Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-12 City Council Summary Minutes 05/12/97 83-191 Regular Meeting May 12, 1997 1. Resolution 7663 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Canine Gerti Vom Noithausenerland for Outstanding Public Service≅ ......83-193 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................83-193 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................83-194 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and O=Grady Paving for 1997 Street Resurfacing...............................83-194 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Davey Tree Expert Company for Street Tree Trimming Project..............83-194 4. Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Contract No. C4041683 between the City of Palo Alto and Nolte & Associates for Improvements to the Intersection of Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway 83-194 5. Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Eakins re Interim Regulation Prohibiting Garage Doors on Carports (continued from 4/28/97).........................................83-194 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the following: 1) The Funding Allocations, as recommended by staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee in Attachments A and B of the staff report (CMR:202:97), be included in the 1997-98 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan with the following changes: a) increase by $11,000 the funding to the Senior Coordinating Council for Senior Home Repair Program subsidies and decrease the amount in the Housing Development Fund by a like amount, and b) decrease by $50,000 the funding recommendation in favor of Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition for predevelopment funds for a new family housing site, and increase the amount in the Housing Development Fund by $50,000; 2) Staff be authorized to submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development 05/12/97 83-192 by the May 15, 1997 deadline the proposed Action Plan for the expenditure of 1997-98 Community Development Block Grant program funds; and 3) The City Manager, on behalf of the City, be authorized to execute the Housing and Urban Development application and Action Plan and any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the application. Further, support would be given to staff's proposal for a five-month assessment period to explore the acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments currently owned by Sam Webster....83-200 7. Policy Direction for the Solids Facility Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant...........................83-210 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........83-211 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.............83-212 05/12/97 83-193 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:07 p.m.), Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived at 8:30 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution 7663 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Canine Gerti Vom Noithausenerland for Outstanding Public Service≅ MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. Police Chief Chris Durkin said Gerti was one of the Police Department=s four canines, did not take a sick day, seldom complained, and always volunteered for the tough assignments. Gerti also had an outstanding record of tracking numerous criminals. Despite pain from hip dysplasia, Gerti always gave 110 percent. On behalf of the Police Department, he thanked the Council for its continued support of the canine program. The canines made a big difference. Gerti was a truly dedicated partner for Agent Bruce Hollenbeck. All the men and women of the Police Department would miss Gerti. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Barbara Bailey Slone, 2002 Barbara Drive, spoke regarding East Palo Alto Fire Victims Memorial. T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding present bus schedules and University of California at Davis student-run bus service with commentary. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Stanford items at the May 8, 1997, Architectural and Site Approval Committee meeting. Margaret Toor, 1159 Lincoln Avenue, spoke regarding child care. Anne-Marie Duliege, Louis Road, spoke regarding child care. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding machine government (letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). 05/12/97 83-194 Mayor Huber welcomed Boy Scout Troop No. 66 to the City Council meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the Minutes of February 3, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of April 29, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins Αnot participating,≅ Kniss absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 through 4. 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and O=Grady Paving for 1997 Street Resurfacing 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Davey Tree Expert Company for Street Tree Trimming Project 4. Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Contract No. C4041683 between the City of Palo Alto and Nolte & Associates for Improvements to the Intersection of Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 2, McCown Αnot participating,≅ Kniss absent. MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3 and 4, Kniss absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Eakins re Interim Regulation Prohibiting Garage Doors on Carports (continued from 4/28/97) Vice Mayor Andersen said there were situations which occurred in parts of the community, particularly in the southern part of the City, where there was development of houses that had creatively extended the meaning of the term Αcarport.≅ A carport was created that had a garage door and the look and feel of a garage but was not counted in the floor area ratio (FAR) which created more mass. He referred to Jim McFall=s letter dated April 28, 1997 (on file 05/12/97 83-195 in the City Clerk=s Office), which had additional comments. The intent was to have an interim regulation in place until staff and the Planning Commission returned with a full report. The interim regulation would prohibit garage doors on carports on any development that would occur between the present and when the regulations were proposed to Council. It was strictly an interim measure with the intention of discouraging those who had used the carport technique in some neighborhoods in the community. He asked when Council made the referral to staff to investigate abuses of existing carport and other single-family home regulations. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said it came out of the discussion of the pre-1940 houses last fall. Vice Mayor Andersen asked for a brief status report on the issue. Mr. Schreiber said the item was in the Work Program for 1997-98. He could not give a date, but it would be in the next year or so. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified that to date the Planning Commission had not yet seen it. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Vice Mayor Andersen encouraged his colleagues to support the proposal of a regulation that would forbid the use of garage doors on carports developed from the present forward and would require builders to post written notice inside the carport that advised the home buyer of the City=s regulations. Council Member Eakins hoped the proposed regulation would return to the spirit of the 1989 single-family regulations which were developed to control overly bulky houses. At the same time, when the free FAR was allowed for carports, the designs in postwar houses and newer parts of town were recognized, especially with smaller lots. It was a way to provide at least one covered space for a car. Times and economics had changed drastically. The high prices for ground in the City inspired home builders, whether individuals or business, to maximize the size of the house. Sometimes, there was inspiration to make the house look as big as possible. Having the extra square footage from carports helped that, but it was not in keeping with the spirit of the 1989 regulations. Carports were supposed to be open and airy, not bulky. Once carports had doors, they were bulky and added to the mass of the house. She thanked Mr. McFall for his letter and hoped it would go to the Planning Commission. There was material for discussion in the letter that would be useful for the permanent new single-family regulations. 05/12/97 83-196 Jim McFall, 1530 Escobita Avenue, thanked Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Eakins for their memo because it was important to address the ongoing carport abuse. Carports were not counted as floor area. That resulted in bigger houses and Αfaux≅ garages or carports with doors and at least one wall. Carports should be light, airy, and not massive, but there were carports that looked like garages and added to the mass of the houses. If Council were concerned about house size, Council needed to address carports. He understood the current Zoning Ordinance defined floor area as a residential gross floor area including Αcovered parking.≅ It seemed that carports should be included because they had a roof, provided covered parking, and met the zoning requirement to provide that same covered parking. Council had the ability to control the use of carports until the Zoning Ordinance was reviewed. Carports should be counted as garages whether they had one, two, or no walls, which would resolve the issue. Jon Schink, 2141 Byron Street, suggested that Council would better serve the community by exempting detached carports from the regulation. If Council passed the regulation, Council would increase the economic incentive to make all garages attached because an attached garage was more efficient when building a new house or remodeling. The furnace, the water heater, and the washer and dryer could be placed in the garage. Increasing the amount of usable square footage would increase the probability that the garage would be attached. In much of Palo Alto, the intent was to have garages detached and at the rear of the property. One of the incentives which would encourage that was to allow a detached faux garage at the rear of the property. Council could accomplish two goods by approving most of what was being proposed and exempting detached carports. Vice Mayor Andersen said the house recently built at 880 Ames Avenue had a detached carport, which had a garage door. The result was the mass of a house in the front that was remarkable because it put all the square footage into the front of the house. If the detached carport were counted as part of the FAR, he would be comfortable with Mr. Schink=s suggestion. However, it was not counted as part of the FAR, and it was in fact a garage in the backyard. He asked whether Mr. Schink would be comfortable if detached carports were counted as part of the FAR, as suggested by Mr. McFall. Mr. Schink said as soon as a detached carport was counted as part of the FAR, to maximize the utility of the space, it would be moved forward and attached to the house so that it could be used to house the furnace, etc. He was not familiar with the house on Ames Avenue, but most of the awful examples of the attached carport 05/12/97 83-197 would go away with the proposed regulation. The regulation would address most of the problems and allow for better design. Council Member Schneider asked about the suggestion that a single- car, detached garage not count toward the FAR. Mr. Schink had advocated that idea for several years and thought it would be a great change to the Zoning Ordinance. It would improve the design of most single-family homes in the community and was better than his suggestion. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Eakins, to direct staff to prepare an interim regulation that would forbid the use of garage doors on carports, and further, to require builders to post written notice inside the carport that advises the home buyer of the City=s regulations. Further, that staff address the issue and any unintended consequences of the action. Council Member Schneider suggested that a single-car detached garage placed in the rear of the property not be considered as part of the FAR. For several months, as Council went through the pre- 1940 housing, Council encouraged building garages in the back of the property. Exempting a single-car detached garage was another opportunity to encourage that and not have the added mass. Council Member Rosenbaum said it was too complex for Council to take action on, and there were processes for changing the Zoning Ordinance. There was advice from the staff, the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Mr. Schink made a suggestion which would represent a large change in what was done in allowing some enclosed garage space not to be considered as part of the FAR. He recognized the time problem and that there were some houses with masses that were increased by having an attached carport with a garage door. He suggested referring the item to staff, along with the previous referral, and recognizing the virtue of the process so that all sides were heard. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to refer the issue to the staff and the Planning Commission for review with the addition of exempting detached carports at the rear of a property. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the substitute motion included the additional motion of excluding single-car, detached structures in the rear yard from FAR calculations. He believed there was an additional chance of unintended consequences as it became more complex. The phrase Αinterim regulation≅ as described in the Council memo was anticipating urgency or interim action that would bypass Planning Commission review. Council Member Rosenbaum was 05/12/97 83-198 identifying the procedural difference that was characterized with the phrase Αinterim regulation.≅ Council Member Wheeler said the task of dealing with the issue on a permanent basis was not a simple one, which she believed was part of the reason that staff and the Planning Commission had indicated the entire subject should undergo review in 1997-98. The suggestions received from Mr. McFall, Mr. Schink, and Council Member Schneider were good ones. She did not disagree with any of the comments, suggestions, and complexities that might be encountered in dealing with the situation on a permanent basis. However, she did not believe that was the point of the memo and the motion made by Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Eakins. They recognized that it was a bigger issue and did not ask Council to ignore the bigger issue; they asked Council to put in place a very simple and interim regulation that would put a stop to the 90 percent horrors that were seen around the community. She believed that Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Eakins had a point that Council should deal with the interim regulation at present and address the permanent solution next year in the Work Plan. She opposed the substitute motion. She hoped that Council would return to the original motion on the floor and recognize it was just a stopgap measure intended to be simplistic and impermanent. Council Member Fazzino opposed the substitute motion. The issue came up a few months before, and Council gave an assignment to staff. He knew that staff was overwhelmed with the amount of issues that Council asked staff to study. Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Eakins were suggesting a definitive public policy direction. He supported the intent. There was a problem, and Council was ready to move forward. Mr. McFall and others well stated why it was a problem in the community. The problem was seen on many Palo Alto streets. He supported the original motion. Mr. Schink had an interesting suggestion regarding detached structures. Council did not want to end up with creating an incentive to place more garages or carports in front of homes. It was very important to let the Planning Commission and the staff evaluate the unintended consequences and, at the same time, suggest a policy which addressed the legitimate public policy concerns that were expressed. Council Member McCown strongly supported getting the Planning Commission=s perspective because it had a far greater likelihood of avoiding unintended consequences, even in an interim set of rules. The issue was being given to the Planning Commission with a limited scope. It was not intended to be the permanent fix, but Council needed to get the Planning Commission=s advice. She supported the main motion because it included that element. 05/12/97 83-199 Council Member Eakins said she and Vice Mayor Andersen intended to do something limited and targeted. There were many comprehensive, complex ideas that had the potential for vastly improving the current situation. However, that was not what she and Vice Mayor Andersen proposed that evening. She and Vice Mayor Andersen simply wanted to get the garage doors off the carports. Vice Mayor Andersen opposed the substitute motion. He suggested that the unintended consequences would be far less onerous than to have the current issues the City was faced with. Council Member Rosenbaum felt the intent was not to go to the Planning Commission. If that were the intent, then he would withdraw the substitute motion. City Manager June Fleming said staff needed clarification. Council Member McCown felt that the Council did a better job when it had the Planning Commission=s advice. She did not understand the value of short-circuiting the Planning Commission=s input. She said it was a policy direction, and it was acceptable to say that staff draft the language and take it to the Planning Commission. To the extent that was part of the original motion, she said the intent was clear. Council Member Eakins thought the motion was to refer it to the Planning Commission to get the additional input. Vice Mayor Andersen referred to Mr. McFall=s suggestion of the interpretation of existing regulation with regard to including covered parking. He suggested that between the present time and the time that the interim regulation was reviewed, staff be directed to include covered parking as part of the FAR. Council Member Eakins was uncomfortable with directing staff to interpret something differently on an interim basis because it was too difficult for staff and the public to follow the changes. SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER INCORPORATED INTO THE MAIN MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the interim regulation be reviewed by the Planning Commission. MAIN MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 05/12/97 83-200 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the following: 1) The Funding Allocations, as recommended by staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee in Attachments A and B of the staff report (CMR:202:97), be included in the 1997-98 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan with the following changes: a) increase by $11,000 the funding to the Senior Coordinating Council for Senior Home Repair Program subsidies and decrease the amount in the Housing Development Fund by a like amount, and b) decrease by $50,000 the funding recommendation in favor of Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition for predevelopment funds for a new family housing site, and increase the amount in the Housing Development Fund by $50,000; 2) Staff be authorized to submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development by the May 15, 1997 deadline the proposed Action Plan for the expenditure of 1997-98 Community Development Block Grant program funds; and 3) The City Manager, on behalf of the City, be authorized to execute the Housing and Urban Development application and Action Plan and any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the application. Further, support would be given to staff's proposal for a five-month assessment period to explore the acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments currently owned by Sam Webster. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 1997-98 MOTION: Council Member Schneider on behalf of the Finance Committee moved to approve the staff recommendation to: 1) Authorize and direct staff to carry out any further required environmental assessments and certifications for each project under both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), prior to the commitment of any funds for each project; 2) Adopt the resolution and the Annual Action Plan establishing funding allocations and a funding contingency plan for the 1997/98 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; and 3) Authorize and direct the City Manager, or her designee, to execute and submit the 1997/98 CDBG application and other documentation necessary to file the application with Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the application. Resolution 7664 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 1997-98" 05/12/97 83-201 Council Member Schneider thanked the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and staff for their long hours and dedication in dealing with CDBG funding. The CAC held lengthy public meetings on eight separate dates. In addition to receiving and discussing all requests for funding, the CAC interviewed representatives of each of the applicant agencies in order to reach a consensus on the recommendations. Affordable housing continued to be the number one priority in distribution of the funds. Whereas CAC=s goal was to spend 60 percent of the funds on affordable housing, CAC=s recommendations reached 73 percent. While 20 percent of the funds were targeted for program administration, costs were reduced to 14 percent, which left an additional 6 percent for funding. There were two changes that the Finance Committee made. As outlined in the staff report (CMR:238:97), a last minute disclosure of a potential opportunity to purchase the Sheridan Apartments, a 57-unit senior and disabled housing project, changed one of the funding recommendations. The original staff and CAC funding recommendations included an allocation of $50,000 to the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (MPHC) to be used for predevelopment expenses to secure a site for a new family housing project. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) also applied for funds to pursue a family housing site. However, when the possibility of acquiring the Sheridan Apartments arose, it was recommended that the $50,000 instead be added to the housing development funds until the acquisition potential for the Sheridan Apartments could be fully considered. The discussion regarding the selection of the developer would be postponed until after the acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments was analyzed. A five-month assessment period was approved by the CAC and by the Finance Committee. If by mid-September 1997 the Sheridan Apartments acquisition did not look feasible, staff would return to Council with a recommendation to provide $50,000 in predevelopment funds to a nonprofit housing developer to pursue a new family housing site in Palo Alto. Predevelopment funds of $50,000 for finding a site in Palo Alto would not go a long way. The entire amount of CDBG funding would not begin to touch the cost to develop a housing site in Palo Alto. With the exception of recommending that funding be restored to the Senior Home Repair Program, the Finance Committee agreed with all other funding recommendations. She referred to the letter dated May 12, 1997, from the CAC about its concerns regarding the Finance Committee=s recommendation to reinstate the $11,000 requested in Senior Home Repair subsidies. The Finance Committee recommended the Senior Coordinating Council (SCC) combine its request for Senior Home Repair subsidy funds with its annual General Fund allocation in the 1998-99 fiscal year, which was the beginning of the next two-year budget cycle. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. 05/12/97 83-202 Ann Coulston, 27 Big Tree Road, Woodside, said as President of the Board of Directors of the Stevenson House, she thanked the Council for the $48,000 proposed for replacing the roof on one of the three buildings at Stevenson House. Council was aware that Beverly Karnatz resigned as Executive Director of the Stevenson House. Barbara Lawson was serving as Interim Executive Director. There was a search committee currently interviewing candidates for the executive director position. The Stevenson House Board wanted to reassure the City Council that the Stevenson House was continuing under good management. Gary Wesley, 702 Continental Circle, Mountain View, presented a proposal for screening for illegal immigrants, which was presented to the San Jose City Council on April 22, 1997, and to the Sunnyvale City Council the week of May 5, 1997. There was an excerpt from the United States (U.S.) Code which made it a felony for any person to encourage or induce an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the U.S. knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence was or would be in violation of the law. The first part of the proposal was to condition funding on the recipient agency=s screening for citizenship or other legal residency. The proposal also stated that before services were provided or within a short period after providing initial urgent services, each agency should be required to obtain documentation of that person=s U.S. citizenship or other legal residency, to retain a copy, and to make it available to the City or the federal government. The second part of the proposal was to deny funding to agencies that refused to screen for illegal immigrants. There were many people who favored screening for different reasons. He favored screening because he believed it would advance the national objective set forth in the excerpt of a statute, which was not to encourage or aid and abet illegal immigration. He believed it would preserve limited resources for people who were in the U.S. legally. Palo Alto was already ahead of San Jose on the issue. When he appeared in San Jose, the San Jose mayor and council refused to receive any public input on the issue until closing the public hearing for the following year=s funding. As a result, there was a legal issue as to whether San Jose would receive $15.6 million in CDBG money. Palo Alto was also ahead of the City of Mountain View. There was 70 minutes of public testimony in Mountain View on the issue, and the Mountain View council did not want to discuss it. Palo Alto City Council would be smart to discuss and try it because in another year or two, the federal government might require it. If Council tried it to see how it worked, Palo Alto might be able to advise the federal government and provide for a national system that was fair and efficient instead of waiting for the imposition of the regulations by the federal government. 05/12/97 83-203 Kathleen Gwynn, Executive Director, Senior Coordinating Council (SCC), 450 Bryant Street, thanked the Finance Committee for its support. She asked for Council support to include $11,000 for Senior Home Repair subsidies in the CDBG funding for 1997-98. At its recent meeting, the SCC Board of Directors also supported consolidation of Senior Home Repair subsidies with the remainder of the SCC=s funding in the General Fund either immediately or in a future two-year budget cycle. Irene Sampson, 3992 Bibbits Drive, spoke for the League of Women Voters (LWV) of Palo Alto. The LWV generally supported the 1997-98 CDBG funding allocations recommended by the Finance Committee at its April 15, 1997, meeting. The LWV was glad to see affordable housing continue to receive the highest priority for funds. Lack of affordable housing caused hardship for many in the area and constituted a significant impediment to fair housing, particularly for families with children. The LWV agreed with the last minute recommendation to divert funds from the proposed family housing project to pursue purchase of the Sheridan Apartments. It would be imprudent not to retain good affordable housing that already existed. However, the LWV was disappointed at the necessity of postponing pursuit of a family housing project. Construction of family rental housing had been a priority program in the Consolidated Plan Action Plans for several years, during which time no proposals had been received. The LWV strongly commended the City=s proactive effort to seek proposals. The LWV was pleased that two nonprofit groups responded and urged that the program be resumed as soon as feasible. Housing for the homeless was another critical problem in Palo Alto and the surrounding area. The LWV supported the CDBG funding allocations for that purpose in Palo Alto and in cooperation with neighboring cities. The LWV also supported funding for ancillary services to help the homeless regain self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, housing discrimination also deprived citizens of adequate housing opportunity. The LWV applauded the City=s continued commitment to combating discrimination. The LWV supported CDBG funding for that purpose. Finally, the LWV appreciated the time and efforts spent by CAC and City staff in the difficult task of evaluating funding requests and prioritizing them in light of the goals of the Consolidated Plan. Marshall Smith, 2370 Bryant Street, supported that measures be taken to ensure CDBG funds did not provide services to illegal immigrants. There were too many needy, legal residents to be served. According to code under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, it was unlawful to conceal, harbor, or protect illegal aliens; housing could be construed as harboring. The City was not a commune where anyone who showed up could simply help himself/herself to the City=s fruits of labor. Aside from the legal issues, the City needed to control how taxpayer dollars were 05/12/97 83-204 used. The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. stood at 5 million and was growing rapidly. He asked Council to consider the matter. Joan Paulin, c/o Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH), 457 Kingsley Avenue, thanked Council, City staff, and the CAC for supporting MCFH again. She introduced Marcel Hawiger, MCFH=s new executive director. Marcel Hawiger, Executive Director of MCFH, 457 Kingsley Avenue, thanked CDBG Coordinator Suzanne Bayley and the City for some innovative methods of trying to educate property owners about fair housing laws. The City provided funding to MCFH to provide training about fair housing laws, which 20 property owners and managers of eight units or less attended. In addition to a training manual, MCFH made available brochures that were specifically intended to educate property owners and managers about how to comply with fair housing laws. MCFH was also producing a video regarding discrimination against children. For a number of years, families with children who had been discriminated against had been one of MCFH=s major groups of clients. The issue needed to be addressed if families with children could afford to stay and live in the community. Sharon Webster, 3773 Park Boulevard, supported the screening for illegal aliens. In a time of scarce resources, the City needed to conserve the funds for legal immigrants and American citizens. Some of the immigrants waited years to come to the U.S., and it was unfair to them. The U.S. could not support the whole third world. Much of the CDBG funding was for affordable housing, which there was a strong need for in Palo Alto. The City needed to preserve the housing for the legal citizens and legal aliens because to do anything else would be a federal crime, and it would be encouragement for more illegal aliens to come to the U.S. Georgia Bacil, Directing Attorney of Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA), 160 East Virginia Street #260, San Jose, said SALA was a nonprofit agency which provided free legal assistance to the older people in Santa Clara County (the County). SALA was the only organization designated by the Council on Aging to provide legal services exclusively to elders under the Older Americans Act. SALA was founded in Palo Alto in 1973 and served the City=s elderly residents since then. SALA requested $8,000 in CDBG funding to support and expand SALA=s program of services at the Senior Center, but SALA was not recommended for funding. SALA=s services were targeted to older persons who had low incomes and who were in social need. Statistics for Palo Alto clients served the previous year indicated that 85 percent were very low-income under CDBG 05/12/97 83-205 guidelines, which was higher than the County average, and 67 percent were in social need. SALA had a staff of five full-time attorneys with expertise in problems common to the target population, i.e., public benefits, nursing home issues, advanced directives, elder abuse including domestic violence restraining orders, and housing matters. SALA staff was augmented by ten volunteer attorneys and paralegals who assisted with client interviews at senior centers. For nine consecutive years, SALA recruited over 30 attorneys from the Santa Clara County Bar Association. SALA provided simple wills free of charge for the elder clients with modest assets. SALA provided services by sending attorneys and paralegals to 20 senior centers to see clients. SALA visited the Palo Alto Senior Center once a month and offered four one-half-hour appointments. The waiting time at the Senior Center for an appointment with SALA had been two months or longer. During the previous year, 53 percent of Palo Alto clients served were seen at the Senior Center, 13 percent were served by telephone because of emergencies or those clients were homebound, and the remainder had to travel to another city to see SALA at another senior center. At present, emergency cases were restricted to domestic violence restraining orders, immediate loss of public benefits, and immediate evictions. CDBG funding was requested so that SALA could add one half-hour appointment to its current intake session at the Palo Alto Senior Center and an additional intake day of five one-half-hour appointments. The proposed expansion would enable SALA to serve more Palo Alto residents the next year, but more importantly, SALA would be able to serve those residents locally. SALA was not certain how much longer it would be able to provide the current service levels to those cities that were not providing any direct support. SALA currently received CDBG funding from five cities where the need for SALA=s services was as great as it was in Palo Alto. In the next year, two new cities, Cupertino and Campbell, would be providing support for SALA. SALA urged Palo Alto to join with those cities and provide CDBG funding for SALA. She asked Council to help SALA provide the highest level of service possible to Palo Alto=s elder residents. Council Member Fazzino asked if SALA received any support from the Palo Alto Area Bar Association. Ms. Bacil said SALA did fundraising through the Palo Alto Area Bar Association and was able to raise approximately $30,000 in individual contributions, one-half of which was from local attorneys. In addition, SALA was part of the Santa Clara County Bar Association=s dues checkoff, which meant that when attorneys paid their bar dues, $5 from their dues could go to legal service programs such as SALA. SALA also had more than 30 pro bono attorneys who donated their time. 05/12/97 83-206 Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), 540 Cowper Street, thanked everyone in the process for the continued CDBG funding. PAHC=s low-income housing services were funded through the CDBG program, including the PAHC housing directory. She said that PAHC concurred with the recommendation regarding the possible acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments. PAHC had much experience with the property, wanted to pursue it, and wanted Council=s support. Regarding the RFP process earlier in the year, PAHC expressed discomfort. It forced nonprofits to compete unnecessarily rather than to cooperate. The City=s process was open. When opportunities arose, anyone was able to propose housing projects. The CAC=s many hours of volunteer time was appreciated. PAHC was also a volunteer solely on behalf of the community and wanted to be appreciated as well. B. Meredith Burke, 443 Tennessee Lane, said her current academic research was on trends and changes in California fertility patterns in the last 25 years and the implications for labor force and population growth in the 21st Century. She was the past chairperson of the Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health Advisory Board of San Mateo County in 1986-87. Back then, she was not fully aware of how sizable the social service spending was on people who entered the country illegally. Many were aware that the misnomered Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) rewarded many people for having broken laws, and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1988 (OMBRA) gave monies to the states where those people primarily resided. When it expired, the people went on to the state rolls if they still required social service spending. In California in the early 1990s there were 600,000 births per year, and in most of those years, about 275,000 of the births were to foreign-born women. When OMBRA expired, over 100,000 women in 1994 who gave birth in California had been on IRCA. Then Medi-Cal paid for the births the next year, which meant that at least 100,000 women had entered the country illegally. One thing IRCA had not done was stop illegal movements of people. They were not immigrants according to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The illegal aliens were about 15 or 20 percent of the population in some areas. Extending services and tax dollars to people who were in the country illegally meant rewarding them for having broken the laws and entering out of turn. The only way to reinforce the message that the U.S. did not want people to cross the U.S. borders illegally was to withhold those rewards. Council Member Kniss asked staff and the CAC to respond to the issue of screening for illegal aliens when everyone else was done speaking because the arguments were persuasive and the numbers were overwhelming. 05/12/97 83-207 Ms. Burke said she would be glad to give Council her academic papers. All the information came from birth certificate data for the California Department of Health Services. Michael Midolo, member of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), 362 Channing Avenue, said unfortunately in communities, credentials and facts could be used to distort views and further an agenda which was often political in nature and beyond the scope of responsibility of the group that allocated funding. The issue of screening for illegal aliens had just surfaced that evening, and the speakers came from a specific frame of reference. The issue would have involved a broader scope of participation if it had been on the agenda. The qualified nonprofits that asked the CAC for support provided information that substantiated the residence of those individuals who received services. CAC was convinced that the nonprofits were making a valid attempt. Whether the federal government would choose to enact more stringent regulations and oversight into the allocation of the CDBG funds in the future remained to be seen. If the federal government did so, the CDBG Coordinator and the CAC who were charged with those responsibilities in the City would be able to oversee that. However, he believed that it sent a bad message from a community as diverse as Palo Alto. Much of the success in the Silicon Valley could be tied to a significant influx from engineers who hailed from all over the world. He was a former legal resident and a current U.S. citizen who came to the U.S. as a young child from Italy because his father was recruited as a research pharmacologist. He understood the facts presented were valid facts, and he would welcome a broader level of input before the City Council would act on a matter of policy that was outside the scope of the CDBG. He knew the wisdom among Council and that the Council was not easily swayed by arguments which were not based on fact and which did not address the issues of the day. Council Member McCown referred to Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:202:97) and said the decision on SALA=s funding was limited in explanation. She asked about the CAC=s recommendation. Greg Avis, CAC spokesperson, said the decision not to fund SALA was not a question about SALA=s ability and its depth and strength of services provided to the community. It was a limitation on the funding, and the CAC felt there were other agencies that were more worthy. The CAC wanted to provide recommendations that would fund agencies such as Urban Ministry, Emergency Housing Consortium, Catholic Charities, and Outreach and Escort, Inc. Council Member McCown clarified the City had not received a previous application from SALA before the current year. 05/12/97 83-208 Community Development Block Grant Coordinator Suzanne Bayley said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked whether, in the history of the use of CDBG monies, the City had ever been able in the past to fund the provision of legal services for seniors. Ms. Bayley said it had not been funded separately. The City had funded a few agencies for other senior services, not legal services. Ms. Bacil said SALA was funded through the jobs bill funding in 1982-83 or 1983-84. SALA applied for funding for fiscal year 1984-85 to provide legal assistance related to housing. The City at that time determined that it would fund Palo Alto Area Information and Referral Service (PAAIRS) and another mediation service; therefore, SALA did not reapply until the current year. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Fazzino asked about the Request for Proposals (RFP) process for family housing. He understood the City had a very special relationship with the PAHC. The City made a decision in 1969 to establish the PAHC as an entity as opposed to handling that function in-house. He was perplexed as to the need for an RFP process given that the City had a special contractual relationship with the PAHC to assist with affordable housing. Ms. Bayley said there was not a different process. The same RFP application went out to all the nonprofit agencies the City normally sent applications to. A sentence was added in the letter which specifically requested proposals for predevelopment funds for a new family housing site. The reason was that staff had not received any applications in the past two years for any kind of new housing. The City had exceeded the limitation from HUD, which was that the City had to spend one and one-half times its annual grant. The City always fell between trying to accumulate enough money to have something to spend and having to spend it before the City reached its cap. Staff had not received any inquiries for housing, so staff wanted to stimulate some interest for nonprofits to come forward with ideas about trying to secure a new family housing site. It was in accordance with federal regulations that the federal funds be available to anyone in the community. City Manager June Fleming understood Council Member Fazzino=s concern. However, a few years before the City was under severe scrutiny by HUD. The City was audited and not given a favorable review. The City had to show that it was doing a number of things, such as expending the funds given. The City had a very open 05/12/97 83-209 process and was not excluding any agency. Several Council Members and the Mayor at that time joined staff in talking to HUD about the problem. The City did get a reprieve, but it was warned that the City would be looked at very carefully in future audits in terms of how the City expended its funds. There was not an issue because the Sheridan Apartments had come up. However, it was an issue that might be discussed in the future. The HUD requirements were driven purely by regulations, not politics. Council Member Fazzino thought the best time to talk about it was during discussion of the contract with the PAHC. He clarified that despite the City=s 28-year relationship with the PAHC and that the City had one of the most unique affordable housing programs in the country, it was essentially irrelevant when it came to the process with HUD rules. He did not intend to denigrate the MPHC, which was an excellent organization. He focused on the relationship with the PAHC. Given the relationship, it seemed odd to put the PAHC with other organizations through the very extensive, laborious process. The City had contracted with PAHC for PAHC to play a leadership role in providing affordable housing for the past three decades. Ms. Fleming said if HUD funds were used, the regulations placed some restrictions and limitations. The City appealed several times about the interpretation and received some flexibility once, but that was not a basic change in the way those funds were used. She did not know if it was the contract that needed to be looked at. It was more of a policy issue and a funding issue that needed to be addressed sometime early on during the next fiscal year. Council Member Wheeler said the Finance Committee and staff recommendation was to pursue the potential acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments, which was something she endorsed because she spent much of her time trying to protect low-income senior housing in the community. She clarified that if the acquisition did not come to fruition, staff would return to Council with a recommendation on the family housing component, and Council would have an opportunity at that time to reopen discussion of the issue. Ms. Bayley said that was correct. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 7. Policy Direction for the Solids Facility Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts referred to the staff report (CMR:236:97). Water quality discharge standards for the Regional 05/12/97 83-210 Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) had been discussed many times before by Council and the standing committees over the past few years, but the incinerators had not been discussed. The incinerators were the other half of the operation at the RWQCP and were a significant factor in a major policy decision that had an impact not only on the RWQCP but also on the surrounding open space and wetlands. Most treatment plants did not incinerate and dealt with a sludge process. The difference was the acreage and the impact on the environment that sludge had compared to incineration. Sludge took up acres and acres of land, but incineration minimized the size, the footprint, and the impact on the Bay. That was a wise policy decision that was made 25 years before, and incinerators were in the RWQCP since that time. However, those facilities had served their useful life. An exhaustive study was conducted, and all the alternatives were evaluated. The recommendation to Council was for continuation of the same prior policy decision. It was not only the most economical but also the most sensitive to the surrounding environment. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1) Accept the Plan and its recommendation of a two-phase project to rehabilitate the existing incinerators immediately and to add a dryer for peak loads if and when needed, potentially in ten years= time; 2) Direct staff to proceed with the financial planning to implement the first phase of the recommended project of the Plan. Funding for the second phase will be deferred until needed; 3) Direct staff to prepare the amendment to the Partners= agreement to formally obtain Partners= approval of the project, and their agreement to pay their proportionate share of the project costs; and 4) Direct staff to report back to Council for approval of the signed amendment, the financial package, and approval of the projects when the preparations are in place. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Huber acknowledged Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Award that was received by the Administrative Services Department. Mayor Huber also reminded the City Council of the Preservation Awards scheduled for Saturday, May 17, 1997. 05/12/97 83-211 Vice Mayor Andersen reported on the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting that he attended with Council Member Wheeler and City Attorney Ariel Calonne. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.