ordinance did not
solve all the problems but was a step. The broad scope of the ordinance gave it value. If a fee were attached to the ordinance, the fee would end up being part of the rent she paid. The City should keep the fee low. Rents had gone down, but that was after large increases, and rents were
still high.
Diana Watters, 129 Seale Avenue, had lived in her home for nine years and saw her rent nearly triple in that time. Her attempts to negotiate with her former landlord for
improvements were unsuccessful. The apartment building recently sold, and she received a notice that her rent was
to be increased from $1,400 per month to $2,500 per month. She wrote a letter to her landlord and was able to negotiate a lesser rent increase and improvements to her
apartment. Knowing the ordinance existed in the future was appreciated.
Pam Davis, 3980 El Camino Real, Buena Vista Mobile Home Park resident, said in her position as a Human Resources Manager, people who did not get along were made to get together and talk about why they did not get along. The
residents had issues the prior year with regard to large rent increases and went to mediation because the landlord was not confident speaking to the residents.
Ray Raza, 2118 Alvin, Mountain View, said he moved from
Palo Alto to Mountain View because of a rent increase which would have been more than half of his monthly income. Palo Alto had no rent control law. The mandatory mediation was
10/15/01 93-16
supported for the sake of communication, for keeping affordable housing in Palo Alto, for the sake of the
voiceless, for the sake of social justice, and for preventing arbitrary rent increases. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, #126, supported the HRC ordinance. Increasing the supply of housing was to
everyone’s interest. The Palo Alto Housing Element indicated that the median price of a home in Palo Alto the prior year was $1,006,000. The Housing Element also
indicated there were no moderate-income people who could afford a home in Palo Alto. With regard to rentals, the
Housing Element mentioned that low-income and very low-income people were being priced out of rentals in the community. Fear on behalf of the landlords was felt. The ordinance helped the relationship that existed between landlords and tenants.
Steve Shapiro, 1145 Amarillo Street, said he was against mandatory mediation but was in favor of voluntary mediation. People invested in communities that valued the investor. As an apartment manager, he made a living and
tried to give people a fair rent.
Kathy Kenney-Baskin was involved in rentals for 30 years. Leases outlined exactly what the rights of landlords and tenants were. As a landlord, she wanted to talk to her
tenants and did what her customers asked. Nothing told her there was a significant or known problem large enough in
Palo Alto to warrant the ordinance. The best way to solve a problem was directly with the person. She would not be as open minded as she currently was, if she was forced into a
mandatory situation. Statistics on how many people in Palo Alto had problems between landlords and tenants was
requested. Kip Husty, 922 Bautista Court, said when he asked for mediation after a 30 percent rent increase, the landlord refused. The same thing happened with other tenants. Six
months later, the tenants received a 25 percent rent increase after the City was asked to inspect the dilapidated housing. The landlord did not go through
permits and did not use contractors but passed on rent increases to the tenants.
William Byron Webster, 480 E. O’Keefe #307, East Palo Alto, East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board Chairman, said East
10/15/01 93-17
Palo Alto had a form of mandatory mediation through the rent stabilization program. The program contributed to
landlords and tenants going to the table to resolve issue prior to going to the mandatory mediation program. The Rent Stabilization Program contacted the parties involved to suggest they resolve their issues. The Rent Stabilization Program worked in East Palo Alto.
Sal Giovannotto, 3090 Alexis Drive, thought the City tried to create a hostile environment between tenants and
landlords. As a landlord for many years, he was invited five times to go to mediation. His relationship with his
tenants was excellent. Rents in Palo Alto were as high and as low as Menlo Park, Mountain View, or Sunnyvale. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, said the ordinance was nice and recommended the Council add a provision in which
people could ask for help in drafting a letter to their landlords prior to going to mediation. The ordinance should not apply to anything less than a four-plex. The ordinance did not do any good. The City needed to make it possible for low-income housing to survive.
RECESS 9:32 P.M. TO 9:42 P.M.
Mr. Calonne requested the closed session be continued for another week. BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL Closed Session Item No. 10
would be continued to the Special Meeting on October 22,
2001. John Shaw, 600 Sharon Park Drive, #B101, Menlo Park, was sensitive to what cities could do to create affordable housing. As a property owner and broker, the depth and
scope of the ordinance was greater than it should have been. Safety, cleanliness, and good housing were desired
for everyone. If tenants who disputed an issue did not pay the rent during the disputed period of time caused damage to the unit, legal fees, and loss of rent, landlords were
under mandatory obligations to return tenants’ rent deposit or explain why the rent was not returned. The ordinance was
already in place in a law fashion. He urged the Council to proceed with the ordinance but encourage people to talk.
Council Member Beecham said the ordinance did not allow tenants to not pay the rent.
10/15/01 93-18
Mr. Shaw said there was an opportunity for abuse.
Marvin Feinstein, 1600 Bryant Street, said the City Attorney’s presentation began with an indication there was a mass of imbalance and power. The power balance had shifted dramatically and economic conditions took an incredible turn. To think about an ordinance that tried to
satisfy problems that were being redefined was futile. In the current economic environment, the tenant had the upper hand.
Elizabeth Jackson, 2035 Cooley Avenue, #41, East Palo Alto,
said the ordinance was appropriate to Palo Alto. East Palo Alto had a stronger ordinance, and she had the experience of watching tenants go to the Rent Stabilization Board meetings in tears because they were afraid of their landlords. The ordinance would give people who had such a
fear an opportunity to talk to the landlord with the assistance of a professional. People knew what their problems were, but did not know their rights. Jim Baer, 3376 St. Michael Drive, supported the ordinance,
which he believed would benefit both tenants and landlords. The ordinance would be used when there was a breakdown. If
mediators heard things that were frivolous or nuisance-type complaints, the mediators would not go forward with a meeting but would bring it back to the case administrator
for further development prior to moving ahead. The desired outcomes for him as a mediator was for the parties to reach
their own resolutions and that they had a win-win type of outcome. The mediators were not present to adjudicate forcibly see an agreement reached. The ordinance did not
call for an agreement to be reached. The process called for a negotiation that allowed for more open creativity between
parties when there was the opportunity to expand upon issues other than only rent increases, for instance, being able to talk about a rent increase in the context of improvements. The registry would help in being able to know that a decision maker was contacted about a possible
outcome. A registry allowed the ordinance administrator to locate decision makers easier in the case of a need or request for the process.
Maria Gillmore, Ventura Avenue, thanked TCAA for the
information that was given to property owners in Palo Alto. As a landlord, she experienced tenants who abused the units. She questioned whether the mediators were
10/15/01 93-19
experienced people or only volunteers who did not know how to deal with problems. She urged the Council to oppose the
ordinance. Jeff Traum, 1040 Ramona Street, said he had been friends with people who had rented from him. There was a danger having the city government interfere with the free market
place. The problem was poor housing economics. Increasing the expense and inconvenience to a landlord increased the risk and detracted from the potential returns on investment
and decreased the likelihood that an investor would fix repairs above and beyond the call of duty. The Council went
on record advocating the expansion of housing. The ordinance was one step discouraging investors to come into Palo Alto to improve and increase the housing stock. Voting for the ordinance was a vote against good housing stock. The Council was encouraged to vote against the ordinance.
Human Relations Commissioner Andrew Pierce said he was a skeptic about mandatory mediation. As a lawyer, he mediated many matters. Palo Alto had vacant units at the current time. If the ordinance were limited to rent increases only,
there was little to talk about. The Council did not want rent control in Palo Alto. Issues such as maintenance and
use of facility were also important to talk about. The HRC agreed with TRCC not to push for rent control or “just cause” eviction. Ordinances as broad as what was proposed
already existed in two communities, and there were no cases of abuse.
Mayor Eakins clarified Mr. Pierce said mandatory mediation was not really the issue. She heard it was.
Mr. Pierce said many people who spoke did not have a good
understanding of the ordinance, and an attempt was made to miscommunicate what the ordinance would do. Council Member Beecham said Mr. Pierce’s comments in the HRC meeting minutes of June 7, 2001, mentioned people’s
concerns about vexatious tenants, and a simple solution was to limit either side to invoking the mandatory mediation to only once per year.
Mr. Pierce said the comments were overly harsh, and there
were other solutions that could be reached. If there was evidence of problems, the number of times someone could resort to mandatory mediation could be limited.
10/15/01 93-20
Council Member Kleinberg referred to page 3 of section (c) of the proposed ordinance and asked whether there was
adequate legal definitions and case law to indicate to the mediation service and to others who used the ordinance, what the terms meant in order to avoid arbitrariness or vagueness in the ordinance.
Mr. Calonne said his concern in responding was that the perception of arbitrariness might remain. The language in the proposed ordinance was biased to give the mediation
administrator absolute authority to dismiss a case where further proceedings were likely not to be productive. The
language was intended to give the mediation administrator absolute reign to stop a case that did not make sense. Council Member Kleinberg clarified Mr. Calonne was comfortable that the ordinance was not so vague as to give
too much power to the mediator to dismiss something that needed to be mediated. Mr. Calonne said he was confident that the mediator administrator, as an agent of the City, would exercise
discretion appropriately. One speaker mentioned a concern about having mediators being the decision makers on the
disputes. The ordinance spoke to the mediation administrator being the primary decision maker on whether a case would or would not go forward.
Council Member Kleinberg said section (a) on page 3 of the
proposed ordinance indicated that a tenant or landlord could file a written request for a dispute resolution within 21 days of learning the facts that gave rise to the
dispute. She envisioned situations where someone might pretend they had not heard about the ordinance or did not
know about the facts in order to stretch out the time. Mr. Calonne said he could envision the situation between a landlord and a tenant who was abusive. The landlord would exercise greater caution to document a change in
circumstances to fix the date and have evidence to give the mediation administrator.
Council Member Kleinberg asked what the standard was of proof that the date be fixed.
10/15/01 93-21
Mr. Calonne said the working group did not address that issue in detail but acknowledged that 21 days was a short
time frame. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Project Sentinel was expected to come up with a working standard.
Mr. Calonne said the standard was clear: 21 days of learning the facts that gave rise to the dispute. The ordinance left open what proof might be required to show
when the dispute was learned of.
Council Member Kleinberg said on page 4, section (g) the “all parties” was controlled by the definition of landlords. She asked whether it was considered that there might be landlords who had a disability or other illness that might prevent them from arriving for mediation and
whether there was a delegate who had power of attorney. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance allowed the property owner to designate the person with authority in the property registration, which would control who went to mediation.
There was a hardship allowance that related to when a landlord might be traveling. Other hardship could be
accommodated if the Council wished. Council Member Kleinberg said the proposed ordinance
referenced penalties. Section (A) on page 7 said, “Violations of this chapter shall be punishable as provided
in the Palo Alto Municipal Code section 1.08.010. She asked what those were.
Mr. Calonne said the basic violation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMF) was a misdemeanor, which was a jury
trial offense that included imprisonment as a potential penalty. The same section of the ordinance included a “wobbler” that allowed his office to downgrade the offense to an infraction to serve the interest of justice case by case. That was the basic enforcement for any violation of
the PAMC. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the penalty for an
infraction.
Mr. Calonne said the penalty was a fine, with the amount beginning at approximately $100. A bail schedule was submitted each year to the Presiding Judge of the Superior
10/15/01 93-22
Court that was sent to the Council for review periodically. The Council could give direction that penalties not be
misdemeanors. Council Member Mossar clarified if a person was in the fortunate position of being a great landlord with great tenants and all issues were worked out, the ordinance had
no bearing on that person. Mr. Calonne said there were two additional duties outside
of mediation. One was to register the property and the other was to include notice language in the rental
agreements. Council Member Mossar said some speakers indicated to her that they felt they would be forced to move from a situation where they were dealing one on one with tenants
to a forced mediation. Mr. Calonne said his report to the Council, dated October 11, 2001, alluded to the effort to guess at the behavior modification effects. The Council was better at predicting
behavior than the staff. The ordinance was successful if there were no mediations because it led to discussion.
Council Member Wheeler asked about the experience in other cities that had mediation ordinances. She recalled in 1997
that the Council looked at relatively new ordinances in Los Gatos and Campbell. The Project Sentinel had experience
with those ordinances. She asked whether the City Attorney had any opportunity to speak with the legal staff in any cities with similar ordinances to find out glitches or
successes.
Mr. Calonne said the approach was soft, and the trend was toward more direct or mandatory protection of tenants. Council Member Wheeler clarified that any city that was used as a comparison had a much tougher ordinance.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct or that the other cities bypassed mediation and went to other remedies.
Council Member Fazzino asked for specifics. The legislature
went the other direction during prior years with respect to tenant rights.
10/15/01 93-23
Mr. Calonne said legislature increased tenant protections through adopting the 60-day notice bill that Senator Sher
carried unsuccessfully in 1997. Council Member Fazzino said at the same time the possibility of local action on rent control was preempted.
Mr. Calonne said the City of Sunnyvale took their mediation ordinance off the books.
Council Member Burch asked about the property registration and whether the registration would be one single page or
one page per unit. Mr. Calonne said thought was not given to how a possible fee would be structured. A per unit fee was favorable to the small owners. A fee based on Assessors parcels was
favorable to the large owners. Council Member Burch asked for clarification on the registration fee.
Mr. Calonne said he understood the concern that fees tended to start small and increase. The ordinance explicitly
limited the purposes of the fee to the administrative cost of handling the paper. There might be back end things that happened with the paper if there were enough properties
that warranted a computerized database. The Council had control by saying the fee was administrative only for the
cost of handling the paper, and the fee would be approved by resolution.
Council Member Burch asked whether there were any similar examples in the City.
Mr. Calonne said one example was the Public Records Act, which limited the price the City could charge for public records to the direct cost of duplicating the records.
Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said most communities that went through the process of tracking rental units used a system. Palo Alto did not have a
business licensing system but was in the process of investigating a business licensing system. Any cost that
was transferred to the owner to register a rental unit would be transferred to the tenant. The rate structure would be established to cover the administrative cost of
10/15/01 93-24
administering the program. Staff considered a basic registration in the first year, which would be a form on
the Human Services web page that could be downloaded and returned by email or mail. Council Member Burch asked whether the notices had to be in different languages.
Mr. Calonne said the ordinance did not specify other languages. The assumption was that notice provision had to
accompany the rental agreement. The tenant needed to be able to understand the rental agreement notice.
Council Member Burch said someone suggested the City might want to exempt owner-occupied triplexes or fewer units from the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Calonne said the Council might want to consider that. Council Member Beecham said page 3, section (c) of the proposed ordinance talked about cases where a case should not be opened. He questioned the wording, “may refuse to
open,” when it should not be opened. He suggested, “will refuse to open.”
Mr. Calonne said the mediation administrator would report to the City Manager. There was a bias toward trusting the
fair exercise of discretion by the mediation administrator. He operated from the perspective that the City Manager
would control misbehavior by City employees or contractors. Council Member Beecham referred to page 5, section 9.72.060
regarding retaliation and questioned the City Attorney’s comments that nonpayment of rent would be sufficient
defense against retaliation concerns. Mr. Calonne said a notice of eviction could be reviewed as a retaliatory act if it happened within six months. The ordinance also stated that the mediation administrator had
to conclude there was sufficient evidence to investigate. Eviction was not a presumptive case of retaliation but was enough to get the mediation administrator to look at it.
Council Member Beecham suggesting adding a clause to
specify nonpayment of rent.
10/15/01 93-25
Mr. Calonne said nonpayment of rent was a breach of the terms of tenancy and could lead to a three-day notice of
eviction. The ordinance could be modified to exclude evictions that were the result of nonpayment. He urged that the mediation administrator would find that out quickly and decide there was no basis for a retaliation claim.
Council Member Beecham referred to page 7, section (f) of the draft ordinance which addressed things that might be a dispute. He asked whether it would be reasonable to add as
a condition that the items be reasonable and under control of the parties.
Mr. Calonne said that was possible. Quiet enjoyment was an implied duty to let the tenants use the property for the purposes of which it was intended. The wording was vague legally but generally referred to a behavior that was not
strictly against the rules in the lease but interfered with the tenant enough to make the property uninhabitable or difficult to inhabit. An example was driving a lawn mower beneath a window several times a day.
Council Member Lytle said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee asked that the ordinance return with a budget
attached. Several people expressed concern about the cost of the program. She was troubled by discussion of an administrator and administrative filing without any concept
of what the cost of the program was.
Mr. Yeats said Project Sentinel would do the mediation under their current agreement during the first year. No budget change was required. The registration would be done
in a simple form and would not result in an increase in cost.
Council Member Lytle clarified there would be no cost to the City. Mr. Yeats said that was correct. The ordinance recommended
the City Manager bring back a report at the end of the year to evaluate the program.
Mr. Calonne said the ordinance said mediation would be a no cost to the City or the parties.
Council Member Lytle would like to have seen thresholds or experience of other cities.
10/15/01 93-26
Mr. Yeats said most cities regulated the program through their business licensing system. Staff was in the process
of analyzing that. Council Member Lytle said the Council heard that the imposition of a mediator was a fatal flaw.
Mr. Calonne said the balance for the Council was between having a neutral third party (the City) steering it to a mediator versus having the parties add to a process of
their own. In trying to get the process done quickly and reasonably, adding the choice of mediators to the tasks was
one more thing to do. Keeping the process manageable for the parties and meeting the objectives of mediation was the balance. The ordinance specified that mediators would be trained with a minimum number of hours in courses of mediation.
Council Member Lytle said several people indicated they could accept the ordinance if it were restricted to rent only. Tenant advocates indicated they needed the other aspects of the ordinance in order to make the ordinance
meaningful. The City Attorney’s presentation indicated there was an opportunity for reaching a compromise. She
asked whether there was room for compromise from the property owners in their deliberations.
Mr. Calonne said TCAA’s position was they wanted rental increases only. The P&S Committee and HRC recommendation
was for everything. The middle ground that was obvious was more than only rental increases but not everything. Section (f) on page 7 could be changed to “the including but not
limited to” an exclusive listing of the subjects that would be covered. Given that staff recommended a one-year review
by Council, too many cases would not be lost by sticking with the discreet list. Council Member Lytle questioned whether trying to forge a compromise in terms of making people feel more positive
helped when the Council adopted legislation where people were divided.
Mr. Calonne said the premise that got the HRC looking at mediation was that mediation was viewed as the softest and
most supportable proposition on the table. There was a sense of surprise that the opposition was as persistent as it had been. The points of disagreement could not be
10/15/01 93-27
resolved through compromise. His preference was to have an exclusive list that limited the disputes so that the
frivolous, trivial things did not get shoved in the Council’s collective face. He could not tell whether that would do anything for TCAA. Council Member Lytle asked whether TCAA could be asked the
question. Mayor Eakins said TCAA would be asked to speak following
the motion.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said by way of policy the Council could say the program could be a cost recovery program and not a revenue-generating program. The exact dollar figure was not given but parameters were set, which could be a policy decision.
Mr. Yeats said that was correct. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether there was any discussion about the number of disputes that could happen within a
certain time frame.
Mr. Calonne said there were no suggestions for a specific limiting number. The balance was the mediation administrator’s discretion to get rid of vexatious
complaints versus ironclad assurance that the one in one hundred vexatious tenant was a real problem. The other
balance was that the Council had the City Manager returning in 12 months.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what kicked the penalty in.
Mr. Calonne said outright refusal to participate in mediation on a regular basis. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether there were other situations that put someone in a penalty position.
Mr. Calonne said yes, if there were clear evidence of retaliation. Repeated violation, repeated retaliation, and
absolute refusal to participate would be concerns.
Mr. Calonne said talking about penalties added a balance into the policy discussion that he had trouble responding to. He did not advise the Council that adherence to the law
10/15/01 93-28
be defined based on whether one could get away from it or the cost of getting caught.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said as a landlord he wanted to know in what set of circumstances he might be in a penalty situation. He understood situations were if he did not show up for a mediation session or was involved in retaliatory
actions. Mr. Calonne said if the ordinance were to be tightened, he
would consider making sure that any violation was a knowing violation. There was no reason to penalize a property owner
who inadvertently made a mistake. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about situations where people rented out rooms in a house.
Mr. Calonne said a rooming house would be covered as a residential property containing two or more dwelling units. There was no specific exemption for an owner-occupied rooming house.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about the reporting back in 12 months.
Mr. Calonne said the 12 months and the finding that the Council recognized it was important to monitor and improve
the process as established were promises that the Council put in writing to the landlord and tenant community.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified the form could be reproduced in English, Spanish, Chinese and Russian.
Ms. Espinoza-Howard said that was correct.
Mayor Eakins asked whether broad categories for data collection had been discussed. Mr. Calonne said no. He suggested the Council’s motion
include changes that kept the good faith to continue working with the groups that spent time on the ordinance. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins,
to approve the staff recommendation that the Council:
• Approve the draft Mandatory Discussion of Disputes Between Landlords and Tenants Ordinance;
10/15/01 93-29
• Direct staff to incorporate the landlord registry program, the modified housing inspection program and the proposed amendments to the Rental Stabilization Ordinance within the business license fee implementation plan;
• Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute any
contracts, contract amendments or any other necessary documents to implement the Council’s actions;
• Direct staff to maintain a good faith with the working
parties for further clarifications, definitions, measurables and implementations for a first reading by
mid-November to have approval by the end of the year; and
• Direct staff with the working group to develop broad categories for data collection to report back to the
Council.
Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Adding
Chapter 9.72 to Title 9 [Public Peace, Morals And Safety] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Mandatory Discussion of Disputes Between Landlords and Tenants
Council Member Mossar said mediation met the core policy of
improving communications between landlords and tenants, but there was nothing in the ordinance that was intended to be
a generator of fees. She recalled the P&S Committee discussed that fees would be modest and had to pay for the program. The findings outlined by the City Attorney were
very defensible. The issue of imbalance between landlords and tenants was real. The ordinance was an attempt by the
Council to improve communications between landlords and tenants by offering a free mediation service.
Mayor Eakins said the ordinance was a fair, decent proposal. Arguing about theoretical outcomes was not
something she wanted to prolong. Council Member Fazzino supported the concept of mediation.
Issues of rental increases and security deposits were legitimate issues for mediation. One major concern had to
do with the budget. The City did a disservice to the public unless it had a clear idea on what a program would cost.
The open-ended nature of the proposal was also a concern. Any issue could force mediation. Most landlords and tenants were reasonable people. A concern was that many frivolous
issues would end up in mediation, which might lead to disincentives for small property owners to continue
10/15/01 93-30
renting. Certain property maintenance issues might be considered if the issues were clear. The Council was
encouraged to think seriously about making the ordinance more specific in nature. A one-year review was endorsed.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved that the ordinance address only rent increases and security deposits. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Lytle asked whether TCAA would accept the
City Attorney’s preferred modification to the ordinance, which was making the list contained on page 7 of the
proposed ordinance, as an exclusive list. She asked whether that would be a compromise that TCAA would find helpful in terms of limiting the scope of the ordinance. Ms. Thibodeux said any limitation of the scope would help.
Council Member Fazzino’s suggestion was a step in the right direction. The fundamental issue of TCAA was that the mediator had the power to decide what was important. Limiting the list would not accomplish that much. Fundamentally, the Council talked about doing something
that no city had ever done before. The cities of Campbell and Fremont did mediation for rent increases only.
Council Member Lytle wanted to know if the maker and seconder of the motion were interested in incorporating the City Attorney’s preferred language.
Council Member Mossar said her understanding was that TCAA
wanted the ordinance to be limited to rent and perhaps security deposits. The ordinance should be dealt with as a trial. The report back to the Council was supported. The
Council remained in the driver seat, and it was within the Council’s power and responsibility to set policy and modify
policy. She preferred to leave the list open ended. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER to make changes as follows:
• Page 7: (f) rental property including but not limited to rental rates increases
• Change all references in the ordinance to Mandatory Response to Request for Discussion of Disputes Between Landlords and Tenants [adding "Response to request for"]
10/15/01 93-31
Council Member Kleinberg said she heard from landlord speakers a visceral action to the term “mandatory
mediation” that is, the discussion was being forced on them, which would be a negative outcome. The working group struggled with that issue. The Council was talking about mandatory response to a request for discussion of disputes.
Council Member Mossar said the P&S Committee spent a good amount of time talking about semantics and was unable to come up with a phrase.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to Section 9.72.010, Purpose and Findings, on page 1 of the proposed ordinance
and stated she was uncomfortable with the first sections (a) and (b). Her concern had to do with tying the ordinance to the cost and shortage of rental housing. That painted a picture that landlords were unfair to their tenants. There were reasons why the City wanted to experiment with the
program. She preferred to start the findings in section (c) beginning with “Palo Alto tenants…” AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved to delete
sections (a) and (b) and the first sentence of (c) of
section 9.72.010.
Council Member Beecham said in a free market, there was no imbalance between supply and demand because price equilibrated.
AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Kleinberg referred to section 9.72.030, Applicability, on page 2 of the proposed ordinance. The
description of the rationale for excluding an owner who had a single-family resident that was rented out was so
persuasive that she was convinced the Council should also exclude an owner/occupied duplex. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER to
make changes as follows:
• Page 1, 9.72.010 (b) The imbalance between supply and demand creates an grossly disparate imbalance of
bargaining power between landlords and tenants.
• Page 1, 9.72.010 (c) As a result of these market and bargaining power imbalances, Palo Alto tenants are
10/15/01 93-32
frequently may be unwilling or unable to assert their
legal rights and other concerns to their landlords. In
addition, tenants are inhibited from voicing objections to exorbitant rental cost increases, poorly maintained property, and unfair rental practices.
• Page 1, 9.72.010 (d) Communication between landlords and
tenants is greatly impaired as a result.
• Page 2, 9.72.030 (a) Any residential rental property containing two or more dwelling units except two-unit residential rental property in which one of the units is owner-occupied or
• Page 2, 9.72.030 (b) Any residential rental property that
is owned by a person or legal entity that owns two or more residential rental properties within the City. Except that all rental properties shall be subject to property registration in section 9.72.050.
Council Member Kleinberg said the landlord would be able to ask for mediation with a tenant twice per year, and the
tenant could ask for mediation, limited to twice per year. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by
Lytle, to add the following language to the end of the first sentence of section 9.72.040 (a): provided that the party has not made such a request within the previous six months.
Council Member Mossar was unwilling to accept the change.
Council Member Kleinberg said the Council was talking about a one-year pilot project in which it limited the scope of issues.
Mr. Calonne said the working group raised the question as
to what happened if there were more than two rent increases or changes in the terms of tenancy during the one-year period.
Council Member Kleinberg said with respect to changes in
tenancy, the moving party was limited. Council Member Beecham suggested the wording “once per year” would give the landlords protection. His
10/15/01 93-33
understanding was that the landlords’ single largest concern was vexatious tenants.
INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the wording from "previous six months" to "once a year."
Council Member Wheeler objected to the change to once a year. The ordinance would go back to the Council in one year. Severely limiting the ordinance in the first year
would not prove whether or not there was an issue. If only one request for dispute resolution could be filed within a
one year time period, the Council will not know whether there was an issue. She favored a more open first year. The Council would call the item back within the first year if that were necessary.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the Town of Los Gatos had rent control, which was a different situation. There was more pressure on the landlords in that situation to reconcile a dispute. The proposed ordinance was relatively mild in nature, which gave the Council one year to see how it
worked out. The real trigger was the one-year report, which acted as a survey to show the Council an opportunity to see
how the ordinance worked during the year. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-5, Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle
“yes.”
Council Member Beecham suggested adding to section (e) on page 4 that in the case where a landlord resided more than 60 miles away, the mediation would be done by phone.
Council Member Kleinberg said her suggestion was to include
in the definition of landlord that a delegate who had power of attorney be selected. Council Member Lytle asked about hardship.
Council Member Kleinberg said hardship was taken care of by the person who appointed someone with power of attorney.
Council Member Beecham suggested adding to section 8.72.060 on page 5 of the proposed ordinance wording “in the event
of eviction non-payment of rent shall be sufficient defense against claims of retaliation.” He also suggested adding a provision to section (c) on page 6 of the ordinance that
10/15/01 93-34
the City would make copies available of both the ordinance and notice that landlords would distribute.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to make the following changes:
• Page 3, 9.72.040 (c) The Mediation Administrator may refuse to will not open dispute resolution, or may will order dispute resolution closed, when it is clear from the written request that there is no substantial factual
basis for the dispute, or when the dispute involves the actions or behavior of persons, or conditions, that are not within the control or responsibility of the parties; or when the dispute is frivolous, malicious or vexatious; or when further proceedings are not, in the sole judgment
of the Mediation Administrator, likely to be productive. Both parties will be notified of the Mediation
Administrator’s action and shall have access to the case summary forms used by the Mediation Administrator, which will not contain any confidential communications from the parties. The Mediation Administrator will also order dispute resolution closed if the parties agree to engage a mediator of their own choice, so long as the party who requests the mediator agrees in writing to bear all costs related to that service.
• Page 4, 9.72.040 (g) All parties The landlords and/or tenants involved
• Page 5, 9.72.060 rental housing disputes, unless the eviction or action is the result of the unjustified failure or refusal to pay rent.
• Page 5, 9.72.070 [insert new (b); (b) becomes (c):] (b) The notification shall be provided in English, Spanish, Chinese and Russian in the translated form prepared and published by the Mediation Administrator. (cb)
• Page 6, 9.72.070 [Add the following to the end of the new (d):] (dc) […] Copies of this chapter shall be provided to any Palo Alto landlord or tenant without cost upon request.
• Page 6, 9.72.080 (b) “Landlord” means the owner or property manager exercising effective control over the
terms and conditions of the tenancy of a residential
10/15/01 93-35
rental property, including a person with such control delegated through a durable power of attorney.
• Page 7, 9.72.080 (f) “Rental Housing Dispute” means a fact-based grievance raised by any tenant, owner, or
property manager regarding the occupancy or use of rental property including but not limited to rental rates increases, deposits, repairs and maintenance, utilities, occupants, parking and storage facilities, privacy, quiet enjoyment, or use of common areas and which are reasonably under the control or responsibility of the parties.
• Page 7, 9.72.090 (a) Violations of this chapter shall be punishable as infractions pursuant to provided in Palo
Alto Municipal Code section 1.08.010.
• Page 7, 9.72.090 Section 2. The City Manager is directed to return to the City Council in approximately 12 months with a status report on the implementation of this Ordinance. The status report shall be provided no more than 14 months after the effective date of this Ordinance.
• Page 8, [Add new section:] SECTION 3. Any fees imposed pursuant to this Ordinance shall be for the purpose of cost recovery only and shall not exceed the cost of providing any services. This section is declaratory of existing law. […] SECTION 43. […] SECTION 54.
Mr. Calonne said the additional wording to page 8 suggested by Council Member Kleinberg was what Proposition 2 would
require. Without a vote of the people, it would not turn into a profit making enterprise.
Council Member Lytle said the wording did not address her concern that there was no identified budget included.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the working group looked at the proposed ordinance and asked whether there was any
intention to reconvene the working group for it to review the changes made by the Council.
Mr. Calonne asked for direction to have the ordinance back for first reading, to be effective by the end of the year,
with the first reading in mid-November.
10/15/01 93-36
Council Member Mossar said that was her intent when she made the motion.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the ordinance was modest and allowed communication between tenants and landlords. Council Member Fazzino said the City could not enact rent
control because the legislature took that power away. He supported the provisions in the ordinance but would vote no because the ordinance was too open-ended. The Council did a
poor job of clarifying exactly what issues were appropriate for mediation, and there was no budget.
Mayor Eakins said most of the Council Members understood that the first year’s operation was covered by the existing Project Sentinel contract.
Mr. Yeats said if the Council recommended new staffing in a new program that had a cost, he would say the Council should not implement the program, given the current economic climate. There was no administrative overhead cost. The Project Sentinel program was already in the
budget.
Council Member Lytle shared Council Member Fazzino’s concerns but felt the Council needed to move forward. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Fazzino “no."
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the Council gave the City Attorney direction to take the proposed ordinance back to the working group for further discussion.
Mr. Calonne said he wanted to have the ordinance return to the Council in time to become effective by the beginning of
2002. The introduction for first reading would be by mid-November.
Council Member Mossar said her intention was to include language in her motion about bringing the ordinance back. Mr. Calonne said the time frame was not included in the ordinance. He clarified the motion included the time frame.
Council Member Mossar said that was correct.
10/15/01 93-37
Council Member Beecham clarified the ordinance went back to the Council and not to the working group for comments.
Mr. Calonne said the ordinance would go back to the working group. The ordinance would be redrafted and returned to the Council later in the week for review.
Council Member Beecham said going back to the working group was redundant. The Council was comfortable with the suggested changes.
Mayor Eakins asked whether there was a difference in the
time schedule for the ordinance to go back for a first reading. Mr. Yeats said the changed format could go back to the Council on the Consent Calendar as a first reading.
Council Member Mossar did not want to return the ordinance to the working group for it to make changes. Her thought was that figuring out the measurables and implementation pieces of the ordinance would go to the working group.
Ms. Espinoza-Howard said the working group wanted to return
with data collection. Mr. Calonne said there might be additional need for comment
at the first reading.
Council Member Mossar said difficulty existed if the ordinance came back as a different document for first reading.
Mr. Calonne said he understood the Council’s direction and
would bring the ordinance back on the Consent Calendar. Council Member Mossar said she did not intend to imply that no further public comment would be allowed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Burch, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-9. Council Member Lytle and Vice Mayor Ojakian registered a "no" vote for Item No. 3.
10/15/01 93-38
LEGISLATIVE
2. Resolution 8095 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting and Authorizing Execution of Program Supplement No. M001 to the Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for Federal-Aid Projects, Relating to the Traffic
Signal Upgrade Project (Capital Improvement Program Project Number 0117)”
3. Resolution 8096 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for
Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 8000, 8027, 8060, and 8073” Resolution 8097 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 8001”
Resolution 8098 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1701 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations” ADMINISTRATIVE 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Trees for
El Camino Project (Trees for El Camino) in the Amount of $78,000 to conduct a Fundraising Program for an Enhanced Tree Planting Program along the El Camino
Real Corridor
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and ASAP Software in the Annual Amount of $176,580 for a Three-Year Microsoft Enterprise Agreement
6. Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. C1129753 Between
the City of Palo Alto and Bragato Construction Company in the Amount of $28,000 to Provide Replacement of Walkways Adjacent to the Duck Pond Parking Lots
7. Change Order No. 4 to Contract No. C1135134 Between
the City of Palo Alto and Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc., in the Amount of $3,730 to Provide Installation of a Booster Pump for Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Irrigation Project at J.L. Stanford Middle School
10/15/01 93-39
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Landfirst Consultants, Inc., in an Amount not to exceed $100,000
for Removal of Surplus Green Waste from the Palo Alto Composting Facility to Alternate Recycling Facilities COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 9. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council re Mission of City/School Liaison
Committee, approval of a ordinance establishing a new City School Liaison standing committee with the following changes: 1) the date and time of the meetings would be determined by the newly-created City/School Liaison Committee; 2) the place and chair
would be rotated between the City and the Palo Alto School District on an annual basis; and 3) the
appropriateness of Sections 2.04.190(c) and (d) would be clarified by the City Attorney in light of the State Attorney General’s recent ruling.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the
Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Sections 2.04.190, 2.04.200 and Adding Section 2.04.225 to Chapter 2.04 of Title 2 to the Palo Alto Municipal
Code [Council Organization and Procedure] to Establish a New City-School Liaison Standing Committee”
MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING MOTION PASSED 7-0-1 for Item Nos. 2 and 4-9, Fazzino
“absent,” Kleinberg “abstaining.”
MOTION PASSED 5-2-1 for Item No. 3, Lytle, Ojakian "no,"
Kleinberg “abstaining,” Fazzino “absent.”
COUNCIL MATTERS
9A. Resolution 8099 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the City of Palo Alto to be a Hate Free Zone” MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Beecham, to adopt the resolution incorporating the change that the
title of the resolution match the agenda item title. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent.
10/15/01 93-40
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Eakins announced that the Walk to End Domestic Violence would be Friday morning in San Jose. Council Member Lytle received a call from Susan Travers, resident of East Palo Alto, regarding the IKEA project. She
stated she had requested that staff respond. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats stated that
AB1290, the redevelopment law, required a response. Mayor Eakins requested a response from staff that week.
Council Member Mossar stated the Council communication packet for October 15, 2001, included correspondence from a
Council Member regarding the Ventura site and the Naylor Act.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne stated the 2.2 acres on the Ventura site would count towards the 30 percent maximum
acreage under the Naylor Act, and he did not believe the public hearing and disposition were covered by the Naylor Act.
Council Member Lytle disagreed with the interpretation of
the Naylor Act.
CLOSED SESSION
10. Conference with City Attorney - Pending Litigation
Subject: In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California Corporation, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court case No.: 01-30923DM
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Agenda Item No. 10 was continued to the Regular Meeting on October 22, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
10/15/01 93-41
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Vice Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are
made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/15/01 93-42