Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03211974CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY (Dr - Pa() 1`TO March 21, 1974 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 6:00 p.m. in a special meeting, with Mayor Comstock presiding. Present: Beahrs, Berwald, Clap, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson Absent: Norton, Rosenbaum, Sher ,CpnsiA tien,pf lieseAption Collin a Soecial Election far June 4a 1'374 �lIe1�OYY.y.YlY1 iYdOY.Y.i • 1�.011.11��0�..11..Yi..Y Mayor Comstock noted that this meeting was called for the sole purpose of considering a resolution calling a special election for June 4, 1974. The record should chow that the City Clerk has verified that the initiative petition has sufficient signatures, that this is the date shown by which the Council must act in the ratter if it is to be placed on the ballot. Furthermore, Council members have received a report dated March 21 from the City Attorney giving his views con- cerning the options available to the Council. Council has also received a letter from the City Clerk concerning the submission of arguments for and against the ballot proposition if it is placed on the ballot. In addition a copy of the notice to be published con- cerning the arguments has been received. City Attorney Booth summarized his memorandum. He noted that the special meeting was called for the purpose of meeting a number of con- flicting code sections dealing with initiative charter amendments, not the least of which requires a special election to be held within sixty days of publication of notice of the charter amendment. In order to save the city and its taxpayers time, money, and inconvenience by having the election consolidated with the June primary, this meet- ing was necessary. Secondly, Section 5010.5 of the Elections Code allows the Council to have an impartial analysis of the measure pre- pared by the City Attorney not to exceed 50) words placed on the ballot. This is commonly done with statewide measures by the legis- lative analyst's office or by the legislative counsel's office. If this is Council's desire, a simple motion directing that to occur will be sufficient, The code section provides that. the City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analyais of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. Thirdly, on validity of rent control, City Attorney Booth said he had discussed that at length in the memorandum. The recent Berkeley case which involves an initiative charter amendment for rest control very similar to the one proposed for Palo Alto has been declared uacon- stitutional. In the first instance, the court held that such a matter was equivalent to zoning and therefore could not be initiated at all by the electorate. Secondly, the court found that in order to have rent control in California, an emergency mast exist, and the judge made his decision that an emergency did not exist in the city of Berkeley. The Berkeley case is on appeal. A decision is not expected prior to the June election. Mr. Broth noted that trial court deci- sions in one county are not binding in another county; therefore there 308 3/21(74 is not a definitive decision in California re3arding the validity of rent control. In view of that and in view of the very short time prior to the general election in June, it was his recommendation that the matter be placed on the ballot, and if it should pass, he anticipated that one group or another would institute litigation on it. He noted particularly that the law is clear that where an initiative is patently invalid on its face, such as the Bach Mai initiative last year, the Council may refuse to place it on the ballot, and the court will not order it to do so. He recommended that the present issue be placed on the ballot for the reasons indicated. Councilman Berwald commented that the recommendation did not seem to be in the nature of a legal opinion. It seems to be wore of a city policy opinion. He asked if the City Attorney felt Council would be Within its legal rights to refuse to put it on the ballot and to petition the courts if sued for an election in November. City Attorney Booth responded that the recommendation to put it on the ballot is not a legal conclusion, but the recommendation is based on the legal and some of the practical problems of an initiative that were discussed in his report. He stated that if it is not placed on the June ballot, it would not he placed on the November ballot, because the initiative sections relating to charter amend- ments require a special election to be held within sixty days. In the event Council refused to plate this on the ballot in June, and the courts ordered It to be placed on the ballot, the likelihood would be a special election for which the city would have to com- pletely pay the costs. Councilman Berwald asked if the court would not take lute :onsidera- tion the question of whether it is a legal issue. City Attorney Booth felt there was considerable doubt-, given the case from Alameda County. If that case were an appellate case, his recommendation would Io not to place it on the ballot. Until there is a definitive decision, it cannot be stated with absolute certainty that it is an invalid initiative, and where there is that kind of doubt, the court has a good deal of discretion in ordering it on the ballot or not, and he felt they would place it on the ballot under these circumstances. MOTION: Councilman Berwald introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Beahra, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 4906 ENTITLED "RE5OLUTIO. OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR JUNE 4, 1974, AND REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TO CONSOLIDATE SAID SPECIAL ELECTION WITH THE DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTION" Councilman Beahrs commented that he seconded the motion but wanted the record to show that he was implacably opposed to the rent control measure which he felt was a huge imposition on the electorate. He said that he was not unmindful of the litigation that pends in the city of Berkeley on which this petition and proposed charter amendment was based. He could not see passing emergency measures and incorporating them In the organic law of this community. He felt sympathetic to people who were hard pressed these days as the result of the terrible in-- flationar spiral which reflects decades of fiscal irresponsibility, principally at the national level. The proposition under conaiders- tion is a snare and a delusion. It will not be productive of what its petitioners hope. He stated that there have been no new rental 3 0 9 3/21/74 properties developed in the city of Palo Alto in the past two years. One reason is the pendency of a proposition of this character. This is an imposition on the public and en those who would risk their private fortunes providing housing for people which is in desperate short supply in this community. He felt this type of activity would cause increasingly the huge surge to condominiums, and the only answer for people who petition in this vein is to go to the federal government and get loan guarantees so they can assist themselves in providing condominium or rental facilities. This city cannot afford to provide housing for those who think they need it at a given price. He expressed the hope that the matter would be defeated at the ballot box, and if not, in the courts. Councilman Berwald stated that he was very much opposed to rent control, and although he might vote to put this measure on the ballot because it is an expression of faith in the people's right to vote on an issue that affects them, he hoped that it would be defeated and that the people would have more sense than to pass such a law in Palo Alto. The resolution was adopted on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Comstock, that the City Attorney be asked to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Mayor Comstock noted that the City Clerk had notified Council the last day for filing ballot arguments for or against the proposition is 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 1974. The Mayor noted that the .fiat priority would be to Coy: cil members, secondly to organizations, and thirdly to individual citizens as to who is recognized to prepare argu- ments. It was agreed that the arguments In favor of the proposition would be prepared by the Palo Alto Tenants' Union, and Mayor Comstock designated that organization, and Mr. Wi?iiam Cane who represented that organization, to carry the responsibility for preparing the arguments in favor of the proposition. After discussion, Mayor Comstock designated Councilmen Beahrs and Berwald as the persons to be contacted by individuals or organizations for the purpose of preparing a ballot argent opposed to the proposition. He asked the City Clerk and the press to note that in their report of this meeting. Ad.journtaent T'ha weeting adjourned at 6:20 p.us ATTEST: APPROVED: i() tatty Clerk Mayor 3 1 0 3 /21/74