Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-11-10 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUT€S CITY Co PALO ALTO November 10, 1980 - Special Meeting ITEM PAGE Interviewing of HRC Applicants 4 1 6 ITEM November 10. 1980 - Regular Meeting PAGE Congratulations to Byron 0. Sher Consent Calendar Sarah Wallis Park and College Terrace Mini -Park Improvements and Award of Construction Contract 4 1 6 Ordinance re Condominium Conversion - 2nd Reading 4 1 7 Ordinance re Lanalords Offering One Year Lease and Establishing Just Cause for Eviction 4 1 9 Ninety Day Trial of Southgate Traffic Control Plan 4 3 1 Request of Councilmember Fletcher re Purchase of School Sites 4 3 7 Mayor Henderson re Appointment of a Coe: Qcil,eaber to Succeed Syron 0b Sher 4 3 8 Adjournment 4 3 9 4 1 6 4 1 5 11/10/80 November 10, 1980 Special Meeting, 7:15 p.m. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:15 p.m. in a Special Meeting for the purpose of interviewing five applicants for appointment to the Human Relations Commis- sion, in the Council Conference Room, Mayor Henderson presiding. PRESENT: Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: Brenner The applicants interviewed were: Michael Kass, Paul Kahn, Mary Aileen Enright, William C. Empey, and Eve M. Agiewich. Mayor Henderson announced that four more applicants would be interviewed in a Special Meeting on Monday, November 17, 1980, commencing at 7:15 p.m. November 10, 1980 Regular Meeting, 8:00 p.m. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 8:00 p.m., in a Regular Meeting, in the Council Chambers, Mayor Henderson► presiding. PRESENT: Eyerly, Eazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy Renzel, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: Brenner CONTRATULAT1ONS TO Mayor Henderson said that Vice -mayor Byron D. Sher had been elected to the California State Assembly at the November 4 General Election and he had a letter of resignation from Vice -Mayor Sher, effective November 30, 1980. On behalf of the City Council he congratulated Vice -Mayor Sher on his election. CONSENT CALENDAR Referral Action Mayor Henderson said he would remove the first item, the second reading of the Ord : nance re Condominium Conversion, from the _Consent Calendar at the request.of the public. Mayor Henderson said he would else remove the second reading of the Ordinance re Landlords Offering One Year Lease and Establishing Just _Cause for Eviction, from tie Consent .Calendar. - The fallowing item :.remained on the consent calendar: SARAH WALL I S PARK IMPROVEMENTS COLLEGE OF Staff recommends that Council: 4 1 b 11/10/80 1. to the Budget O�f3 C funds a thor• Amendment hAMCE 32,#2 entitled authorized to ryOrdinance adding IMPROVEMENTS*" O EIS NrS p tit ed "ORDI ct kv. $� 32 $11,500 ,50 OF that kDd Cr N; LO ALTO 8 DING Or THE 2. contracte S HE SDDO r FOR C01JI1C1, th 4.32 o f $65,176.00 65 with r be authorized uth 'SARAH WALLIS PARK AL and College 00 for #t #n S� d toexecute �Rx EMENT AO $6, terrace f rahr hWi l d= I is a m construction ons tr MOr�p;f, h�rrttyng and par1� Improvements. Improvements 'mPr he amount approval C u,�e#rear o ments. c� a tents of Schr ��, Inca he motion ot f the staff recommendation. Fazzfno ., on passed unanimously, nan r moved, seconded b Fletcher,, (i1{pIH rnrvus ��'� C��i�Cf � A r . CQNpD r'`�e�ber Brenner net absent. Calendar !fend I�� l ender because said h Sarah Ala. ae members had reMoy Apartments of the d this etr .gyp he would like which fch had recently Avenue, yenue ° br xo wished from the a apartment i uy per. r cent ly jbeen d the lived to asked t Consent Grant as relieved , She sv)d ed f t. equable � � Fe e 0 Court. lien' Attor,n he had achoice. o no desire ed t �` she s Corporation ISy ' Attorney to 1 the for exemptions. ; said there said a f .I r c • own approach a advised d y f a public x pt ions a Wnre�i ` had units n rePr°es ed against private • !fe n • legal as jetter f and n a tat# ; he he ept rah 3nrati ntte reign ati eopportunity. he spo4e t he tf�l ship• a s a r� SI ianc# #�e� �5 #n�• converted to A �� unt tY 1 M h felt t#t he hovs jn eft the were Spaeth tr��f�,r3"�rj,ya hausesa� fdon�� aAs#tf the Housing replied t�� the a f f r:e the balancewouldalf r the e r Cot �s Alto pan3 f , .,,Done f i� Corporation. c ect.�,� Wous in or the - :h: a n# are s� d sC e attPrnu�r .4 boot t1 r i f conveyed of la tenants., Nie need .Yed to ��� ��d' �'lr �.$ yr �a�`k�d • �g� P $p�e t�th ,Gffgr Of-4ZCounc# r ether S a:g r P ny yn n Qpt ;:f involved f r et f�►t, re df the 1!. r y� asked r�.e#9ht ## ogre etie �� urd'�ses �d�eat # if ��►o-th ds 3h v t s• #r n0 l f e yed n t rf #t would thirds #rds vote two-thirds Bob Moss, 4010 0rme, quoted from a table outlining housing costs, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Office, which in effect demonstrated that conversion of the Ferne Apartments, with diversion of half the units to subsidized housing, would drive out the moderate -income tenants, without creating more affordable housing for Palo Alto. He suggested a true contribution to affordable housing would be to rent the approximately 12 vacant units at 1979 rates. Oscar Ehrlich, 100 Ferne Avenue, Palo Alto, said the moratorium on condominium conversions should apply to Ferne Avenue, because offer had never been officially made to the tenants. The only notification was by letter dated September 16, 1980, copies of which had been furnished to the Council. Genevieve F. Gardner, 101 Ferne. Avenue, Palo Alto, said her rent at the Ferne Apartments last June was $445.00, now rent is $525.00, with possibility of future increase. As a senior citi- zen of 82 years, her iecome is decreasing, but rent and medical expenses increasing. She was forced to, live pear her children but had nowhere to go in Palo Alto. 5:.e described the plight of middle -income senior citizens and asi°ed where there was a place for them in this community. She was defi ni teiy against condo- minium conversions, as she did not have the means for purchas- ing. Councilmember Eyerly said it appeared to him that the present tenants of the Ferne Apartments were being presentee with a olden opportunity, due to 1ifetihe leases or possibly through the Housing Corporation Program. He had qualms about moving ahead with a second reading of the ordinance until the Housing Corporation, City Attorney and _the developer had enough time to investigate all options with regard to the Ferne Apartments. He therefore would move to delay the second reading of the condominium conversion ordinance for a few weeks. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to continue the second reading of the Ordinance re Condominium Con- version for two weeks, to Nove-=ber 24th. Councilmember Witherspoon verified that, although she could: notparticipate in the second reading of the ordinance, because of the conflict of interest caused by the exemption for Oak Creek, Stanford University being both the owner ofthe complex and her former employer, she could vote` on a continuance. .She was therefore seco►ndine Councilmember Ey.rly`s motion. Vice -Mayor Sher said he had been advised by City Attorney Abrams that it was permissible for him to participate in the continuance. However, he had not done so in former discussions of the moratorium with the exemption for Oak. Creek, because of conflict of interest. He fait it would be wrong. though legal, for him to be participating now, he mould therefore disqualify himself. Councilmember ber Renzel asked Mr. Abraes what would happeo in the interim period. She wondered if additional properties could.. acquire vested rights i n becoming exempt. from the moratorium, or whether it would still be effective as of the October date. Mr. Abrams replied the moratorium would still be effective as of the October date. There was a chance for any praje.ct: to get through the process and receive tentative approval for vested rights before the effective date of the ordinance, but this would be a theoretical chance, note practical one. 11)itpie. Councilmember Fletcher said she was very much in sympathy with the concept of low-cost housing in the city, but not at the cost of losing rentals. Even if present tenant were taken care of, there were many in the community with an urgent need for rental housing, especially considering that purchasing homes is out of almost everyone's reach. Since she was so much against losing the rental housing, she would oppose the motion. Councilmember Fazzino stated his emphasis with respect to condo- minium conversions as having always been tenant protection. It seemed to him they were being presented with a potentially in- teresting offer, which hopefully could be developed within the next two weeks, involving the Housing Corporation, whom he un- derstood to be quite interested in the proposal. He thought the. Council should explore the alternatives. He said they must remember the moratorium is merely a vehicle; when it ends in six or nine months, they would still be faced with the problem of providing affordable housing for moderate -income people. He felt that a plan providing affordable rental or purchasing units to the present tenants was the only means of providing realistic protection. He did not think a two-week continuance would have a detrimental effect; therefore, he urged support of the mo- tion. Councilmember Renzel said that, while she would carefully study any proposal for exemption from the moratorium in the interim period, she thought a two-week continuance was reasonable, since it would not affect any other units expected to be under the moratorium, once the second reading took place. She would therefore support the motion for continuance, but intended to research any available tenant protection. Councilmember Levy stated he would not support the continuance because in his opinion this would only prolong the confusion. He felt the ordinance was initially a eery messy one; they had to decide on whether or not to pass a moratorium and then work. on enacting a good ordinance. He was therefore in favor of e second reading and against continuation. Mayor Henderson wished to make clear that, on legal grounds, it was specifically stated that consent forms must have been mailed by October. 2nd - that was not done in the case of the Ferne Court Townhouses. The Housing Corporation expressed great interest in further discussing their opportunity to purchase but, on hearing the asking price, hehadgreat doubts that this would be economically feasible. He felt it was worth pursuing during the continuance; however„ -whatever the outcome, he personally regu{red assurance ofprotectionof the present tenants. He. would support the motion for continuance. MOTION TO CONTINUE FOR TWO WEEKS PASSED on the following vote, Sher not participating: AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson. Renzel, Witherspoon .NOES: Fletcher, Levi. ABSENT:,,Brenner rRDIKANCE RE LANDLORDS OFFERING ONE YEAR LEASE econ ear ng Mayor Henderson first called for comments by staff. and City Attorney► Abrams said he would prefer to defer his comments until after public comments, because some of his remarks would include answers to questions raised by the audience. Dale Denson, 1060 University Avenue, Palo Alto, was opposed to the ordinance. He insisted this was a form of rent control, which had been voted down in previous elections; Councilmembers had been elected on the basis of their stand against any form of rent control. He stressed the serious housing shortage in Palo Alto, the great attraction of this area, and the terrific world- wide inflation, none of which can be legislated against. He felt there were many positive options; what they were consider- ing was a form of harrassment of the few remaining rental owners which would accomplish nothing. He begged Council to reject the ordinance. Claudia Benjamin, 630 University Avenue, Palo Alto, a property manager, questioned the need for the proposed legislation. It seemed to her the Council was not addressing the real issue, which was the immediate rental shortage. If they passed the ordinance, they would not be upholding the Palo Alto Comprehen- sive Plan, which recognizes the need to create an environment, but declares the intention of retaining at best the current rental stock. She warned that the effect of an ordinance such as proposed would tend to frighten landlords and cause another large dump of rental income property on the market, as happened two or three years ago. She requested Counci 1 not pass the ordinance. Tony Domeni cc, 827 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, resident and rental property owners said he had always given leases to his tenants, but believed leases should be optional and not mandated by law. He was particularly concerned about the automatic renewal of leases; a landlord can only judge tenants after a certain time of tenancy. He likened this to employers having to retain employees after a year, whether desirable or not, because of the difficulty of proving "just cause," or universities having to offer faculty tenure immediately. He felt this was not a rational way of dealing with the housing situation; the ,vain effect would be to frighten landlords into removing their rental property from the market. He strongly recommended the ordinance not be adopted. Y i ce' Mayor Sher asked if Mr. Domenico, since his objections seemed to be aimed at the lease automatic renewal feature, had any objections to the one-year lease option and the just -cause eviction Mr. Domenico replied his feelings were really against the automatic renewal. He normally offered one-year leases, but felt this was a calculated risk which was best left to the relationship between tenant and landlord. Legislating only added more difficulty. Vice -Mayor Sher commented that, since since Mr. one-year leases, his policy was not to increase that one-year period. Mr. Domenico agreed that. 4 2 0 11/10/80. Domenico offered rents within this was so. 1 Vice -Mayor Sher then asked if it was a general policy for land- lords to raise rents within a one-year period. Mr. Domenico said he would find it difficult to speak for everyone; there obviously were pressures to increase rental unit prices, such as consumer price index increases, increased costs to the landlord, and the state of the housing market in Palo Alto. However, ' whether there were two increases six months apart, or one larger - increase after a year, he thought the market would adjust to what that level should be. He himself gave one-year leases, with increases only yearly, but could not speak for the general practice in the marketing industry. Virginia Brooks, 1113 Doyle Place, Palo Alto, said she did riot understand how a City Coonci1 could so consistently ignore the rights of owners. She had never seen any legislation protecting an owner, and remarked that the Council did not seen to realize how difficult it was to "deal with the public." -Having been a landlord for years, she had.seen _some• very poor risks as tenants, and cited some examples, such as growing marijuana in the closet, burning carpets with barbecues, etc. She stated that she had made no profit from renting; only from the sale of her apartment house. She concluded by reminding Council of the prevailing mood of the public - "Let's get the Government off our backs.' Mayor Henderson had two comments: They did have some experience with problems in "dealing with the public,' and he would hope whatever ordinance was ad'4spted, if one were, would certainly cover the difficulties numerated by Ms. Brooks as 'just cause for eviction.' Genevieve Gardner, 101 Ferne Avenue, Palo Alto, had spoken ear- lier, but wished to add a few statements. She would appreciate a year's lease with no raise in rent for that period. Her rent had been raised three times in the past year - from $4►45 to $525, and she had been notified that her next rent payment would be $565. She felt this was too much. A year's lease at her present rate would be most satisfactory. Lucy Tyler, representing the Mi dpeni nsul_a Citizens for Fair Housing, read a statement dated November 10, 1980, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Office. The MCFH expressed gratification that the City Council was addressing the problem of arbitrary eviction and displacement of tenants. The position of the MCFH was that "an ordinance which clearly spells out con- ditions under which the landlord would have just cause to evict would not only prevent arbitrary eviction but would serve as a legal statement of the tenant's responsibilities.* They there- fore urged adoption of the Just . Cause portion of the ordinance. Martin Gordon, 633 Charming Avenue, Palo Alto, a resident and property owner, felt the proposed ordinance was completely un- called for. In his opinion, the landlord was in most instances at the mercy of the tenent. leis taxes hadbeen raised 143% since purchase of his 'property. He did not give leases they were not usually requested. It was just about impossible to prove "just cause' for e.lanO ord. There was real risk in rent- ing to the public His opini#nwas that the various causes of the housing problem did not lend themselves -to solution by leg- islation. fora Norris, 840 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Altos .resident and prop- erty owner, said study of her expenses disclosed that she in- vests at least as much 1n her property per month as her tenants do. She asked the Council to take into consideration the signi- ficant contribution made by landlords to rental housing in the area, simply by investing and carrying the property, besides all the attendant problems. She respectfully requested them to con- sider the consequences of limiting rent increases, thus limiting the means by which a landlord may deal with his problems, and hindering a healthy rental housing stock by discouraging pros- pective investors. Mary Lanigar, 453 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, has been a resi- dent and co-owner, with her mother, of a fourplex at that loca- tion for 18 years. They had tried to be good landlords; have had ,many good tenants, but occasionally had some who were prob- lems. She was very concerned about the proposed mandatory one year tease and the "just cause" eviction requirement. She felt this would lead to great difficulty in evicting undesirable ten- ants. There had been some precedent in the past for eemption of small owner -occupied units. She was totally against the ordinance, but felt there should at least be an exemption for owner -occupied units, as they should have the right not to be forced to live with undesirable people in close proximity. Daryl Pearson, 737 Mayfield Avenue, Stanford, owns some single family dwelling units. His main purp-se for speaking was to ensure that the Council understood certain portions of the stat- ute as he did, particularly, being a lawyer, the "Just Cause Eviction" section. He quoted from Section 9.68.040, subsection "A'"; "No landlord shall bring any action to recover possession of a rental unit unless the tenant has violated a ;awful obliga- tion or covenant of tenancy under a written or oral lease agree- ment and has failed to cure such violation upon receipt of written notice thereof from the landlord." In his opinion, this is quite a broad provision, and does not limit the just causes for eviction to those in the statute. He gave the example of subletting without permission, and showed other areas where the statute was ambiguous. Betty MacNeur, 26 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, is an owner and occupier of a duplex. She stated it was important to her that the tenant residing in the other portion of her duplex be con- genial; she was therefore opposed to the ordinance. Don Sevy, 3820 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, wished to rei nforca all that had been said in opposition to the ordinance. He was firmly against it; he could hardly believe it was being consid- ered. Years ago, the City Council adopted an ordinance requir- ing licensing of property owners for buslr ss, based, in his opinion, on the biased study made by one segment of the commun- ity. This ordinance was later invalidated in the courts after much litigation. Mr. Sevy quoted the following statistics coapite4 by the California Housing Council: 13 of California evictions are for unspecified causes; 111 of California turnovers are from evictions, of which 907 are for nonpayment . of . rent and absolute, specified nuisances. He felt the Council was infringing on the Constitutional rights of property owners. He repeated what others -had said about the difficulty. of proving *just cause,¢ and expressed the -bitter frustration of having to deal with hostilities engendered by forced legislation.. He roes offer his tenants leases and believed in them as protecting tenants' rights, but was con- vinced that courts almost always decided for tenants. 4 2 2 11/10/80 I Mayor Henderson verified with City Attorney Abrams that the ord- inance did not specify the City would go to court on behalf of tenants. Mr. Abrams replied that it was up to the tenant to remedy any grievance for himself in court. R. J. Roberts, 532 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, resident for 25 years, dealing with apartments for 20 years, has rented without leases the entire time, and has some tenants of 12 to 20 years' duration. His units are below market rental rate, and the landlord/tenant relationship has been good. He fears, however, that the ordinance will pit landlord and tenant against each other and raise conflict that will only worsen with time. Gary Yazalina, 1100 Alma Street, Menlo Park, was representing the Tri-County Apartment Association, many members of which are residents and homeowners in Palo Alto, and the R. W. Zuitten Corporation, which manages approximately 250 units in Palo Alto. He read from a statement, copies of which had been delivered to the Council, which pointed out that: (1) a similar proposal for "Just Cause Eviction" was defeated twice in the Legislature in Sacramento (S8 -i;1` and AS -779) early this year; (2) the inequity in the fact that a month -toy month resident in a rental unit may have any or no reason for terminating tenancy, but a tenant can only be removed by an owner for specific causes; and (3) many cases of tenants who are abusive, disturb- ing to others, late -paying, etc., are omitted from the list of .just Causes." The significant point was that any attempt to create an exclusive list must ignore the realities of human behavior. He urged the Council to defeat the ordinance. Vice -Mayor Sher asked Mr. Yazalina, as a representative of the Tri-County Apartment Association, what would be the general pr ctice of the members regarding multiple rent increases during the course of a year. Mr. Yazalina replied the general prac- tice of decent owners was to raise rents only once every 12 months, at the rate of about 5, 10, or 14%. Bodil Gordon, 633 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, said she did not wish to repyat statements made by others, which she strongly supported, but wished to convey her shocked disbelieft that Council would be ever: considering such an ordinance, which in her opinion was so obviously weighted against owners. She felt it was best for relationships between tenants and landlords to be kept on a personal level. _ Michael Chiu, 4217 McKellar Lane, Palo Alto, wished to add his support to those who had spoken out against the proposed ordi- nance. Mr. Keith Suddjian, 703 Ensign May, Palo Alto, a resident of 22 years, wished first, as a regular Attendee at the Council Meetings, to express his appreciation of the countless hours the Council puts in fur the City of Palo Alto. Referring to the ordinance, the goal as he saw it was rental housing stabiliza- tion. He believed that this goal can only be effectively achieved by adopting long-term solutions that will provide more rental stock a solutions that will provi d*_ 1 ncent',ves fqr producing or retaining rentals. Rent control in any form diminishes incentives; investors either convert or leave the area, thus reduce erg the rental stock; Mr. Sodd j i acs then quoted some port #ons of the proposed ordinance* pointing out a few areas where, the effect would be hi gher. rental rates and reduced rental housing stock. He did not believe the ordinance was the proper solution to the housing crisis in Palo Alto, and urges the Council to vote against ` it. 4 2 3 11/10/80: Albert J. Machuta, ?25.;urtner, Palo Alto, owner of an apartment complex in Palo Alto, first expressed admiration for the "enlightened" people of Palo Alto, and for the high test scores achieved by Palo Alto High School, What impressed 'aim about the "just cause" eviction and year lease proposal was that he could not see anything included which was not covered by state la;. He warned Council that the housing problem would not be solved by adoption of the ordinance, but more and greater problems would be generated, and cited Berkeley as an example of a city which had adopted rent control. Kean knooff 930 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto, saw tha issue not only as one of stabilization end just cause eviction, but really as rent control in disguise. Ne, quoted Section 9,68.010 as stating the purpose of the ordi nonce: stability for the terms of lease and amount of rent.. He thought it should be admitted this was just the forerunner of another rent control attempt. He asked why rental housing was always being attacked, when it was the only moderate income level housing available in Palo Alto. He himself owns 46 rental units, does not give leases because they are not really requested, raises rent on the average of once a year and has had no formal evictions. On the other hand, they have had problems with their 59 units of Section 8 housing, which carries a just eviction clause. He described the frustration of the other tenants (to the point of withholding their rent) with the extreme difficulty of evicting a very undesirable tenant. He begged Council to reconsider seriously the damage that could be done with a just cause evic- tion clause. Rich Bassin, 2300 Byron Avenue, Palo Alto, spoke as a resident of Palo Alto, and the incoming President for the Board of Realtors. His experience is with single-family units, where one year leases are offered. He believed the just cause eviction clause wo,:id not only pit landlord against tenants but also tenant against tenant. Other effects would be inequity in rent, with 1anfl orris probably offering rent breaks for month -to -month tenancy, And rental housing complexes being sold by frustrated landlords* Somee-questions he had were: how and by whom the proposed program sould be administered, what would be the costs, and how would arbitration be handled. Mr. Bassin concluded by offering the services of the Board of Realtors to work with the staff for a more workable form of legislation, if really needed. He suggested that perhaps it would be sufficient to enact a program of educating the public regarding their rights under existing law. Eugene Masciarelli, 1865 Emerson Avenue, Palo Alto, questioned whether a sale of rental property with leases attached could really be consummated. His feeling about the proposed ordinance was that _ a few were taking advantage to the detriment of many. He was so concerned about the ordinance he was seriously consid- ering selling his rental property if it became law. Russ Haag, 159 Walter Nays Drive, Palo Alto, was very disturbed that once a year there was a meeting in the Council Chamber to decide on rent. control He reminded- Council that the people of Palo Alto had twice defeated rent control, . and the proposed ordinance was obviously a 'foot in the door` for rent control.. He has had rental units for 15 years, .offers ene year leases, has had no evictions. He believed with others that the ree ur- r'i ng threat of rent control has the effect on landlords of frightening these into raising their rates to the highest the market can carry►, as- well as discouraging any new building of rental units. He suggested that government would do better to concentrate on searching `for means of building new rental -units 4 2 4 131i€118o instead of "adding to the burdens of rental property owners in Palo Alto." He informed Council that the City of Los Angeles was seriously considering a proposal that would guarantee no rent control conditions for a period of 20 years to any possible investor in rental units. Herb Borock, 3401 Ross Road, Palo Alto, expressed his support for a just, cause for eviction ordinance. He began by speaking of some changes made and not voted on at the first reading of the ordinance. He referred to the concern of the landlords about the difficulty of deciding conditions where "just cause" evictions apply. It was not clear to him from reading the ordinance, but he thought the intent was to apply to a month - to -month tenancy or the termination of a lease, but never to an on -going lease. He felt that additional wording was necessary for clarification in causes 6 through 10. He concluded by pointing out that the San Jose Mercury, on May 23, 1979, sup- ported a state bill for a "no eviction without just cause" which was more restrictive than that ,presently being considered by Council. He quoted from the editors?1 that the State of New Jersey has had a similar tenants' rights law on the books for five years, and there has been no noticeable flight of landlords as a result. He urged the Council to pass the ordinance. Don Surath, 1930 Ivy Lane, Palo Alto, disagreed with many of the statements made against the ordinance. He wished Council to know that, though not many were present at the meeting, there were many tenants praying that Council would do something about the current situation. He ennumerated some recent huge rental increases he personally knew about. He acknowledged that Palo Alto had very fine landlords who deserved some protection, but felt they had too such protection now, and it was time for a little protection of tenants. He did not feel a "just cause eviction" ordinance was asking too much, and a one-year lease was necessary to keep the rental raises to once a year. Robert Lancefield, 189 Walter Hays, Palo Alto, has been involved with the Housing Corporation for many years, but was speaking as an individual. He pointed out that the key problem was supply - Palo Alto needs more housing. He had not heard anyone address the issue of the administrative expense of implementing the "just cause eviction" provision. The ordinary landlord has neither the expertise, time nor funds for the record keeping involved with proving "just cause." He suggested the Council consider the administrative burden they would be taking on with passing the ordinance. He did not believe this would be the best solution for the housing crisis in Palo Alto; in his opinion the best approach was still to increase the housing rental stock. Robert Moss, 4010 0rme, thought the proposed ordinance was too weak, especially after amendment made at the -first hearing regarding extension of a one-year lease. He rebutted some of the statements made by the landlord speakers, and reviewed his personal family experience with rentals. He agreed with Vice -Mayor Sher in establishing tt.at "good" landlords do not rat: se -their }`rents more than once a . year or by more than 8 - 15%, pointing out that frequently rents are raised as much as three times in six months and by more than 30%. He was convinced that legislation was necessary to redress touain;-injustice: in Palo Alt: -o. ie-assure the Council that threatened rent control would not worsen the housing crisis; there has been virtually no new ' rental building since 1972, long before discussion of any form ofrentcontrol. He urged the Couwcti•to pass the ordinance. 4 2 Si , 11/10/80 Recess was called for 10:00 to 10:15 p.m. Councilmember Eyerly said one of the major concerns he had was with the extension of the yearly leases. He felt long-time tenancy made proper maintenance and upkeep difficult. He agreed with the statement of some of the speakers that sasr.ething should be stated in the "just cause" provision concerning human behavior. He could foresee a great deal of 1 i t i gat i can if the ordinance is enacted. No matter how worded, the ordinance was not just a lease -type ordinance, but a form of rent control. He reminded Council that a large percentage of Palo Alto's rental stock was in single family residences, which the. Comprehensive Plan was committed to maintaining. These are the landlords who are more inclined to sell out under the threat of rent restrictions. He believed there were other, better methods for dealing with the problems of rental housing besides rent control, which he felt would only worsen the situation. He mentioned the program in the Comprehensive Plan for investigating the possibilities of revenue bonding. He could see that as a way of encouraging builders to invest in lower cost rentals. He thought this was the type of approach needed, rather than trying to structure any type of an ordinance such as the one proposed. Vice -Mayor Sher wished to respond to some of the strong com- ments made. He thought it unfa r to this City Council to accuse it of "holding up the spectre of rent control," when the facts were that this Council has refused to enact rent control whenever it appeared before them. He suggested studying the probable actual effects of the proposed ordinance. He recalled the previous negative vote on a similar ordinance, and that it was then the assignment had been given to the City Attorney to check into the possibilities of providing Some kind of tenant protection. This ordinance was a result of a five- month study. The two features he recalled as discussing and as originally going to the City Attorney were the one-year lease option in favor of the tenant and a 60 -day notice of a rent increase. He felt these were still valid; most of the landlords present said they did offer yearly leases and raised rents at 12 -month intervals. Vice -Mayor Sher then quoted . from the Tri - County Apartment Association statement: "Forthright and decent owners raise rents only once a year." He suggested the Council go forward on those features, as the one-year lease should not cause any problems to `forthright and decent owners," and tenants would .be protected from those landlords who did not meet this description. It was obvious to him that the just cause eviction was another matter; it had passed the first reading. by a 5.3 -vote. He thought perhaps thet part of the ordinance should be placed under ferther study, with the landlords probably testifying before the Human Relations Commission, to work out some other features. His -own view -was that. Council should passe the one-year lease provision, without a the requirement for multiple extens i €ins. Ceunciimember Fletcher said theCouncil.was responding to a need in the community for some protection of tenants. Tenants are not in an open,market situation as are the owners; they have. practically no alternative. If their rents are raised without notice several times during a ,year„ they are placed at a tremendous disadvantage; they cannot plan ahead; they cannot move'' to another unit as there are so few available. She stressed that the tenants ere the ones who need proeect#one She suggested some Of. the ssectioe& of the ordinance be referred to. the Human,, Relations Commission to wurk with the landlords who hed offered their services. She would move approval of the ilection requirine one year leases, but proposed the sections on :remade 4. 2 6 1.1/10/80 of leases and evictions for just cause be referred to the Human Relations Commission for further study. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, for first reading of all sections of ordinance up to 3F, BUT NOT 3E, requiring one year leases. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 9.68 TO THE POLO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING LANDLORDS TO OFFER ONE YEAR LEASES TO POTENTIAL TENANTS OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AND ESTABLISHING JUST CAUSE AS THE GROUNDS FOR EVICTION OF TENANTS OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING (1st reading 10/27/80) Councilmember Fazzino said that, when this item first came before Council, he had opposed the just. cause provision and the original city staff proposed plan to freeze rents for the entire course of the lease. They had at least defeated a plan to impose an actual rent control ordinance for one year at a time. What they were considering in the proposed ordinance was not rent control, but at least one step toward additional rental control. He continued to oppose the just cause provision, and though he had supported the amended lease arrangements he had become increasingly concerned that its inflexibility may do more harm than good. He thought they would be hurting the very people they were trying to help and that .the one year lease proposal is inflexible and totally disenfranchises the many students who need and desire housing for six or nine months. He felt they would also be giving landlords the opportunity to at least raise rents annually with a required bureaucratic prepa- ration of an annual lease option for tenant approval. He cautioned against forgetting that the overwhelming majority of landlords have one or two units and often occupy the same propery, and do not raise the rent for two or three -years. He was convinced that the ordinance would severely hurt small land- lords and make it increasingly difficult to rent small units. If the proposal is adopted, he would at least hope that all owner -occupied property which includes rentals, or rental prop- erties of four or fewer units, be exempted. He thought it unfortunate the Council did not have the benefit of information from the City`s Rental Housing Mediation Task Force on rental evictions.as they consider the item. He did not think they were in a position to intelligently study the just cause eviction,; issue without that information and input -from the HRC. He would support Mayor Henderson` s proposal to at least have. the HRC and the Rental Housing Mediation Task Force report their findings, but at .present be was opposed to adoption of the just cause section of the ordinance and would support the.motion. Councilmember Witherspoon esked City Attorney ey Abrams if Section 1 under F, regarding an owner -occupied unit , rented to a tenant for less than one year, covered the situation where someone leaves town for six months on a sabbatical and cannot rent' their unit. for more than one year.: Mr: Abrams replied: that. this. situation would be exempt under Somber 1. Councilmember Witherspoon then asked about the situation in the case of non -owner occupied units: Mr. Abrams, replied the provision was particularly i mended. to apply to vacation or sabbatical. Situations, and wouldnot ::include owner occupied units. Councilmember Witherspoon pointed out that the wording did not convey this meaning to her, nor did it convey what had been discussed with Councilmember Renzel at recess. 4 2 -7 11/19/80 City Attorney Abrams explained that a shared -housing situation, where an owner rents a room within a single-family dwelling, was totally exempt from the definition of rental units and was not included in any controls whatsoever. The rationale was that, since the landlord and the tenant live in such close proximity to one another, it would be appropriate for the landlord to have the right to evict a tenant at any time, and not be required to offer a lease. The exemption referred to by Counci 1mea+ber Witherspoon was for a structure or rental unit, which is owner - occupied, and which is vacated.by-the owner of that unit to a tenant for a periodof less than one rear. Councilmember Witherspoon said she really felt the ordinance would not improve their very tight rental housing market at all; it would make it much worse. If she were a rental unit owner in Palo Alto, she would immediately consider putting that unit on the market. T'ie other problem she had with the ordinance was that she was not sure the City was practicing what it preached. She did not believe that the PAHC offered one-year leases . in the city- controlled units. She was strongly convinced that legislating for this kind ofproblem would lead to total inflexibility; once laws are enacted, amendment after amendment becomes necessary. She was philosophically opposed to that. She felt they have also made a basic mistake, mentioned by Councilmembers Fazzlno and Fletcher, in not referring this is sue to the one coanmissinn, besides the Planning Commission, who deals with landlord/tenant relations. She would therefore first of all oppose both sections of the ordinance, and, if the ordinance is not defeated, she certainly would support a motion to refer the subject to the Human Relations Commission. Mayor Henderson asked if she meant that both parts should be referred to the HRC. Councilmember Witherspoon answered that - sh,e understood the question was to be divided into two sections, the first being the requirement for a one-year lease and, the . second the just cause eviction. Her first preference was to oppose the whole ordinance, but if passed, she would support the second part of Councilmembe: Fletcher's motion.. Councils:ember Levy said there were three elements discussed at thpt meeting: (1) rental control, (2) the year's lease, and (3) just cause eviction. He thought Vice -Mayor Sher had made very clear the fact that Council strongly opposed rent control. In fact, at the first reading, they had removed from the ordinance a great deal of the wording which would have referred to rent control. He believed there was no talk of rent control in the proposed ordinance, except in the Section titled "Perpose." When meki ng all the ° del etl ons, they probably felt than this section, not being an operative section, need not be dealt with. He did believe, however, that it reflected some. economics he had never heard of, for instance that: °The continued absence of a vacancy surplus in rental housing causes a supply and. demand situation that exacerbates the pressures leading to rent in- creases." It was his opinion the supply and demand situation causes the vacancy surplus, not vice -versa. He would certainly endorse clarification of that wording. However that was not the operative element of the proposed ordinance; the two operative elements relate to e year's lease and a just cause eviction. The purpose of the year's lease was to give the tenant more visibility before being given rent increases - he endorsed this. As mentioned before; many landlords do offer year's leases; some offer five -veer leases in the commercial area; Stanford used to offer fifty-year leases. He thought a one-year lease was not oareesonable. The rental level was still a matter to be decided between landlord and tenant. It was his opinion that d 2 $ f1/3O/84 the outcry about rents was more related to the uncertainty of when and how large the increases would be, rather than the level of rent. He believed the level of rents in Palo Alto have risen less than the cost of living generally in Palo Alto. He felt the proposed ordinance addressed that concern, giving the tenants (1) more certainty about what their rent levels will be and (2) giving them more time between rent increases. He had no problem with limiting the lease requirement to simply one-year, not necessarily renewable. However, he wished to suggest one change in the wording, on Page 3, Paragraph D, five lines down, which now reads: "If the landlord intends to increase the rent for the rental unit at the end of the lease period, notice of such rent increase shall be delivered to the tenant sixty days before such rent increase is to take effect." He wished to replace the phrase, "the end of the lease period," with the wording, "any time," to read: "If the landlord intends to increase the rent for the rental unit at any time, notice of such rent increase shall'be delivered to the tenant sixty days before such rent increase is to take effect." He felt this would give the tenant a more reasonable amount of time to achieve the difficult process of changing their mode of living. Referring to the just cause eviction provision, he agreed with the comments made earlier they would be opening the way for a tremendous amount of litigation; he believed there was an increasing mandate for less red tape and less need for recourse to lawyers and the courts. He thought that inserting elements of what constitutes a proper eviction would only add to the burdens of ownership; this should only be done to satisfy a clear need. The need so far enunciated has been only for,an extreme minority of cases, not justifying, in his opinion, the imposition of the just cause eviction part of the proposed ordinance. He would therefore like to amend the one-year lease portion of the ordinance, to substitute for the words, "...the end of the lease period.,," the words "any time." Mayor Henderson interjected a question here. He could not see how, if it is declared that the rent must be set for a year, it could be increased at any time during the year except at the end, or 6D-deys' notice could be given in the middle of the year. Councilaaember Levy replied that the lease itself would give notice, as far as the duration of the lease itself. He was not dealing with that, but with tenancy after the expiration of the lease. Mayor Henderson pointed out that state law, over which they have no control, requires a 30 -day -notice. Councilmember Levy responded that, in that case, he thought it would be proper to continue year-to-year leases, and he would make a motion to reinsert Paragraph 3E, which had been removed by Councilmember Fletcher, AMENDMENT: Counci lmember Levy moved that Section 3E removed by Counci lmember Fl etcher's motion be reinserted. AMENDMENT FAILED for lack of a second. Coruncil.eaber Renee] said she saw nothing restrictive about the year's lease portion of the ordinance, except that it must be offered to the tenant; all the rental terms are set by the landlord. She, thought the tremendous cost of moving should not be inflicted upon people unnecessarily, and pointed out that we were in a housing market where it was. virtually impossible to find any units, let alone similar -priced units, when someone is 429 IIitof8t forced to move because of excessive rents. She countered earlier statement regarding plight of landlords with empty units in an ample -rental housing market, stating this was free enter- prise, which is now lacking in the rental housirg marking in Palo Alto with its .9% vacancy rate. The point of the 6U -day notice requirement was to give some scope to tenants forced out by excessive rents. She was therefore supporting the motion. Mayor Henderson said he agreed with Vice -Mayor Sher's state- ments. He did wish to respond tostatement made by Mr. Knopf. He recalled that many property owners, while campaigning against rent control in the past, had promised to promote °voluntary actions° to prevent multiple and exorbitant, rent increases, to encourage yearly leases, to protect tenants against unjust evictions, etc, but had refused to support his own proposal for a Rental Mediation Board, which wouldhave been a mandatory insurance by landlords of voluntary compliance. He felt he had to ask what happened to the voluntary actions, because he has seen no decrease in the number of complaints* especially from senior citizens and single parents. According to the Tri-County Housing Association, good landlords raised rents only annu- ally; by inference then, only the '°bad' landlords would be affected by this ordinance. Councilmember Eyerly wished to add an amendment to the motion. He wished to remove the phrase 'a single family dwelling" from Section E, 9.68.020 under "Definitions,° as he feared the loss of a large portion of the rental stock unless these units were exempted. AMENDMENT. Counci lhernbers Eyerly moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to remove " a single family dwelling' .From 9.68.020, Section L. AMENDMENT PASSED on the following vote: AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson, Levy, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Fletcher, Renzel ABSENT: Brenner AMENDMENT: Councilraeaaber Fazzrno moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to exempt all owners with four, -or less than four, units.• AMENDMENT FAILED on the following vote: AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon - NOES: Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzej , Sher ABSENT: Brenner Mayor Henderson clarified the point, on being questioned by Vice -Mayor Sher, that the proposed ordinance would have to return fpr a second reading; therefore the motion should he Counci lrearber Fletcher's basic motion, including as amendments all other recommended changes. MOTION FOR FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AS AMENDED PASSED on the following vote: AYES:: Fletcher,_Henderson, Levy Renzel, Sher NOES: Eyerly, Fazzino,Witherspoon ASSENT: Brenner 4 3 0. 11/10/80 MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Councilmember Renzel, that sections of the ordinance covering evictions for just cause and succeeding leases be refereed to the Human Relations Commission. Each referral to be voted on separately. Councilmember Levy asked if his understanding was correct that the HRC had recommended a just cause eviction ordinance, Mayor Henderson' s recollection was that they had recommended rent control. Vice -Mayor Sher said the HRC had forwarded the entire record of their hearings on rent control without recommenda- tion. Councilmember Levy said he supported referring Paragraph E to the HRC, but he felt the just cause eviction question had been fully discussed, and he was ready to vote on it. He asked that the motion be divided along the lines of the two questions: Paragraph E and "just cause" evictions. Councilmember Witherspoon said one of the most important and helpful things the HRC could do for her was to start documenting some of the data collected by the Rental Housing Mediation Task Force. MOTION DIVIDED: 1) Refer Paragraph E (renewal of leases) to the HRC. MOTION (1) PASSED on the following vote. AYES: Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Eyerly ABSENT: Brenner 2) Refer Evictions for Just Cause Section to the HRC. MOTION (2) PASSED on the following vote. AYES: Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel, Sher NOES: E.yeriy, Levy, Witherspoon ABSENT: Brenner NINETY DAY TRIAL OF SOUTHGATE TRAFFIC OP AND EE Staff recommends that Council adopt resolution continuing the current trail plan until March 1, 1980 and to refer to the Policy and Procedures Committee discussion of alternatives, including: (A) Make current trial arrangement permanent. (8) Close Peers Park access totally and make all Southgate streets two-way, (C) Close Wilma, Castilleja`and Madror.o at Churchill, open Peers Park access to two-way traffic, allow right and left tires at Park Boulevard.,. 4 3 1 1.1/10/80 kayor Henderson recalled that a number of alternatives had been presented to Council for the Southgate area. One test with barriers had just been completed; he did not favor extending that test for another 90 days. He suggested the alternative of closing the Park Boulevard entrance for a trial period of 90 or 60 days would give final proof of acceptance or rejection by the neighborhood. The Council was reluctant to take action without a neighborhood consensus, which has been lacking so'far. Assistant Transportation Engineer CPrl Stoffel commented' that the Southgate traffic problems, alone with many others in the city, have been of long standing, and are extremely difficult to solve. In his opinion, the experimental periods are necessary, though admittedly very time-consuming. He had mentioned in his letter to the Southgate residents that Council would probably decide on extension of the trial plan-, but any further discus- sion most likely would be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee, this being the committee designated by the Cdunci 1 to deal with traffic problems. John Canyon, 270 Leland Avenue, considered the erection of traffic barriers to protect neighborhoods from excess. traffic improper and counter -productive. He felt traffic barriers deny people's rights to drive on all city streets; that they benefit a few at the expense of many; that they polarize neighborhoods and cause bitterness and animosity, and cause problems for emergency vehicles. Referring to statement that the Evergreen Park Association had no objections to the barrier, he declared there was no such association. Mayor Henderson remarked here that he had met with a sizeable group the previous week who had called themselves the Evergreen Perk Association. Mrs. Victor Kasper, 1535 Castelleja, said she was very pleased that the Traffic Engineering Department agrees that there is a through traffic problem in the Southgate area, and that it is being used as a short cut rather than El Camino or Alma. She asked that Park be closed off and the present trial arrangement made permanent. Dr. Oliver E. Byrd, retired, 1533 Madrono Avenue, thought a complete study of the neighborhood traffic problems should have been wade, not just of the two streets involved. ° He commended the staff report, but believed that the solution had not yet been found, because alleviating traffic flow on two streets just diverted it to the other streets. Of the three elternatives recommended for referral to the Policy and Procedures Committee, he favored either 8 or C, ire, a ensure at Peers dark or a closure at Churchill. Kay Snyder. 285 Oxford, was i n iAmplete agreement with John Canyon about the destructive effect of traffic barriers on neighborhood relations. Lois Fariello, 302 Manzanita Avenue, lives on the corner of Madrono and wished to inform Council of the present very danger- ous traffic situation. She agreed with Dr. Byrd in favoring either Alternative B or C. Albert Meese, 1641 Castilleja Avenue. was against all traffic barriers. He has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years, and could not see tpat they have had any traffic problem. 4 3 2 11/10/80 Helen Smith, 290 Oxford, was opposed to traffic barriers and to the extension of the 90 -day trial period, nor did she want any barriers in Evergreen Park. Emily Clifford, 271 Stanford Avenue, had lived there for 24 years. She was in favor of traffic control, not traffic barri- ers. In all of her very frequent walks, she has never ;eon what she considers heavy traffic in the neighborhood, except possibly on Park Boulevard. She suggested that this traffic could pos- sibly be slowed down by the installation of one or more stop signs. She did not consider the suggested use of the alley between Cambridge and College Avenues very wise. Mrs. Lucien B. Kinney, 400 Miramonte, took a traffic count of 256 cars for a 14 -hour period on July 21st, before installation of the barriers, and a count of 263 cars on July 23rd. Walter M. Johnson, 230 Sequoia Avenue, did not feel that barriers are the answer to the traffic problem, because the increasing motorist population must be accommodated. He suggested opening up Park Boulevard and allowing right-hand turns onto Southgate. Lois Johnson, 230 Sequoia Avenue, pointed out that the Sloit;:gate Trial Plan was supposed to have been completed in late October, and objected to staff recommendation for continuation to March 1981, in spite of the fact that 75% of those responding to inquiries are not in favor of the plan. In her opinion, traffic barriers only moved traffic problems from one street to another. Most of the residents felt a more equitable solution would be to remove all traffic barriers and control traffic and noise by enforcing speeding laws, etc, and that taxpayers should be able to drive on any street in Palo Alto. She felt strongly that 'quality of life could not be legislated, Harry Press, 1623' Escobita, said that there was no way he could top what was just said, and he and his wife totally agreed. Mrs. Derril Schneider, 2005 Park Boulevard, a member of the Evergreen Park Association, would have addressed the proposed closing of Park Boulevard at College Avenue, which was not under questions Louise Raskin, 230 College Avenue, said she also could not top what was said by Lois Johnson, but wished to state her position that the traffic barriers should be removed. Dale Simbeck, 306 Sequoia Avenue, sdiid he agreed with most of the speakers who felt that the traffic barriers polarized a small group of homes, and should be removed in accordance with the wishes expressed by 75% of those queried. Marjorie Beddick, 1610 Portola Avenue, said she lives In the. middle of the city and expects others to use her street and all the streets in the city, a right wh1Fh she demands for herself, Tom Vlasic, 1540 Mariposa Avenue, felt that the 90-daytrial was not an acceptable solution in the long term; there should be equity. At the same time, residents on the pertinent streets d i d not feel t rear streets should be used as thoroughfares. He wished to see either. a full closure at Park, making for separate neighborhoods Q or a closure at Churchill. 4 3.3 11/10/80 S. Wilkins, 345 elanzanita Avenue, agreed with Tom Vlasic about preserving the quality of the neighborhood. He proposed the immediate closure of the Peers Park access. Herold Marchick, 1511 Madrono, had four points to make: (1) the two changes being discussed were the configuration of the traffic and the closure of Park Avenue, (2) Madrono Avenue was being affected more adversely than stated in the traffic report, with the effect that there has been a switch of high volume of traffic from a one-way street to a two-way street, (3) the current trial has failed and he could see no purpose in ;ontinuing it, and (4) there were other alternatives. All the neighborhood streets should be two-way. He personally did not care for any of the Traffic Committee recommendations. David Schrom, 302 College Avenue,, thought that the Council should resolve such issues as traffic control; that trial periods and gathering input from so many members of the public was too expensive,a process. It was his opinion that the problem was really failure of cooperation within a community. He suggested trying for a more comprehensive solution, addressing the entire area, not a partial solution which helps one neighborhood at the expense of another. Perhaps all through tratific in the Southgate neighborhood could be eliminated by installing some kind of traffic circle. Corrine Powell, 302 College Avenue, supported David Shrom's statement regarding a comprehensive solution considering both neighborhoods as one area. She was concerned about any decision made at that meeting, as the Evergreen Park residents had not been notified. Joe Harrell, 1628 Mariposa Avenue, first expressed his apprecia- tion to the Council for their tolerance, especially through the rent control measure. in his opinion, the Traffic Committee study was excellent. His main concern was safety in his neighborhood streets. He recognized taxpayers' rights to drive on a'l streets, but did not feel residential steets should be used as fast access to shopping areas. The only solutions he could see were to make all streetstwo-way traffic, and to close off the. Peers Park access to eliminate through traffic. Tom °karma, 1624 Mariposa, wished to reinforce Joe Harrell's gratitude to the Traffic Committee, wham he felt showed exem- plary communal concern for the whole area. ,chileenjoying the decrease in the heavy traffic on Mariposa, he felt it equally unfair to push some of that traffic onto .other streets, and therefore strongly supported Mayor Henderson's<suggestion that Park Boulevard be entirely closed on a trial basis. He also agreed with those who urged consideration of safety before convenience. Linda Schilling, 16813 Mariposa, said her feelings had been well expressed by Mrs. Kasper, dr. Byrd, and Mr. Vlasic. She ,also thanked the Traffic Committee, the Mayor, and the Council for their efforts on this issue;<and assured them that the residents themselves were responsible for any polarization. She suggested a trial- closure at Peers Park; any closure at Churchill would shift traffic to Miramente. Michael Sullivan, 1515 Castilleja, said they did not wish to build an exclusive enclave, but they did have a severe traffic. problem. No one really liked_ traffic barriers; the barrier blocking the California Avenue access to Alma was probably the cause of the present problem. He felt, however, that another 4 3 4 11/P31$0 traffic barrier was the only solution to the present problem; the Peers Park access to their neighborhood should be closed off. The objective of the Southgate residents had never been to push traffic onto other residential streets, but to El Camino or Alma, and they were anxious to work for an equitable solution to the problem. He expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Council and the Traffic Committee. 1 Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa, voiced her support for Alternative 8, complete closure of Park Boulevard, mainly because it is enforceable without police surveillance. Mayor Henderson said the Council became involved with the Peers Park half -barriers, the Southgate barriers, etc., only because of demands by Southgate residents through the years that something be done about traffic. No Council would risk the controversy raised by voluntarily proposing barriers as a solution to traffic problems. He refuted a statement by one speaker that traffic barriers, are never productive, by citing the successful College Terrace barriers, and answered another speaker's request that Council bring peace to the neighborhood by stating that this can only be done by the residents them- selves. Mayor Henderson then briefly summarized the available alternatives: (1) if the residents' wish was for rio hindrances to through traffic in Southgate, then the entire area could be opened up again, (2) if it were desired that all through traffic be eliminated, the Park Boulevard entrance and exit could be closed, (3) a balance between the two would be a College Terrace -type system of placing barriers throughout the area, discouraging through traffic while allowing residential traffic. He wished first, however, to move that the present Southgate Traffic Control Plan trial be ended and return to the situation as it existed prior to the installation of barriers. Mayor Henderson therefore made the following motions: MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct staff to remove present barriers; and MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Eyerly, to direct staff to initiate a 90 -day test (from installation day) of closing of Peers Park entrance to Southgate and make all the Southgate streets two-way. Councilmember Fletcher asked Staff when the Evergreen Park study would be completed. Assistant Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel replied that the study had just- been initiated by taking sole' traffic counts, and that it would be many months. before completion. Counci lmember Fletcher then stated she would support the motion because of the staff analysis of this alternative, and because it would be a test, not a permanent situation. It seemed to offer the most advantages and the fewestdisadvantages* and it was the most equitable distribution of Southgate traffic of all the proposals. Mayor Henderson interposed here that, if the second motion_ failed (the' 90 -day cloture of .Peers Park entrance), he would go back to the original .nation to remove present barriers. Councilaember 0ith0rspoon wiehed to echo Mayor Henderson's first comment about the difficulty_ of Arriving at a solution that would please everyone. She could not understand why, when there were only three or four ` solutions; it was taking so much time to study the situation. She was philosophically reluctant to create two neighborhoods where there should logically be one, but felt'they should have another trial. She asked if there had been a staff count of the Evergreen traffic as a result of the preliminary trial of partial closure, in order to decide if a 90 -day trial of closing off Park Boulevard would be Sufficient to eauye results. Carl Stoffel replied that they would be able to take those counts. Director of Planning and Communi ty' Environment Naphtal i Knox wished to add here that a 90 -day trial period was unrealistic; they needed 120 days for a proper decision. If Council decision was for a barrier at the Peers Park entrance, this could be installed about December 1st, the counts would be taken in February, staff would report in mid -March, and decision would probably be made the end of March. This actually added up to 120 days from December 1st. Mayor Henderson asked how many days had elapsed in the prelimi- nary trial period. Carl Stoffel replied it was over 90 days, but not quite 120 days. Mayor Henderson then suggested that the motion read `°90 days from closure." Councilmember Witherspoon again asked about a traffic count in Evergreen Park, and Air. Stoffel answered a number of counts had been taken through Evergreen Park, mostly to check the results of the Southgate trial, and this would continue after the closing, in December and January. Counci lmember Levy was in favor of continuing the test by clos- ing Park. but questioned Council taking this action, in view of the staff recommendation for giving this to the Policy and Procedures Committee for consideration. He asked what the advantages were for taking action now. Kr. Knox replied that the norm was for the Policy and Procedures Committee to handle traffic matters. However, as Council had debated the matter and heard from the residents involved, there did not seem to be any point in sending it to the Committee. Counci larember Levy was in favor of closing Park as part of a continuing test. He thanked the public for their input, and commended the Transportation Department for their efforts. Of 24 speakers, 11 advocated closing installing Peers.Park, 11 spoke against any barriers at all, and 2 were not clear.' There was obviously a division of opinion, except that the former. situation of 1,000 cars each on Mariposa and Castellija was clearly undesirable. The present situation is better, but the count of 1,000 cars on Madrono is also undesirable. i The important point to him was that there was an overall improvement in the neighborhood traffic situation. The number of cars going through the neighborhood and exiting at Peers Park has been dramatically reduced, from 1500 to 500. Of the 500, 100 wore neighborhood cars; closing Peers Park would be closing a' connection used by 100 residents. Nadrono would still have somewhat more traffic after the Peers Park closure, but it would certainly be less than before. The present system has resulted in a decline of perhaps 2,000 trips within Evergreen,' and obviously closing Peers Park will'reduce that even further. It was his opinion that experimentation was the only proven Method for resolving this issue. Therefore, as the previous experiment had somewhat improved the situation, he`was,in favor of another experiment in the hopes of further improvement.. Me advised continued cooperation between the traffic Department and the residents, to minimize adverse reactions. Councilmember Fazzino said it was clear to him that a full con- sensus of the neighborhood was not possible. The trial period had been somewhat helpful and a major part of the problem had been identified as having to du with through traffic. It appeared to him that the Peers Park closure was probably the most popular of the alternatives. He had been disturbed all along by the piecemeal approach taken to this issue, which was the reason for his opposition to the original trial plan. Although wonderful benefits have accrued to Mariposa and Castilleja, and he did not wish the situation to revert to the former very heavy traffic, his concern then and now was for the neighbors in the other part of the Southgate area. He felt the present situation was not acceptable for the neighborhood as a whole. The issue must be resolved for the entire area between California and Churchill; the movement of through traffic between these two major roadways must be studied in depth. Very little attention has been given to the Evergreen Park problems. He did not agree with the staff recommendation for continuing the same trial which has caused such serious problems for I4adrono. His approach would be for a longer range solution - to simply close Churchill and Alma, the site of most the initial traffic problems for the area. Installation of a barrier there would allow for totally free movement for the entire corridor area, resolve any concerns about free movement from Southgate to the California area, and at the same time eliminate through traffic from Bayshore and Embarcadero towards the Industrial Park and Calfornia Avenue areas. He thought this was a better solution than closing Peers Park, which, although more attractive to him than the present plan, still avoids the overriding problem of the cause of the heavy through traffic. The Peers Park closure also did not have a strong relevance to the problems associated with Evergreen, which he felt needed immediate exploration. He could forsee the necessity of more trial periods in succession before any possible consensus could be reached. He therefore opposed the motion for the Peers Park closure. Cnuncilmember Renzel gave her support of the motion. MOTIONS PASSED: Motions to remove present barriers, and direct staff to initiate a 90 -day test of closing Peers Park entry and exit to Southgate and to make all Southgate streets two ways, passed on the following vote: AYES: Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Fazzino ASSENT: Brenner RE UEST OF COUNCILMEN ER FLETCHER Councilmember Fletcher reviewed the problems associated with negotiations with the Palo Alto Unified School District over the sale of the Ventura site. In essence, the City of Palo Alto had to accept an ultimatum by the School District, because of the objections of a single School Board Member, having the force of a veto. She therefore made the following motion: MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Fazzi nu, that Council go on record and direct the Mayor to write our State 4 3 7 11/10/80 Legislator to seek to eliminate the unanimity rule from the Education Code, and if necessary, City staff to work with Sacramento staff or the League of California Cities. Councilmember Fletcher further explained that the unanimity rule should apply in essense to negotiations between two public agencies, because only a two-thirds majority vote by the School Board was required for completion of a sale in dealing with competitive bids. Vice -Mayor Sher interposed here that he believed there was an inherent conflict of interest for him on this matter, because if the motion passed, it could be directed in part to him as a future member of the legislature. He felt it would be unwise to lock himself into a,position on this matter without having an opportunity to hear all points of view. Therefore, he would abstain on this issue. • Councilmember Witherspoon thought the suggested directive was a good idea from the City's point of view, but she wondered if anyone knew the reasons for the unanimity rule. City Attorney Abrams suggested that perhaps unanimity was desir- able because bidding was not required for selling to a public entity, and the property could consequently be sold at below market value. Councilmember Levy agreed with Councilmember Witherspoon. He could see no reason why selling property to the private sector should be easier than selling to the public sector. He thought the unanimity rule applied to all sales; since it did not, the rue should be changed so that all sales should be on the same basis. MOTION PASSED: Motion passed on a unanimous vote, Vice -Mayer Sher abstaining, Councilmember Brenner absent. MAYOR HENDERSON RE APPOINTMENT W r u. SW MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, approval of schedule as prepared by City Clerk. MOTION PASSED: Motion passed on a unanimous vote, Vice -Mayor Sher not participating, Councilmember Brenner absent. Mayor Heederson asked for suggestions about the numoer of candi- dates to interview for Vice -Mayor Sher's vacated place on the Council. Councilmember Fa zz i ho, after reaffirming his understanding that the entire meeting of December 1st was being set aside far the purpose of irterviewing candidates, suggested that no more than six candidates be interviewed. Councilmember Renze'd suggested that Council choose only those applicants for interview who receive at least four votes, with each councileember choosing 'three or four of the total to vote fora She therefore made the following motion: MOTION: Councilmember Renzel Proved, seconded by Fazzi no, that each counc1lr,embor select three candidates for interview end Council interview only the top six 4 3 8 11/10/80 MOTION PASSED: Moticn passed on a unanimous vote, participating, Brenner absent.