A proposal in Palo Alto to prevent evictions before California's rent-cap law takes effect will not be discussed until early next month after the City Council, erroneously citing a shortage of members present on Monday, delayed the hearing.
The ordinance, which was proposed by Council members Tom DuBois and Lydia Kou, would bar landlords from evicting residents without fault before Jan. 1, 2020, when Assembly Bill 1482 is set to kick in. The bill caps annual rent increases at 5% plus inflation and offers protections from no-fault evictions.
But the council never got to take up the proposal. Councilwoman Liz Kniss recused herself from the discussion because her family owns an apartment building. She announced at the beginning of the meeting that she would be recusing out of "an abundance of caution." With Vice Mayor Adrian Fine on a business trip and absent from the meeting, Mayor Eric Filseth indicated that the council wouldn't have enough votes to pass an urgency ordinance.
Filseth said that his understanding was that, as an urgency ordinance, the proposal would require approval from six council members. With Kniss recused and Fine absent, that left five colleagues available for the vote. Filseth called it a "delicate issue."
The draft ordinance provided to the council by the City Attorney's Office seemed to back up Filseth. It states that municipal code section 2.04.270 “authorizes the adoption of an urgency ordinance … by four-fifths of the council.” Four-fifths of a seven-member council is 5.6 members -- or, rounded up, six.
In fact, the council only needed five votes to pass the urgency ordinance. The city's code states that an urgency ordinance to preserve public peace, health and safety "may be introduced and adopted at one and the same meeting if passed by a vote of four-fifths of the council members present."
City Attorney Molly Stump said on Wednesday that for the purposes of the urgency ordinance, recused members count but absent members do not. With six members counted, five would have needed to support the ordinance for it to advance.
After Filseth indicated that the council needed six votes and no one at the meeting corrected him, the council approved a motion to continue the discussion until Dec. 2, its next meeting.
Like similar efforts in Menlo Park, Los Angeles and Redwood City, Palo Alto's proposed ordinance is intended as a stop-gap measure to keep landlords from evicting tenants and raising rents before AB 1482 takes effect, notwithstanding a provision that landlords must use rent levels from no later than March 2019 as the basis for applying a rent increase.
The ordinance drafted states that because AB 1482 does not go into effect until Jan. 1, landlords "could seek to evict tenants without cause in order to implement rent increases that would not otherwise be possible after the effective date."
The memo from Kou and DuBois argued that "escalating real estate values with the assistance of the deregulation of zoning provides an incentive to landlords to evict long-term, lower-income tenants, in order to raise rents and attract wealthier tenants."
The delay means that even if the ordinance passes, it will be in effect for a little less than a month -- until Dec. 31 -- before it expires.
Comments
Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Nov 20, 2019 at 11:55 am
on Nov 20, 2019 at 11:55 am
Is it fair to assume council member fine was absent because of the urgency item in the agenda?
Usually, especially lately, council menbers arw allowed to participate telephonically whenever they wish to.
Usually city wide ordinances do not trigger a need for recusal.
Is it the case that issues of fairness fir renters in Palo Alto not a priority for Council menbers Kniss and Fine?
another community
on Nov 20, 2019 at 1:53 pm
on Nov 20, 2019 at 1:53 pm
Certainly shows that renters are not a priority at City Hall. After that delay, they will likely decide it's not worth passing an ordinance for less than a month.... Political bonus, council members won't have to take a position....which will allow some of them to keep talking from both sides of their mouths.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2019 at 2:17 pm
on Nov 20, 2019 at 2:17 pm
Molly Stone is not serving our city or its residents well. As supervisor of the City Attorneys Office, the other attorneys do not have benefit of good leadership.
This blown call about the number of votes needed is not minor. 40% of Palo Altans are renters - many potentially are subject to this critical, time sensitive matter erroneously put off for 2 weeks. They may needlessly suffer as a result.
If Stump were in private practice, this would not be tolerated and it should not be tolerated here. And this is not the only example - she seems to be unengaged on all levels.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 20, 2019 at 2:45 pm
Registered user
on Nov 20, 2019 at 2:45 pm
I would have expected better oversight and understanding of the rules from Eric, whom I supported in the last election, but Liz and Adrian were just doing what they always do. It's sad that we have not gained an inch on providing affordable housing and some form of rent control. At the next election cycle just block out any and all of those talking points from the candidates during your decision making process. Many promises and then nothing happens. I followed Cory Wolbach and supported some of his housing proposals, even the idea of micro units in new housing near transit. I opposed his idea about ADU's providing much needed housing because I was sure it would change the character of neighborhoods and would do little or nothing to solve the housing problem for the low income workers in our town. I think his ADU idea has been catching on, but it will never be enough to solve the problem of housing the low income folks because I feel none of them could afford the ADU rental prices.
Evergreen Park
on Nov 20, 2019 at 6:23 pm
on Nov 20, 2019 at 6:23 pm
Fine Is the only renter on the council.
DuBois and Kou vote against every housing proposal.
@anon - no it’s not fair to assume Fine missed the meeting to avoid voting. Maybe he just had a business trip because unlike the majority of the rest of the council he works for a living.
Palo Alto online is a cesspool.
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 20, 2019 at 7:31 pm
Registered user
on Nov 20, 2019 at 7:31 pm
And maybe Mr. Fine could have been on the phone from his "business meeting."
Crescent Park
on Nov 20, 2019 at 7:49 pm
on Nov 20, 2019 at 7:49 pm
The comment from "Fine" above says that Fine is the only renter on the Council but DuBois also lives in a rented apartment, as many know.
The comment also claims that DuBois and Kou vote against every housing proposal, when it's pretty much the opposite. Just two examples: DuBois and Kou to increase the fees collected for below-market rate housing while Fine and others voted to lower those fees and thus enrich office developers instead. Fine also voted to eliminate the Downtown Commercial cap, thereby enabling more commercial development where new housing could be going instead.
And of course, Kou and DuBois have consistently led efforts to improve renter protections, while Fine and others on the Council have voted consistently to block such protections.
To all readers of this thread other than "Fine," please don't support falsehoods like the ones from "Fine."
Green Acres
on Nov 21, 2019 at 9:32 pm
on Nov 21, 2019 at 9:32 pm
Ugh so the only people who can afford to live in Palo Alto ... Are the people who *can't* afford to live in Palo Alto?
Apparently there is a shortage of housing supply in the Bay Area, so why is the city lowering the amount of available housing units even further by allowing them to become protected squats? Ostensibly there are other people who are willing and able to pay rent. This is an expensive place to live.
Seriously, this shouldnt need to be said, but if you sign a lease here you should be able to address any contingencies out of pocket. Butbut maybe they want to keep their kids in the same highly ranked school, or be closer to their workplace, or live in the same place they have for years? ... so does everyone!
Be rich, be frugal, be childless, but don't be in arrears...
another community
on Nov 30, 2019 at 1:20 pm
on Nov 30, 2019 at 1:20 pm
PA Council gets a second shot and they'll all (including the absentee) get a chance to show if they're for or against tenants (regardless of their own housing situation).
Charleston Meadows
on Nov 30, 2019 at 9:10 pm
on Nov 30, 2019 at 9:10 pm
[Post removed.]