HomeMy WebLinkAbout03191973CITY
COUNCIL
MINUTCC
March 19, 1973
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:35 p.rn.
in a regular meeting with Mayor Comstock presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Beahrs (arrived 7:38 p.m.), Berwald, Clark, Comstock,
Henderson, Norton (arrived 7:40 p.m.), Pearson,
Rosenbaum, Semen
None
Mayor Comstock announced that this evening Connell would be addressing
itself to several matters which had engendered high public interest,
He said that Council would allow people who wished to express themselves
to do so. After the public had spoken, the matter would be returned to
Council for consideration. He stated that no one would be allowed to
interrupt the business before Council and the conduct of the meeting.
Penal Code Section 403 prohibits the disruption of a public meeting, and
he hoped there would be no violation. If disruption did occur, he would
announce the disruption and ask that the meeting be brought back to
order. If the meeting were not brought back to order, Council would
adjourn or recess until order was restored. Persons violating Section 403
of the Penal Code would be prosecuted.
Ordinance Re Ornershi and Mena ement
LpaXt� r oma exec
i�'�46nr4�0ii� R��sullae
Mayor Comstock recalled that this proposed ordinance was previously sent
to Council by the Human Relations Commission and was referred by the
Council to the Policy and Procedures Committee for further review and
discussion. He noted that Council had received minutes of the committee
meetings and a great many communications from interested citizens. He
asked Councilwoman Pearson, as chairman of the Policy and Procedures Com-
mittee, to summarize the consideration by the committee and describe the
recommendation as submitted to Council.
Councilwoman Pearson stated that the HRC and staff had worked for almost
1.1/2 year to develop the ordinance. She complimented all participants
for their work. She stated that the proposed apartment licensing pro-
gram had been designed to foster equal opportunity in housing in Palo
Alto, consistent with the rity's long-standing policy and philosophy of
local affirmative action and the goal and objectives of the adopted
Housing Element of the General Plan as required by state law. The ordi-
nance should be viewed as a means to regulate business for the protection
of citizens. Citizens do not quarrel with the necessity for licensing
real estate brokers, attorneys wed doctors. Because apartment managers
have poser and influence over ::he lives and homes of many individuals,
it behooves the city to protect the poblie. For the most part, apart-
ment managers in Palo Alto are conscientious, but the high incidence of
justifiable complaints by tenants forced the HRC and staff to prepare
the licensing act, recognizing that state laws do not appear to be suf-
ficient. The Policy and Procedures Committee recommends the ordinance
with the addition of three amendments: _
2 0 7
5/19/73
1. Section 4.15.090, Records on Available Dwelling Units --a sen-
tence was added which is designed to protect owners and managers
of apartment complexes from possible harassment.
2. Section 4.15.100, Regulations for Records --often an apartment
manager does not live where the apartment is. This will require
those portions of records pertaining to the dwelling units cur-
rently available for rent be brought along, normally one or two
pages.
3. Section 4.15.120, Grounds for Denial, Probation, and Penalties --
The Policy and Procedures Committee was concerned that if Sec-
tion 4.04.140, Grounds for Denial, were used that a whole vast
new area, almost unmanageable by the staff, would be opened
up. So instead of referring back to 4.04.140, the committee
included grounds for denial applicable only to this licensing
ordinance.
Comparing 4.04 to 4.15,120, note that 4.15.120's #1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 are
the same as in 4.04.140 except that language adopts these paragraphs to
apartment licensing.
Paragraphs "4 and 6 are: ;added to 4.15.120. Page 3 of the Attorney's
report, the second paragraph from the top, points out that the staff's
burden is limited from having to investigate every complaint, minor or
major, received from prospective tenants or tenants. Arbitrary refusal
to rent to a certain type of person, such as women, or men, or the handi-
capped, or the aged, or the long-haired man could not be acted upon unless
there was a court: jud rent on the subject. Federal and state discrimina-
tion lows do not address themselves to subjects such as the above list
but only to race, national orif°in, religion, or creed. #b addresses the
problem of an apartment manager who commits illegal acts and then either
willfully or unwillfuily chooses not to pay such penalties. She indicated
that the last possible amendment had to do with the request that real
estate brokers be exempted from Palo Alto licensing. They feel they are
governed by state licensing, and this would be double licensing. The City
Attorney has recommended no exemption from the regulations as distinguished
from the licensing aspect.
Mayor Comstock commented that the Council had the complete ordinance
incorporating the three specific amendments made by the committee. It
does nut include two suggested additional amendments.
Councilman Clark remarked that Council had received a memo from him to
clarify what Councilman Clark had quoted Professor Deutsch as saying at
a Planning Policy Committee meeting. Councilman Clark indicated Professor
Deutsch had said that he felt that if a licensing ordinance were put into
effect by a single community, it might be a deterrent to private develop-
ment coming into that city, whereas if it were on a countywide basis,
developers would have no choice. Professor Deutsch called Councilman
Clark the next day and said he meant that if this were applied to a
heavy licensing fee, such as $1,000, it might be a deterrent to devel-
opers coming into the community. That was all he was addressing his
comments to.
Mayor Comstock encouraged members of the audience to summarize their
remarks even more briefly than at _committee meetings.
Leslie C. Nichols, 430 Sherman Avenue, spoke in favor of the ordinance,
Don Sevy, 3820 Park Boulevard, spoke in opposition to the ordinance.
2 0 8
3/19/73
Donald Wilson, 321 Carolina Lane, representing the First Presbyterian
Church, spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Thomas G. Perkins, 1325 Bryant Street, spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Jack Giosso, president of the Palo Alto Real Estate Board, spoke in
opposition to the ordinance.
Gerry Verssen, 550 Hamilton Avenue, speaking as a concerned member of
the Falo Alto Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., spoke
in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Sam Webster, 335 Lowell, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Bob Cullenbi.ne, 2875 Ramona Street, spoke in favor of the proposed ordi-
nance.
Mrs. Marion Wachtel, 3862 Magnolia Drive, spoke in opposition to the
proposed ordinance.
Shirley Peppers, representing MCFH, spoke in favor of the proposed ordi-
nance.
Frank Manfredi, 219 Addison, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance.
Louis L. Fisher, 178 Ely Place, spoke in opposition to the proposed
ordinance.
Giandion Carney, 275 Hawthorne, representing Palo Alto -Stanford NAACP,
spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance.
John F. Porter, 275 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke in opposition to the pro-
posed ordinance.
Joseph Samson, 1050 University Drive, Menlo Park, spoke in opposition
to the proposed ordinance.
Corinne grazier, 264 Fernando Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposed
ordinance.
Bruce Franklin, 1969 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, spoke in favor
of the proposed ordinance.
Fran Mouton, 230 Wilton Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance.
Louis R. Goldsmith, 1462 Edg€wood Drive, speaking as president of the
Colorado Park Housing Corporation, spoke in opposition to the proposed
ordinance, insofar as lore/moderate income housing projects would have
to pay a business license fee.
Russ 'Haag, 159 Walter Heys Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed
ordinance.
Julian Birnbaum, 443 Ventura #8, representing PATU, supported the pro-
posed ordinance.
E. C. Chriatensnn, 480 N. First Street, San Jose, representing Tri-County
Apartment Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Ethel Mitchell, 1170 Forest Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed
ordinance.
209
3/19/73
Walter Harrington, 835 Page Mill Road, spoke in opposition to the pro-
posed ordinance.
Alan MacPherson, 376 Diablo Court, speaking as a director of MCFH, sup-
ported the proposed ordinance and described the audit conducted by MCFH.
Mayor Comstock returned the matter to Council. He noted that Council
had received the draft ordinance which does not include two suggested
amendments but does include amendments specified by the Policy and Pro-
cedures Committee.
MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved,
seconded by Pearson, its approval for first reading:
"ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 4.15
TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES" (second reading 4/2)
Mayor Comstock commented that Council had received several letters and
comments about an amendment which would provide a regulatory license
exemption for real estate brokers and limited causes for penalties and
the material that would be needed to amend the ordinance to reflect that.
E2 said he had discussed the matter with staff and was satisfied that the
amendment reets some of the concerns of the Real Estate Board and at the
same tine eliminates the burden of double licensing.
A`I: DMENT : Mayor Comstock moved, , seconded by Seman, to amend Chapter 4.15
to impleuent a regulatory license eteription to real estate brokers and the
limited causes for penalties.
Vice Mayor Norton remarked that it occurred to him that it is possible,
by exempting real estate people from this, that employees of real estate
people who are not brokers might find a loophole unless it is drafted
to cover that situation. He asked if such a situation had been covered.
City Attorney Stone said he would like to make a short comment not
directly related to Vice Mayor Norton's question. Someone asked abort
the City Attorney's level of comfort with the ordinance. He said they
are confident with respect to all the legal aspects of the ordinance
as prepared. He asked Assistant City Attorney Marilyn Norek to respond
to Vice Mayor Norton's question.
Miss Norek replied that from reading the real estate broker's law, it
seems the state would have the power to deal with most of the problems
Council would be concerned about. The regulations include prohibitions
against making substantial misrepresentation on the part of the broker
as well as false promises, including those made by their agents or
salesmen.
Vice ?'mayor Norton continued with the following example: Suppose a
broker is the manager, and he hr; res an in-house nonbroker to do the
day-to-day work. Is he under the ordinance as drafted with the amend-
ment required to have a city license or not?
M1 6 Norek replied that he would be allowed to get a nonregulatory
license if he actually is the manager. License action would not be
taken against hire by the city, but complaints normally acted upon would
be referred to the State Department of Real Estate for the same type of
license action that the city would take. If he or his agent failed to
keep records, the utter would be referred to the state for licensing
action, or the city could take criminal action. Regulations, as distin-
guished from the licensing aspect, would apply to real estate Nrokera.
210
3/19/73
Vice Mayor Norton said he was talking about a person presumably not
required to have a brokers license, an in-house manager not licensed by
the state.
Miss Norek responded that as far as a she could tell, the state acts
against the broker, not only for the acts of the broker himself, hut
for the acts of his agents. To the extent that any other manager is
responsible for the acts of his agents, so is the broker.
Councilwoman Seman asked how many brokers in Palo Alto are managers of
apartments and how many units are included.
Jack Giosso, president of the Real Estate Board, said his firm is prob-
ably the largest firm in Palo Alto, and they manage 16 units. He esti-
mated the total at not more than 100-150 units.
Councilman Rosenbaum asked why it would not be a tremendous incentive
for everybody to rush cut to find a licensed real estate broker to act
as the manger of property with the understanding they would hire some-
one to do the day-to-day work, thereby requiring no license. He felt
it would be a tremendous incentive for real estate brokers to approach
apartment owners with that simple proposition. :ie asked if this rather
innocent -sounding amendment would turn out to be a sales aid to the
local real estate industry.
Miss Norek responded that she assured real estate brokers would come
a'. a higher price than other managers. She could not answer whether or
not it would be a boon to brokers.
Mayor Comstock commented that his understanding from discussion with the
City Attorney's office is that part of the burden for this particular
facet of the regulation is the added licensing requirement. Real estate
brokers are already licensed, and other managers are not. Removing this
requirement does not remove the vulnerability of the real estate broker
from aeti.on. The source of the action may be someplace else, but he
can be subject to the same complaints under the same regulatory pro-
visions of the ordinance. He would be dealt with by an agency he is
already licensed by. The remaining people would be dealt with locally
under the procedures of the ordinance.
Councilman Beahrs stated the proposed amendment would place huge respon--
sibilitieas on the City Manager's office. One responsibility which had
occurred to him was the necessity for at least spot audits of performance.
Councilman Beahrs wished staff to tell Council just what staffing problems
might be involved and the probable magnitude of costs. He said he had
severe reservations about the effectiveness of the whole program.
City Manager Sipel said he assumed Councilman Beahrs' question was
directed to the entire program, not just the amendment.
Councilman Beahrs stated his attention was particularly focused on the
amendment which spells out in broad terns major responsibilities of the
City Manager's office.
Mayor Comstock noted that Councilman Beahr, was talking about the
second a endment .
Councilman Beahrs said . e would defer his question until discussion of
that amendment.
Councilman Berwald asked if the real estate brokers had had an oppor-
tunity to see all of the sections of the ordinance.
2 1 1
3/19/73
Miss Norek responded that the two proposed amendments had not been avail-
able to the public with the exception of the fact that the amendment
regarding real estate brokers was reviewed by Mr. Giosso.
Mr. Giosso commented that the Real Estate Board had been aware of the
amendment. He said as far as real estate or apartment house people
using this as a dodge, most real estate offices will not touch the
management of an apartment unit beL.ause it is a losing proposition.
Councilman Henderson commented that he si'l.ports the amendment but had
some trouble with the fact that it does not seem the broker's license
from the state includes many of the points in the proposed ordinance.
Therefore, if nn agent of the broker disobeys one of the rules of this
ordinance, how cae he be held responsible through his licensing board
when that is not a part of that board's regulations?
Miss Norek responded that the regulations still would apply to a broker.
There are laws governing him regarding the conducting of his business.
She had been assured the state can act on that matter. He would not
be conducting his business in a proper and legal manner or correctly
supervising his agents.
Councilman Berwald said he did not think he made his question clear.
It seemed to him that when an ordinance comes up for first reading, there
should be some attempt made for the entire ordinance, including any pro-
posed amendments, to be in the public packet at the same time the public
normally received the packet. He asked if all parts of the ordinance,
including the amendments to Chapter 4.'S, were available to the public
last week when the supplementary packet was distributed.
City Attorney Stone responded that they were not. He said they do not
ordinarily prepare axendments for distribution unless .:1e committee
which has reviewed the ordinance proposes them. These additional amend-
ments were not part of the recommendation from the committee, but in
being cautious the Attorney's office prepared for Council's use that kind
of language that would be appropriate if the Council chose to make the
amendments.
Councilman Berwald responded that he would probably vote for the amend-
ment, because it is an improvement over what is in the ordinance now, but
he would hope that it would find its way into the record that public
review iA best served when the entire ordinance is in the hands of the
public in a due amount of time before Council discussion.
Counci lw n Seman said she believed this proposed exemption was in-
cluded in the packet at the same. time as the ordinance with the amend-
ments; so she believes this was put out to the public at the same time
the ordinance was.
Mayor Comstock said it was not. The letter referring to it was, but
the draft amendment was not.
The amendment was approved on a unanimous vote.
»EN T; Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Seman, to amced the
ordinance by abiding a new Section 4.15.130, Compliance Standards by City
Manager.
Mayor Comstock stated that Council had received a report from the City
Manager which said "Staff has recommended that the ordinance provide
the City Manager with authority to set minimum standards for the manner
2 1 2
3/19/73
of keeping records; and when records are kept outside the city limits
that reasonable notice be given to owner or manager to bring records
to the Civic Center for inspection. These provisions would allow for
smoother program implementation."
Vice Mayor Norton commented that these regulations and enabling authority
are obviously helpful to clear up difficulties with the ordinance, but
it grants such broad discretion to the City Manager in important areas
that he would be unwilling to make that grant of discretion. It imposes
a great burden and gives the City Manager semi-iegislative duties.
City Manager Sipel responded that staff approached this whole subject of
administration of the ordinance in a very cautious way, should the pro-
gram be adopted by the Council. He said he was concerned about some of
.these things that the City Manager would be doing to implement the ordi-
nance. He would approach it cautiously and get opinions of people who
are going to be directly involved. He felt he needed some general law
to drop back on in the event they have a problem with administration.
He wondered which sections Vice Mayor Norton was particularly concerned
about.
Vice Mayor Norton responded almost all of them.
Councilman a?rwald commented that he had written on the mar giv of the
amendments that he would like to see these questions ansered before
the ordinance is passed, and at least .made a part of the administrative
attachment to the ordinance. It seems this amendment points up the
very difficult nature of the ordinance and the difficult job that staff
is going to have to enforce reasonable standards. It seers these are
broad discretionary powers which should be given to the City Manager
for formulation, but that the formulation and the answers should ...ome
to Council before the ordinance is passed.
Councilwoman Pearson asked upon whom the City Manager would rely to do
these things if this were not put into the ordinance.
City Manager Sipel responded that the ordinance without the amendment
requires that the regulations be approved by the HRC and by the Council
as well. He said Council already was going to receive this as a result
of the original ordinance. This amendment just further identifies those
areas that are going to require attentive by the City Manager and is in
no way intended to take authority from the Council or give it to the
City Manager. All of the seven points .Council will know before imple-
mentation of the ordinance, what the procedure will be, and will have
the option to change the procedures.
Vice Mayor Norton asked where it says that in the ordinance.
City Manager Sipel responded that ff Council is not comfortable with
the amendments, it should have a section in the ordinance which would
require that the City Manager bring these regulation back to the Council,
perhaps through the HRC, and do it in the ease manner it has been sug-
gested for the signs.
Councilwoman Pearson referred to page 5 of the ordinance and said she
thought it was already covered. "The Human Relati ens Commission shall
approve the sign and regulations by motion. The Council shall adopt the
sign and regulations by notion."
Mayor Comstock said he believed that City Manager Sipel was talking
about the procedures in more detail.
21 3
3/19/73
Councilman Beahrs stated that he agreed with Vice Mayer Norton. He felt
this amendment is deficient. It occurred to him that any standards to
be effective would have to be spelled out in the ordinance itself. He
said the city had had one experience with the curfew ordinance where the
City Manager had extremely broad powers and the court struck it down.
He did not see any difference here. He also questioned the fact that
there is no provision in this amendment for any inspection or spot audit
on compliance with the standards the City Manager adopts. He felt the
ordinance was defective in this respect. Then he said there was the
question of staffing, which he had raised earlier. He said this Council
is stepping out into the future, but no one thinks about necessary costs
in order to be effective in implementing this program. The city already
has one City Attorney devoted to the foothills litigation. They would
probably need another City Attorney on this one. He asked what are esti-
mates of staff time considered necessary to be effective in implementa-
tton of the program.
City Manager Sipel responded that there are efforts required by a num-
ber of city departments in order to implement the ordinance in the pro-
gram before Council ---the Treasurer's office, the City Manager's office,
the Division of Inspectional Services would be involved. He estimated
that the first year of costs were likely to be in the neighborhood of
$25,000. The revenue is estimated to be $18,000, After the first year
of the program and the initial start-up costs, the estimate of on -going
costs wil be $15,000 to $18,0+00 and the on -going revenues will be in
that category. It is difficult to be precise because no matter how hard
one cries, one cannot think of all the problems there will be. h e bulk
of the expenditure after the first year will come in the Division of
Inspectional Services where the actual inspection will be done to deter-
miee whether or not compliance exists. They have approximately one-half
person's time to be devoted to that function. It does not incluie time
or expense by the City Attorney's office if any major litigation arises.
Councilman Beahrs thought the estimates: were conservative. He wondered
when the residential taxpayer will be asked to pick up this burden to
save increased rents of the tenants.
Councilman Henderson asked if Council does not pass this amendment,
then how are the compliance standards to be established.
City Manager Sipel responded that the compliance standards would be
broader than what is suggested here, because then Council would be leaving
it to the City Manager to implement the program within whatever bounds
he chooses to draw.
Councilman Berwald commented that the only provision that was pertinent
to his question was Section 2. "This ordinance shall become effective
on July 1, 1973; provided, however, prier to the effective date of this
ordinance, the City Manager and city sta f hereby are authorized to take
whatever procedural steps are necessary,,.." That is limited by this
ordinance and the amendment Council, is discussing now. It seems that
even with these limitations these are very impor ant. For example, on
number 3, what does that mean "...including the conditions precedent to
the rental of a dwelling unit."
Mies tiorek responded that number 3 is meant to protect the apartment
managers and owners by specifying what is necessary to comply. It would
not be a violation of the ordinance to turn away a drug pusher, for ex-
ample. It gives the person who has to keep the records minimum standards
by letting hint know he is safe. The same is true for number 4. It is
put in there to meet the alleged problem of harassment for those members
214
3/19/73
of the public who might ask to see the records every hour. It would be
better to put it down and let people know when they are and are not com-
plying. For practical problems it seemed the easiest way to go was for
the City Manager to have the authority to make the standards and give
they: to the people who would have to comply. Councilman Berwald asked
if this meant that the City Manager could stipulate the conditions that
would be precedent to ;rental of a dwelling unit.
Miss Norek responded that he could make a list of the conditions that
would be considered sufficient for compliance with the ordinance.
Councilman Berwald asked what if the apartment manager did not agree?
Miss Norek responded that it is not a matter of Mr. Sipel's imposing
the conditions. The actual conditions precedent utilized at an apart-
ment complex are set by the owner or manager.
Vice Mayor Norton said supposing he is an apartment manager and it is
his policy, either expressed or implied, not to rent to the following
classes ez persons: (1) people who drive up to the curb with a mattress
on top of their car; (2) people with long hair, unless they are excep-
tionally neat and well mannered; (3) dirty hippies; (4) people who, In
his judgment, appear to be on drugs; (5) people who intend to keep a
number of firearr-a in the apartment, asserting a constitutional right
to do ,;o; (6) people who, after a general discussicn, appear unlikely
to be able to pay their rent on time. Which of these is intended to he
covered by the ordinance? How are they dealt with by the ordinance?
Miss Norek responded that under the ordinance as written in Vice Mayor
Norton's hypothetical fact situation, since it was realized beforehand
that these are all existing policies, they would have to be written
down in the records. The reason for the amendment is so that apartment
managers would not have to write down every policy like that. The ordi-
nance is getting at broader things like credit checks, allowing children,
etc. If regulations state that everything does not have to be spelled
out, it would be most helpful to the people who have to comply with the
ordinance.
Vice Mayor Norton asked if she meant that the City Manager, under this
delegation of discretion, might require that some of these be included
or they not be included in his judgment.
Miss Norsk replied that he could specify that if an apartment manager has
a policy not to rent to people on ten grounds, for example, he would have
to specify them. If he does not have any policy on the listed ten grounds,
he does not have to :specify anything. At least there would he the knowl-
edge twat he does not have to go on to 11, 12 and 13. Stating the first
ten would be sufficient to neet the intent of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Norton said suppose in practice the City Manager says that
he has to list all of these. Suppose he disagrees with them or ignores
him --what would happen?
Miss Norek asked if he were saying that Mr. Sipel had gone beyond what
the .law requires --a test case. The easiest thing to do is not to do
it and wait to be prosecuted and argue that you are not guilty, even
though you have not met Mr. Sipel's standards, since they required more
than the law required.
Mayor Comstock understood the question to be that you have the grounds,
but you choose not to write them down.
Vice Mayor Norton said suppose, for the simple reason that he considered
it an invasion of his policy as a landlord to force him to make public
all of his prejudices, he doesn't reveal. theca. What you are telling him
is that he is going to get taken to court under a test case to see if
he is right or wrong under the ordinance.
Miss Norek responded that the ordinance specifies that your policies
must be written down. If you do not want to write them down, you aru
in violation of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Norton replied that whether or not he writes them down depends
not on the ordinance, but on what the City Manager says.
Miss Norek responded that the City Manager would only interpret the ordi-
nance, not add to it. The City Manager merely would be given guidance as
to what policies, if they exist, -must be written down in order to comply
with the law.
Councilman Clark said that in light of this discussion earlier with
regard to prior approval by the Human Relations Commission and the
City Council., he would like to take an insertion in the opening para-
graph, Complian e Standards, in the second line. After discussion with
the City Attorney, Councilman Clark moved the following.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Pearson,
that in line 2 of Compliance Standards, after the word "enforce," the
following words he inserted "...after approval by the Human Relations
Commission and the City Council by zesolutio ..."
Mayor Comstock said he would like to speak in support of the amendment.
This is the technique that was used by the City Council in the affirma-
tive action program. This will give an opportunity to go to the heart
of the questions which have been raised and resolve them in an orderly
manner.
Councilman Eeahrs counted that he was quite disturbed by Vice Mayor
Norton's questions. They go tO matters of opinion to wh eh everyone is
entitled, but nothing is settled in the application. This is nothing
but a thicket of legal difficulty. He noted that City Attorney Stone
had suggested the idea that Council approve these standards by resolu-
tion. He asked if this clearly then meets the criteria established in
the curfew cane which the city lost.
City Attorney Store responded that this does not come close to any prob-
lem in terms of legislative delegation being overbroad. This is not
the case here. He felt there - continued to be some misunderstanding.
The City Manager's criteria here, which would be laid down if the amend-
ment to the amendment is adopted, are only a minim= set of standards.
If a landlord chooses to not rent on the basis of a conversation in which
he or she believes the applicant would not pay the rent on tits,!, there is
nothing illegal about that. It i;a not something for which pro ecutthn
would be warranted. What would be approved by Council by resolution,
would be a minimum set of standards in terms of the record -keeping. The
misunderstanding makes the problem more apparent than the problem redly
is. With this amendment to the amendment,.Council will be saying what
those minimum standards are and will have the opportunity in public
hearing to gain a better understanding of them.
Vice Mayor Norton commented that two things continued to bother hire.
One, he would eltaoet rather give this to the City Manager to solve than
get it back again. The kind of questions he raised are things that no -
216
3/19/73
body is going to be able to answer satisfactorily. Federal and state
laws say discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, and national
origin is illegal. If the city's concerns were limited to those three
items, only one of which is really being talked about in this ordinance,
then things would be greatly simplified, and the MCFH statistics would
be relevent. But when the city goes beyond that and gets into a set of
regulations which suggest that the records to be kept by the landlord
go into criteria for renting, such as whether or not the tenant usea
drugs, etc., he diu not agree. The city should stick with the simple
area. He did not want to get into these other subjective legal reasons
for discriminating.
Councilman Clark said he thought it had been determined that if that is
all the city did, it was preempted by what was already in the books, and
the only reason for the rest of this was to make it legal for the City
of Palo Alto to do something. He said that was his understanding of
why the city had to have an ordinance written that did take up other
things.
Miss Norek said that was incorrect. The City Attorney's prior opinion
on the Rumford Act preemption issue points out there are several factors
upon which they believe that preemption is not an issue in this case.
Some involve the fact that the ordinance aids all tenants and not just
ninor;ty prospective tenants. Others do not. This always has been a
general licensing ordinance, rather than a pure fair housing ordinance.
The anertdment to the amendment passed on the following vote:
Ayes: Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum,
Seman
Noes: Beahrs, Norton
The amendment as amended passed on the following vote:
Ayes: Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum,
Seman
Noes: Beahrs, Norton
Mayor Comstock stated that the ordinance with the two amendments as
offered and improved by the Council was before Council.
Councilman Beahrs said that a tremendous job had been done in fifteen
months of hard labor. The ordinance is a fine job of craftsmanship.
His general obser'vatioi is that this ordinance is so diluted as to hardly
be recognizable as what Council originally considered. He was interested
in the definiticn of family. Family means one or more persons living in
a single housekeeping unit. A lawsuit was won that family includes mutu-
ality of obligation. Referring to Section 4.15.030, License for Apart-
ment Manager, he said there has been much discussion about the need for
educating some of these people as to their social obligations. Hs: was
surprised that the ordinance did not require some simple examination
that a person managing an apartment house has some rudimentary knowledge
with respect to the subject under discussion, and that he also know
something about tenant -landlord relationships.
Miss Norek said that the MCFH originally proposed that an examination be
given. The Human Relations Commission felt that it would be a good idea,
but it would be an added expense and burden on the city, and we are not
really dealing with a technical area. Instead of an examination, as
2 1 7
3/19/73
managers first came to the city they would be given material to read on
their own. The educational aspect has always been part of the antici-
pated administration of the ordinance.
Councilman Beahrs continued that on display of signs it is not ,specified
whether the sign is displayed inside or outside.
Miss Norek replied that, in those cases where the sign must be displayed
at the entrance, entrances to apartment complexes vary from complex to
complex. The amendment that Council just approved addresses itself to
criteria as to how the ordinance is applied in specific instances. It
is meant to cover things like that. One cannot determine -beforehand
every possible variation that may come up.
Councilman Peehrs referred to the inquiry list. He said there is no
stipulation which requires the applicant to clearly and legally identify
it
himself. People give fictitious names foi .their own purposes.
Miss Norek responded that a requirement like that could be put in if
desired. It could be to the benefit of the city, because the city would
know that the names on the inquiry list wee true ones. It was felt by
the HRC and staff that most names given would be true names.
Councilman Beahrs noted that a related problem comes up in Section (c),
Inspection of Record. It says "All records to be kept under this sec-
tion shall be rade available to the city Dr to any person..." He said
he would want to see the man's identification. He did not see why any
Fer_ on should be able to look over these records without showing their
authority to do so.
Hiss Norek replied that as with the other comment, she could see no
legal problem to implementing those suggestions about showing identifi-
cation. They are excellent ideas.
Councilman Beahrs said he thought the legitimacy of all of this should
be supported.
Councilman Clark commented that he thought this ordinance should be
worked into the best possible shape. Necessarily, he was not for it
at this particular point in time. Council has had very sound discussion
and advice from thoughtful and dedicated people. All are fully aware
that prevention is probably better than punishment afterward. Re said
he was not ready to say that the lob could not b:s done without having
an ordinance as cumbersome: as this. He was discouraged that no affir-
mative approach had been taken by the Palo Alto Real Estate Board in
particular. The Tri-County board had made a start. Now that this is
hanging so closely over their heads, more interest and energy ;could be
displayed in doing something affirmative. The mediation board approach
should be explored further. He hoped this problem could be resolved in
this comunity by that means. Palo Alto's problems are bad enough.
Council received a letter from Sacramento asking thEca to pass t.tis. He
said he was not ready to put a cumbersome ordinance in Palo Alto merely
to be a leader in the entire state, although everybody has to work on
the problem. He would hate to see the ordinance defeated tonight. He
would like to have it continued for e period of time, but left in the
form that it is. He would hope that Council would continue the subject
until such time as the mediation board concept had been fully evaluated
and developed by the Human Relations Commission and interested groups in
the community. Perhaps in one year it could be brought back to see if
it is necessary. If at that time it showed the same kind of statistics,
then he would teed strongly that an ordinance such as this was in order.
2 1
3/19/73
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Berwald, to
continue this ordinance until such time as a mediation board, created
under the auspices of the Human Relations Commission, had been imple-
mented and had been in existence for a period of one year.
Councilman Berwald noted that 25 people spoke this evening, and they
were about equally divided for and against the ordinance. It is interest-
ing to note that few people who have actually been the subject of discrim-
ination have appeared before the committee or the Council. The reason was
probably correctly stated by Miss pepper that it was embarrassing to come
before the public body and say you have been discriminated against. Still,
Council has not had any personal experiences with people who have been
discriminated against. In the past months and years, tenants have been
constantly in touch with the HRC and Council to conciliate landlord -tenant
disputes, which proves the need for an effective mediation board. He did
not think the question is one of discrimination. It exists and it is
painful. The question is not the validity of the audit, nor the legality
of the proposed ordinance. It is not a question of the city's desire to
eliminate discrimination. The question is will the ordinance eradicate
discrimination in housing? Are there other reasonable alternatives?
Could voluntary compliance be secured with less than this ordinance,
which is in some ways oppressive and costly? Can the city in good con-
science pass this ordinance prior to answering the pleas of the Institute
for Real Estate ;tanazement, the Board of Realtors, the Tri-County Apart-
ment House Managers, which have spelled out a proposal for a mediation
board? Perhaps rc.t important, in t. city in which citizen participation
has become a credo and which b`:_,...s in power with the people as opposed
to power over people, would it not be more consistent with these positions
to first take advantage of an overture by the landlords, the Real Estate
Board, and the Apartment Managers' Association which contemplates a medi-
atio;, board composed of various organizations. At the end of one year,
make a new audit with the participation of landlord and tenant represen-
tatives and representatives of the ar Association. If adequate progress
hss not been made as determined by the HRC, the MCFH, and the Council,
this ordinance or a similar ordinance should be reconsidered. In the
meantime, this ordinance should be given wide distribution to the agencies
for their explicit recommendations as to what portions they can live with
and what portions they cannot, and what they intend to do in the way of
affirmative action. In the interim, it is evident that the quality of
apartment house managewnit tit be upgraded, and intensive education
must be made available in area schools and community colleges. He
thought it would be in the public interest to defer the ordinance and
take advantage of the voluntary overtures made before Council.
Mayor Comstock stated that the motion is to continue consideration of
the ordinance. He said he must speak against that. There have been a
number of comments this evening about the idea of the mediation board.
They are obviously carefully organized, but there has to be something
to mediate. The model :ease and information booklet have beer. avail-
able for same time. They have been distributed as voluntary documents.
Council did not make these required documents. These have been used
more of less by tenants, landlords, and tenant groups. it has not pro-
duced much activity with the HRC in terms of resolving tenant -landlord
disputes. There is not much ground for going to the HRC and asking
them to mediate a dispute when they are working with a voluntary docu-
ment. The comments this evening led him to believe people have used
the mediation board as an alternative to the ordinance. If Council
does not enact this ordinance, there is no ordinance In effect and no
requirements have been laid on anyone. They ere where they are now.
The objective cif the mediation board to provide rte same relief for
people's problems no longer exists. To empower the mediation board with
2 1 9
3/19/73
the powers suggested tonight, the city would be back where it started.
Continuation of the ordinance is not going to give much reason 'tor a
mediation board. Mediation is used where there are laws, regulations,
and standards. The mediation process is an adjunct to other regula-
tions. Secondly, the validity of the HUH survey has been questioned.
A number of people made comments about the education program. Whether
or not education is at fault, the survey results show what the problem
is and it continues to persist. Council can do nothing or it can try
to cope with it. The affirmative action program a.as criticized on the
basis that no one would bid on city contracts, but it has been effective.
If Council passes this ordinance, Council will enact and support going
with it the programs, staffing, and necessary support. Council does
not pass token laws. There will be inspection activities and education
activities. Otherwise it would be a sham. Mr. Goldsmith trade a good
point. It would cost about $2.00 per family per year. If that indeed
is a valid number; if the problem is the continued humiliation and debase-
ment of people and that is the price we have to pay to eliminate that,
it is a small price. It was asked why Council does not ask FEPC to spend
more money and increase their staff. It has tried, but funding has not
been there. That agency is locally understaffed. The matter rests before
Council. The value in human to ms outweighs the inconveniences. People
who spoke were divided almost evenly In favor and opposed to the ordi-
nance. That was ai.ost the operative figure In levels of discrimination.
He urged Council to vote against the continuation. Council clearly has
the local, direct, ir'rediate co --:unity social problems before it. The
honest thing for apart,.enc house owners is to face the problem. Contin-
uance does not serve any purpose that defeat of the ordinance would not
serve.
Councilman Beahrs commented ,:hat the general thrust of the discussion
is that unless this ordinance is passed, there is no basic law effective
here in Palo Alto whfch could be ^ace the subject of mediation. He
disagreed with that. As Vice Mayor Norton clearly stated, Council is
taking a rather simplistic outlook. The basic consideration is dis-
crimination on certain key factors. There is plenty of law on this.
He suggested Council should support the continuation and at the same
time pass a resolution to Mr. Brown and his associates in Sacramento
that they put up some money and get the job done. He said he was tired
of Palo Alto being pleaded with to do a job that is a job of the state
and the entire society.
Mayor Comstock had referred to Councilman Berwald's statement at a
recent meeting to the effect Chit justice deferred is justice denied.
Councilman Berwald responded to that by saying that justice would perhaps
be best served by taking the proposals that have been made and using them
as alternatives. In the long run, the city would be farther ahead in
nondiscrimination. Speaking of the affirmative action program, he said
he supported that, but he saw s great difference between it and this
ordinance. He would not call this ordinance an affirmative action pro-
gram. It is more the counterpart of the nondiscrimination ordinance that
the city had in employment. He said we did not license contractors to
come into the city to bid on city contracts.
Mayor Comstock said that it was laid on as a condition of bidding.
The motion to continue failed on the following vote:
Ayes: Beahee, Berwald, Clark, Norton
Noes: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Seman
220
3/19/73
1)
Mayor Comstock stated the main motion with the two amendments was before
Council.
Vice Mayor Norton commented that some months ago Council took a giant
step in this area by authorizing the City Attorney to file suit based
on discrimination in the name of the city ao the plaintiff. It was his
opinion that that would be a clout that would be the necessary reminder
to landlords who discriminate to go a long way iu favor of solving the
problem. When he voted for that, he was criticized for being too far
out an the subject, but he felt something had to be done. As far as he
was aware, nothing had been done under that authority. No cases have
been filed. Regarding the ordinance before Council, it is the product
of dta`tsmanship by people with a great deal of zeal on the subject and
covers every conceivable aspect by legislation. It reflects rather
narrow, one-sided views of the problem, and errs on the side of overkill.
The ordinance is divided into basically seveu parts. The first and most
important part provides a licensing for apartment managers for regulatory
purposes. The second and third parts require accurate information (record
keeping requirements) be kept by the landlord on the terms and conditions
of the dwelling unit offered to the public through records open to the
public during hours of business on request. It is these records which
eventually are going to include all of these statements as to what cri-
teria the landlord uses to exclude or eccept tenants. He said that was
only part of his objection. The other pert is that records be kept by
the .landlord or manager on the identity of all persons inquiring about
dwelling units, and these be made available to the city. Then there is
a requirement for an inspectional sign, a general business license for
the apartment itself for revenue purposes, penalties attaching to court
judgment finding discrimination, and finally a prohibition against false
or misleading advertising. He eaid he could accept most of this by way
of compromise if he could get rid of the record -keeping requirements.
He sees nothing really shoccingly wrong with the requirement of a license.
This is requited in many fields. A manager of an apartment who repeatedly
discriminates should have his license revoked, but the imposition of
record -keeping for the sole purpose of convicting the manager who keeps
those records, he cannot accept. The philosophy is wrong. The shear
burden of keeping the records is an unreasonable imposition, particularly
unreasonable on the person who is totally innocent of discrimination.
The benefits of the record -keeping requirement are marginal. Ultimately,
the prosecutor must still obtain evidence for conviction. He said if he
wanted to discriminates he could fiddle around with his records exten-
sively. The additional staff time attached to the record -keeping part
of this ordinance will be substantial. The licensing part will be mini-
mal, but the record -keeping would be major.
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Norton moved, seconded by Heaters, to delete Sec-
tions 4.15.080 regarding the inquiry list, 4.15.090 regarding records
of available units, 4.15.100 regarding regulations respecting records,
and 4. 5.070 referring to the contents on the sign, and delete that
portion that says records are available.
Mayor Comstock asked the City Attorney what the effect of the deletions
would be in tern of successful enforcement.
City Attorney Stone replied that from a legal and policy standpoint, a
great portion of the heart of the ordinance would be cut out, not because
the method of the proof is made more difficult, but because the method of
even knowing or suspecting on the part of those who are discriminated
against has been taken from the ordinance.
2 2 1
3/19/73
Councilman Rosenbaum commented that he thought Vice Mayor Norton got
to the heart of the matter in saying that this is basically a licensing
ordinance. As is the case with many other occupations, licensing is an
effort to cure abuses. He cited the case of automobile repair licenses.
Although there were laws against fraud, there were no standards which
have now been set. As to the record -keeping provision, it is the
record -keeping standards that get to the heart of the matter. Part of
the licensing is to attempt to determine when someone is not living up
to the standards. Record keeping is of great importance. He recognized
it is one of the more difficult parts of the ordinance, but he thought
it was critical to the licensing ordinance and urged it be kept.
The amendment failed on the following vote:
Ayes: Beahrs, Norton
Noes: Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum,
Semen
Councilwoman Semen stated she was going to vote for the main motion,
but she would like to state her reasons. As far as the mediation is
concerned, she applauded the HRC for efforts in this direction. Media-
tion is only useful if the minority applicant P'r:ows he has been dis-
criminated ted against. What has been demonstrated is a more subtle dis-
crimination. Posting of terms for each available rental unit, as re-
quired, will prevent the subtle form of discrimination. Regarding
education, there is education built into the ordinance. She agreed
that governmental controls are burdensome, but they become necessary
when cne group of citizens tries to deny another its rights. That is
the intent of the ordinance. Ray Wilbur said that the HRC believes
that the long-range effect of further meeting the goal of equality in
housing, will strongly outweigh what is presently considered additional
governmental control. The commissioners and staff are committed to
working with individualsneeding assistance iu the implementation stage
of the program. She said as a member of the Council, she was confident
that the program can run smoothly and effectively given a firm commit-
ment by the city to support fair housing.
Councilman Henderson stated that most of the comments he had had were
strong verbal and written complaints about this se -called next step
in destroying property rights. A statement was made at the committee
meeting that human rights and property rights are of equal importance,
lf, indeed, human and property rights are equal, he said he could still
justify this proposed ordinance. Historically, the property owner has
had the higher right. He could do with his property as he wished. He
could exclude any potential tenants for any or no reason. A tenant
might qua`.ify in every possible way except for his skin color, but he
vas denied his right to a dwelling because of the right of the property
owner to restrict use of his property. This proposed ordinance does
not take away property rights in any real sense. There is no confis-
cation of property, no forcing of the landlord to retain a tenant who
harms the property, no forcing of the landlord to keep a tenant who
does not pay his rent. The proposed ordinance brings humar, rights up
toward a level equal with property rights. If this proposed ordinance
did place human rights over property rights, he could still support it.
He is protective of property rights and wants to interfere as little as
possible, but he has grown to leern that property rights are not equal
to human rights and well-being. No man should be denied a piece to
live on the basis that the color of his skin may create a financial
threat to a landlord who thinks he will not be able to attract other
2 2 2
3/19/73
tenants. The business of trying to educate people is not valid in this
case. It is illegal to discriminate, and for years education has not
done much. Unfortunately, it finally becomes necessary to educate by
regulating against certain behavior. Soon those persona who practice
discrimination will learn that their economic welfare is not harmed by
open dealing. They will be educated, and hopefully there will no longer
need to be laws in this area at any level of government.
The ordinance as amended was approved for first reading on the follow-
ing vote:
Ayes: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Semen
Noes: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Gorton
Motion to Continu' A enda Items
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, that item #2 be
continued to March 26.
The motion passed on the folowing vote:
Ayes: Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson,
Rosenbaum, Seman
Noes: L ahrs
MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Pearson, that items #3, 4
and 5 be continued to March 26.
me motion passed on the following vote:
Ayes: Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson,
Rosenbaum, Semen
Noes: Beahrs
MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Berwald, that items
/7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 be continued to March 26.
Vice Mayor Norton noted that there were people in the audience who
he thought were waiting to speak on this item.
The motion passed on the following vote:
Ayer: Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Semen
Noes: Beaters, Berwald, Norton
MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Norton, that items
112, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 be continued to the next meeting.
3
Councilman Berwald indicated that he had spoken with someone from the
state that day on item #15, and almost everyone in the state office
feels that it would be important that this resolution be passed as
quickly ac possible. He asked that item 115 be removed from the motion.
Councilman Henderson indicated there is a problem with item 119 in
terms of getting it to the Planning Commission if Council desires.
There is also the problem of the owner of the property having some
ides whether Council plans to take action.
See Page
228 re
#7 & Y
2 2 3
3/19/13
Mayor Comstock suggested that Council move to continue the items and
reconsider any particular item.
Councilwoman Pearson, who made the motion; asked to delete items #15
and 19 from the motion. The second disagreed.
The motion to continue passed on the following vote:
Ayes: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Norton, Pearson,
Rosenbaum, Seman
Noes: Henderson
Councilman Clark stated he felt it would be unfair for Council to vote
to continue an item, then the proponents or opponents would leave and
Council reconsider later. He said Council should decide immediately
whether or not items would b.. considered.
MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, duly seconded, to reconsider con-
tinuance on items #15 and )9.
Councilman Clark asked for separation.
The Lotion to reconsider continuance on item 015 passed on the follow-
ing vote:
Ayes: Ben -aid, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson,
Rosenbaum, Scman
Noes: F'eahrs
The notion to continue item 015 failed on a unanimous vote.
The motion to reconsider continuance of item #19 failed on the follow-
ing vote:
Ayes: Henderson, Pearson, Seman
Noes: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Norton, Rosenbaum
BART Extension Down Peninsula
a.n .also ount ra.ns ortation Develo a It Board) -
MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the Council
uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and reapond to the
Citizens' Advisory Committee of the San Mateo County Transportation Devel-
opment Board that:
a. we believe it pret}aature to either endorse or re,jec the idea of
a tie-in with BA.RI;
b. should there be a tie --.+n with BART at some future date, we see
no poscible sites available for terminal stations in Palo Alto;
and
c. should we tie-in with BART at some future time, we see no real
possibilities for on --line stations other than the two current
Southern Pacific stations at University and Zalifornia Avenues.
Mayor Comstock recognized William H. Lathrop.
2 2 4►
3/19/73
William H. Lathrop, Project Manager for consultants Parsons-Brinckerhoff-
Tudor-Bechtel/Wilbur Smith, making a study of the possible extension of
BART down the Peninsula, reviewed the pertinent studies made over the
last few years and those currently underway, including a study being made
by the county and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The studies
will not be completed until 1975, and all of the concerns regarding rapid
transit on the Peninsula will not be known until them.
Responding to a question from Councilman Beahrs, Mr. Lathrop said that
there is a study of Southern Pacific being made by the MTC, but they are
not involved in that. There are three independent efforts being under-
taken in San Mateo County: 1) BART; 2) Southern Pacific; and 3) local
transit, and the results of these three will be combined in a ballot issue
when completed.
Councilman Bervald said he would move an amendment Chet Palo Alto continue
to support MTC as the responsible authority for bay regional transporta-
tion planning. Mt. Lathrop said he would have no objections to this.
Responding to Councilman Rosenbaum, Mr. Lathrop said the reaction of
various city co=uncils to the idea of extending BART through San Mateo
County had been mostly neutral or negative.
Scott MacGillvrav, t,`eestbay Railway, 1448 University Avenue, Palo Alto,
asked Council whether they wished to hear his 20-25 minute presentation
tonight in view of the lateness of the hour.
Councilman Rosenbaum noted that Mr. MacGil lvray was invited here tonight
specifically to rake a presentation cal this issue. He said he would not
object to hearing the presentation tonight.
Mayor Co:-atock ::aid he would prefer to plan on a more reasonable hour for
hearing the presentation and he requested Mr. ;McGill+tray to work with the
staff to set another date.
AMENDMENT: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Pearson, that the
emotion be amended to add:
d. that consideration be given to upgrading the Southern Pacific so
that better commuter service can be provided at an earlier date
than would be possible with BART.
Councilman Bervald said Palo Alto has been in negotiation with SP for some
time on other matters and he would not like to see us duplicate the efforts
of the MTC.
Councilwoman Pearson said she felt Pala Alto was supporting both and ask-
ing the MTC to include in its study another method of transportation. San
Mateo County Board of Supervisors now has to go along with the Southern
Pacific study since the citizens have indicated they will not buy BART
without knowing. She said she felt d. states Palo Alto's position --that
we want more studies.
Councilman Rosenbaum commented that the MTC has now come to the conclusion
that it aught to do a study on SP upgrading. It was not included in the
original work program planned by San Mateo County and the MTC.
The amendment passed on a unanimous vote,
2 2 5
3/19/73
AMENDMENT: Councilman Berwald *roved, seconded by Seman, that the motion
be amended to add:
e. the Palo Alto City Council supports the MTC as continuing to be
the responsible authority for bay regional transportation
planning.
The amendment passed on a unanimous vote.
The Lotion as amended passed on a unanimous vote.
Politico? Sign ordinance
MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved,
seconded by Beahrs, its adoption on an emergency basis:
ORDINANCE NO. 2.704 ENTITLED "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SUBSECTION (G) OF SECTION 16.20. 190 OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS AND ADDING
SUBSECTION (H) TO SECTION 16.20.190 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNT:IPAL
CODE TO REGULATE ELECTION SIGNS"
Andrew Lipp, 318 Laurel, Mcnlo Park, representing the Midpeninsula Chapter
of ACLU, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance on the basis of its
being ur:constitutiona,.
Councilw«-an Pearson_ said this whole subject is still before the Policy
and Procedures Co7nittee and she assured that ever if this ordinance
passes, it will be back in committee very quietly. She would not want
to repeal the law. Does this address itself to what we do at every elec-
tion here in Palo Alto, she asked.
Mayor Comstock asked City Attorney Stone to comment.
City Attorney Stone stated he believed it was constitutional or he would
not have lroposed it. He said they recognize there is a difference of
opinion, but the opinion of his office is that what is being proposed is
constitutional. He said it is up to Council as a policy matter if it
would :rant to instead repeal the present flat band.
Councilman Beahrs asked Mr. -Lipp if he were going so far as to say that
Council could not prohibit a battle of signs in Palo Alto. He stated
that Council has a right to defend the environment.
Mr. Lipp responded that he was objecting to regulation as to time and
subject matter. The size and number of signs is another question.
To allow one sign cn one subject matter, but not an equal --sized sign cn
another subject matter, is the basis of his objection.
The ordinance was adopted as an emergency measure on a unanimous vote.
Closure of State Mental Hospitals
esamagEga
MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following resolution and moved,
seconded by Berwald, its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 4720 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION OF TH2 COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PAL) ALTO OPPOSING THE CLOSURE OF THE STATE HOSPITALS
FOR THE MENTALLY ILL AND THE MENTALLY RETARDED"
2 2 6
3/19/73
Barbara Hopkins, 1040 Barbara Circle, spoke in favor of the proposed
resolution. She questioned the wording. Her understanding was that
the comment that the State of California has a responsibility to care
for the mentally ill and mentally retarded is not accurate.
Councilwoman Pearson stated that she had received a call from a member
of the come^unity who said the first whereas was not accurate, and Council
should change it.
Mrs. Hopkins said that she was basically saying that the state has the
responsibility as long as the patients are in a state hospital, but
not while they are in local programs.
Councilman Henderson referred to the resolution which Cupertino had
passed on this subject. After discussion, the following amendment was
proposed:
AMENDMENT: Councilman Henderson >noved, seconded by Clark, to change
the first whereas in the resolution to react as follows: "Whereas, the
State of California has adopted the policy for the care a' the mentally
ill and mentally retarded in local community programs and has started
to implement this policy by the closing of state mental hospitals; end"
Councilman Beahrs cot entet that this program had been a practical
matter in the State of California for over two years now, and he won-
dered why all the exciteaent at this late hour.
Councilman Clark responded that the hospitals are being closed prema-
turely and every county mental health department is unprepared.
Councilman Berwald informed Council that the task force on closing
state hospitals reported to the Department of Health that they should
close neither Stockton nor Agnew Hospitals. They will probably be
funded for this year and next year.
The amendment passed on a unanimous vote.
Mrs. Hopkins stated that in opposing the closing of the hospitals, she
was not saying the hospitals are providing the care they should be. She
wondered how cities such as Palo Alto can assume responsibility in
gearing up to provide these necessary services. She made two suggestions:
1) consider taking the initiative and changing zoning regulations according
to A8 1856; 2) would it be possible for representatives from the city to
;lace this item: on a county agenda, because it is a countywide problem
and requires coordination,
Councilwoman Sean agreed it would be a good item for the Inter -City
Council agenda, Also, she is on the county CPC Housing Advisory Co-
mittee, and she said she would address that body to it. She stated she
had a call from a citizen whc wanted her to crake a statement with which
she agreed and was happy to make. What this resolution is speaking to
is the neataxe approach: to closing the hespitala without providing for
the care of the patients. It is clear that with well -funded, well -
planned, and well -executed prograra, mentally retarded people who do
not need medical care will benefit from being within the local community.
City Manager Sipel suggested that Council request -the staff to deter-
mine frou the county what plans they have. They have responsibilities
in the health field. They are the health officer for the city, and
the city should determine what they plan to do and proceed from there.
227
3/19/73
The resolution as amended passed cn the following vote:
Ayes: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark; Comstock, Henderson, Pearson,
Rosenbaum, Seman
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Motion to Reconsider
MOTION: Vice Mayor Norton moved, seconded by Beahrs, to reconsider con-
tinuance of items #7 and 8 for the purpose of acting on them summarily.
The motion to reconsider passed on the following .'ote:
Ayes: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton,
Rosenbaum, Seman
Noes: Pearson
Site and Desi n DistrcCh roval
2...5 Embarcadero fi'a = Zone District L --X-48
MOTION: Vice Mayor Norton moved, seconded by Beahrs, to uphold the unani-
mous recommendation of the Planning Compassion to approve the application
of Jon R. Perroton for a site and design district approval for storage
buildings at 2425 Embarcadero Way, zone district L -M -D, subject to con-
ditions recorded in its minutes of February 23, 1973.
The motion passed on the following, vote:
Ayes: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton,
Rosenbaum, Seman
Noes: Pearson
Desi p A rovai of Addition at
Hamilton Avenue, one District C -2-C
MOTION: Vice Mayor Norton moved, seconded by Henderson, that Council
approve the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve
the application of Clark, Stromquist and Sandstrom, architects, for design
approval of an addition at 300 Hamilton Avenue, zone district C -2-C.
Mayor Comstock consented that it was already built and asked for an
explanation.
Planning Director Knox said that due to some changes in the Inspectional
Services Department, the person who issued the permit was not aware of
the requirement for a site and design approval.
the motion passed on the following vote:
Ayes: Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, romstock, Henderson, Norton,
Rosenbaum, Seman
Noes: Pearson
2 2 8
3/19/73
Mayor
Executive Session
The Council adjourned to an Executive Personnel Session at 12:20 a. ±.
Adiour immnment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
el
7
C 'ty Clerk ,/ i
Li
d
2 2 9
3/19/73