HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-07 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 7, 1996 1. Joint Session with the Historic Resources Board.......80-272 1. YWCA Week Without Violence Proclamation...............80-273 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-273 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 1996.....................80-273 2. Offer and Agreement to Purchase Real Property - Meadows Well Site, 3896 Duncan Place...............................80-274 3. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................80-274 3A. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....80-274 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will review and consider the Historic Resources Board recommendation for an application to reclassify the property located at 819 Ramona Street (former AME Zion Church) to a Category 1 building on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. The property is currently listed as a Category 3 historic building. (continued from 7/22/96)..............................................80-275 5. League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions80-286 6. Agreements with Alma Place Associates to Provide Funds for the Construction of the Alma Place Single-Room Occupancy Housing Project at 725/753 Alma Street........................80-287 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........80-288 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:19 p.m.......................................................80-288 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m......80-288
10/07/96 80-271
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:47 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 5:51 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Simitian Historic Resources Board PRESENT: Anderson, Backlund (arrived at 5:49 p.m.), Bernstein, Kohler, Mario, Murden, Willis SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Joint Session with the Historic Resources Board a. Discussion of Proposed Interim Regulations and Historic Preservation Ordinance Revisions, including moratorium on demolition, e.g., possible guidelines for replacement structures b. Inventory update c. Guidelines for the Historic Resources Board ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
10/07/96 80-272
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Simitian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. YWCA Week Without Violence Proclamation Mayor Wheeler presented the proclamation. Kay Phillips, Executive Director, YWCA, explained the effort by the YWCA was national and the second such effort. She described the schedule of the weekly events to educate the public regarding efforts to cease violence were. Mayor Wheeler congratulated Ms. Phillips on the success of her many efforts with the YWCA. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Glenna Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, spoke regarding representing the Palo Alto Civic League. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government with regard to the Boy Scouts of America and the Lucie Stern property. T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding the drain to the region caused by various parking lots, particularly underground parking lots, suggesting the construction of a parking lot over CalTrain. James Lewis, Abate Shoreline Amphitheatre Noise Coalition (ASAN), P. O. Box 50125, Palo Alto, spoke regarding three separate items in connection with the Shoreline Amphitheatre which were scheduled for the Tuesday, October 8, 1996, Mountain View City Council Meeting, including an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which might affect Palo Alto's interest. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of August 12, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, McCown "abstaining," Simitian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 2.
10/07/96 80-273
2. Offer and Agreement to Purchase Real Property - Meadows Well Site, 3896 Duncan Place Ordinance 4375 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Receive Funds from the Sale of Real Property, Meadows Well Site, 3896 Duncan Place" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 3. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Chairperson Joe Huber, Dick Rosenbaum, and Lanie Wheeler) Unrepresented Employee: City Auditor Bill Vinson
Authority: Government Code ∋54957.6 3A. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Low, et al. v. City of Palo Alto, SCC No. CV760899
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(a) Public Comments None. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION AT 7:39 P.M. - 7:59 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 3A. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 3A. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will review and consider the Historic Resources Board recommendation for an application to reclassify the property located at 819 Ramona Street (former AME Zion Church) to a Category 1 building on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. The property is currently listed as a Category 3 historic building. (continued from 7/22/96)
10/07/96 80-274
Council Member McCown indicated she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest due to the fact that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) was a client of the law firm where she was employed. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber provided an overhead of an area map which had not been included in the staff report (CMR:315:96). There was no relevance between recent Council actions and pending actions concerning moratoriums, historic regulations, interim regulations, and the current item since all discussions Council had held related to residential structures and 819 Ramona Street had never been a residential structure. He summarized the relationship between the PAMF development agreement and the item under consideration. In 1989-91, the City had processed and approved a specific plan for expansion of the existing PAMF facilities, which included an extensive discussion of the church located at 819 Ramona Street. Previously, the Council approved that "the former University African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Zion Church structure should be used and relocated if feasible. If it is not feasible to use or relocate the structure, then the PAMF will retain the ficus tree now located next to the church structure, place a plaque on the former church site commemorating the history and cultural contribu-tion of the church, underwrite a documentation of the church's history at this site, and display this document in the PAMF facilities." The Council subsequently, as part of the process, adopted a development agreement, essentially a contract between the City and a property owner, committing the City to the development approvals granted in 1991. The development agreement had been in effect from 1991 until its amendment in 1996. After 1991, the PAMF decided to seek an alternative site in the Urban Lane area and processed a set of applications through the City. In January 1996, the Council approved the applications for a new PAMF campus in the Urban Lane area. Part of the approval given in 1991 had been amended to suspend implementation of the Downtown site plan, specific plan, beginning on January 22, 1996, until occupancy of the new Urban Lane site, and the PAMF was granted the ability to reinstate the development agreement until substantial improvements had occurred at the Urban Lane site, i.e., the PAMF had the option at any time to reactivate the development agreement and the existing specific plan. The specific plan would automatically terminate 30 days after occupancy of the Urban Lane campus, assuming the PAMF proceeded with the project. PAMF had not pulled building permits or begun construction. The development agreement had been amended to prohibit demolitions unless an imminent safety hazard existed. At the current time, the PAMF could not apply for a demolition permit unless an imminent safety hazard existed. The specific plan was in abeyance but could be reactivated should the PAMF decide not to pursue the Urban Lane campus. The development agreement had been amended to provide for a coordinated area planning process involving the PAMF properties including 819 Ramona Street as well as other properties between the PAMF area and Alma
10/07/96 80-275
Street, the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) area. The planning project would commence no later than September 1997 or earlier if the PAMF so initiated. Discussions with PAMF staff had indicated the project would probably be initiated earlier than September 1997 but that was the last date it would automatically be initiated. Historic Resources Board Member Carol Willis said the Historic Resources Board (HRB) strongly supported the upgrade of the property to a Category 1 building, which was eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Although the issue was outside the HRB's purview, the rational response was whether or not Council admitted the property was Category 1 or not. It was a Category 1 property and should be respected as such. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the building would have the same protection as a Category 1 building if Council did not act or rejected staff's recommendation. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Because of state actions, any actions proposed for a site or any subsequential environmental review for a site required the City to treat it as if it were a Category 1 or 2 structure. Any action by Council would not change the designation because the development agreement would prevail until such time as the development agreement formally dissipated. No significant increase in protection would result in a change in designation. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the same protection was still in place once the development agreement was gone, i.e., would require an EIR. City Attorney Ariel Calonne replied yes. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the building and impacts would be examined when the backfill was done in light of its historical circumstances. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Council Member Andersen asked when the last safety inspection had occurred at 819 Ramona Street. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said an engineering firm had conducted an inspection for the PAMF and the report was found in the staff report (CMR:315:96). Council Member Andersen asked whether the City had personally inspected the building. Mr. Herman had inspected the building that day as well as several times prior.
10/07/96 80-276
Council Member Andersen asked whether Mr. Herman considered the building an imminent safety hazard at the current time. Mr. Herman said the building at 819 Ramona Street was potentially substandard or hazardous and in the event of an earthquake, the building could collapse. Deterioration and dilapidation were present and the building was structurally questionable. However, it was not imminently dangerous to the public or required demoli-tion. Council Member Andersen asked whether the fact the building was not as dangerous was because of the fence surrounding the property which had been built by the PAMF. Mr. Herman said the building was not occupied and was not a safety problem to the general public of Palo Alto. Council Member Schneider referred to the letter by the City Attorney, Attachment 8 of the staff report (CMR:315:96), dated December 13, 1993, to the HRB, which addressed the change in designation from Category 3 to Category 1 and indicated that although changing the designation would not result in a legal impediment, it would constitute a breach of contract. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the designation alone would not result in a breach of contract, but any action to implement which affected the development rights conferred under the development agreement would mean a breach of contract. The remedy in the development agreement was "specific performance," i.e., no money damages would result. However, the PAMF could obtain an order to compel the City to honor the agreement. The property could be redesignated, but it would have no legal effect as long as the development agreement was in effect. Council Member Schneider asked for clarification. Vice Mayor Huber had alluded to the fact that until the PAMF broke ground and received building permits, the specific plan remained in effect. However, once the PAMF had begun work on Urban Lane, the develop-ment agreement would disappear, and whatever designation the property had at that point would follow the property. Mr. Schreiber said the specific plan approval would become void when substantial improvements had occurred at the Urban Lane site. Substantial improvements would normally be viewed as excavation, pouring foundation, concrete work, etc. During the City's review of the PAMF project, concern had been expressed about ending up with two different usable PAMF structures. The development agreement would remain in effect until 30 days after occupancy at which point the slate would be cleared in terms of both the specific plan and development agreement.
10/07/96 80-277
Council Member Schneider asked whether the City had any requirement to compel the PAMF to maintain or protect the property over the period of three or four years after significant changes had been made to the Urban Lane site, i.e., if the property remained Category 3. Mr. Schreiber said the City had no maintenance requirement for particular structures. Council Member Schneider asked about a Category 1 structure. Mr. Schreiber said the City had no maintenance requirements for any category of historic structures. Council Member Schneider asked about the advantage of recategorizing the structure at 819 Ramona Street from Category 3 to Category 1, apart from the emotional attachment to the facility. Ms. Willis said when work was finally proposed for the facility, it would be easier to obtain financial assistance, conduct fund raising, etc., if the building were acknowledged as Category 1. The stronger the message, the more likely the building would be preserved. Mr. Schreiber clarified that historic buildings within the Downtown area had maintenance requirements, but the 819 Ramona Street facility was not part of the Downtown. Council Member Kniss said until the City moved forward with a coordinated area plan, for which there was still no definitive time line in place, in some ways the City had not honored the develop-ment agreement, which she thought the recommendation reflected. Mr. Schreiber said the City had honored the development agreement as a contract between the City and the PAMF. The time line in terms of the amended development agreement for a coordinated area plan required that the coordinated area plan begin no later than September 1997. The date had been chosen because it appeared to staff and the applicant that if a coordinated area plan began in September 1997, it would be completed prior to when the PAMF moved from the site. A time line was in place to begin in September 1997, which was being monitored by staff, unless the PAMF triggered it earlier. Other obligations under the development agreement would not be triggered until the PAMF implemented the specific plan. Nothing else was required other than annual monitoring. Council Member Kniss asked about the letter from Reverend Harris contained in Council's packet. Mr. Schreiber had never spoken with or met Reverend Harris and no discussions had occurred between City staff and the University's AME Zion Church regarding the facility.
10/07/96 80-278
Mr. Calonne said Reverend Harris' letter was part of the evidence for Council consideration. The tenor of the questions appeared to obtain a broad policy framework of the issue. Page 4 of the staff report (CMR:315:96), contained the fact findings Council needed to evaluate. The criteria based on evidence Council heard should be taken into account in determining whether or not the facility should be designated or not. The development agreement was irrelevant to the task before Council in terms of designation, but it was important in the broader policy context. Mayor Wheeler asked whether Mr. Herman, who had mentioned he had inspected or walked around the facility 10 to 12 times over a period of some months or years, had noted any significant deterio-ration in the state of the building over the period of inspection. Mr. Herman said the building had increased in deterioration. Large holes were in the roof causing water to infiltrate the structure. The cripple or pony walls had significantly shifted following the Loma Prieta earthquake, which was classic of such buildings built on pony walls because the walls hinged. The foundation was cracking, was probably unreinforced, and had probably deteriorated more since being exposed to the weather. Termite infestation was unknown. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Ruth Anne Gray, P. O. Box 575, Palo Alto, said her family had lived in Palo Alto for over 100 years and she was probably the first African-American to be born in Palo Alto and attend Stanford University. Her grandfather had been one of the original founders of the University AME Zion Church currently located on Middlefield Road. Council was asked to support reclassification of the historic building at 819 Ramona Street to the local historic register, upgrading from Category 3 to Category 1. The PAMF had opposed preservation and nomination of the building to the National Register of Historic Places, claiming unfairness and that the group wishing to preserve the former church was dipping into the pockets of the PAMF. The owner had suggested that the group had asked the PAMF to violate its fiduciary responsibilities, which was untrue. The PAMF had not been asked to contribute financially nor had the current University AME Zion Church been asked to contribute financially. Rehabilitation of the historic monument would increase property values and create another asset and benefit for the City. The PAMF was held responsible for the neglect and current condition of the historic landmark, for blocking the placement of the building on the National Register of Historic Places, for disrespect of cultural history, and for attempting to polarize the community. If the owner truly acknowledged and respected the history of the building, it would not have opposed its inclusion into the National Register of Historic Places or allowed the building to further deteriorate. Clearly, the level of
10/07/96 80-279
respect for the building was evident in its current condition. Efforts to preserve the building were aimed to draw the entire community together, not to the exclusive domain of one group, but inclusive of Palo Alto and California. Interest was expressed for raising the consciousness of the community as well as preservation of the building. A picture was shown of the AME Zion building in 1964 when the PAMF purchased the property. Experts from the state, federal government, and community agreed the building could be restored. Like other buildings in Palo Alto, the church faced the same threat of demolition, insensitivity to history and culture, and loss to the community. A division of opinion existed regarding demolition of the church just as division of opinion existed regarding the preservation of historic homes in Palo Alto. Council had taken a positive step in issuing a limited moratorium to allow further study of the issues. Although the moratorium applied only to residential homes, Council should take it a step further and vote in favor of reclassification of the building. The building was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as of March 29, 1996, was qualified as an historic structure as defined by the State of California, and was qualified for the Mills Act. Thus, the local category legally applied to the building, which could only be considered a Category 1 in order to receive the full protection it had earned and merited. The Category 1 designation was the only designation which could be applied due to the City's ordinance designation. Council was asked to approve reclassifica-tion of the building from Category 3 to Category 1. She reminded the Council that on January 16, 1996, it had adopted a "wait and see" attitude regarding what the state and federal government would do in recognition of the building. Since the building had passed the stringent state requirements for inclusion into the National Register, Council had the evidence it sought. She asked whether Council was willing to do less than the State and Federal govern-ment had done. Category 1 status would allow grants to occur. The building needed the extra protection of a Category 1 status. Nancy Sederquist, 801 Garland Drive, said the AME Zion Church had a history of which Palo Alto should be proud. Council was encouraged to carefully consider the proposal. David Jury, representing the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 300 Homer Avenue, was the real estate manager for PAMF. PAMF was not making any attempts to polarize the community. The building had been purchased in 1965 to be torn down to allow for expansion of the PAMF clinic. The PAMF had submitted its new package for the El Camino project with a November 8, 1996, ARB hearing at which it was hoped the conditions would be wrapped up. PAMF anticipated construction would begin during the first quarter of 1997 at which point the area wide study would commence. Two issues existed, the actual classification of the building and when such a discussion was proper. The discussion of classification of the building was proper during the area-wide study when many buildings could be addressed at the same time. Several historic structures and seven
10/07/96 80-280
pre-1940 houses existed on the PAMF property. One property should not be taken out of context and receive a ruling without consider-ation of the others. PAMF was willing to sign an amendment to the development agreement that it would not, given there was no change in the condition of the building, apply for a demolition permit until the area-wide study was completed. PAMF would not seek a demolition permit but would deal with the issue in an open, public, exhaustive study. Support was given to adopting the staff recommendation. Carol Murden, 1331 Martin Avenue, said the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Board supported making the building at 819 Ramona Street a Category 1 structure so it would be eligible for preservation funds, grants, and would make the category consistent with eligibility for the National Registry. Ms. Gray said people interested in preservation of the building at 819 Ramona Street approved the designation to Category 1 and wanted further preservation and protection of the building. The PAMF had done nothing to physically protect the building during the interim period while plans were being drawn, etc. The PAMF was challenged to do its fair share and allow members of the public to protect the building at no cost to the PAMF. The historic building could serve as an instructive and enlightening symbol of the Palo Alto community. Council Member Andersen asked whether Ms. Gray's grandfather, who had been part of the initial establishment of the facility, had been alive when the AME Zion church moved to the Middlefield Road site and whether he had been involved in the decision to move the church. Ms. Gray said her grandfather had been in his eighties at the time of the move and she was too small to know whether he was involved in the move. Council Member Andersen asked whether the expectation of the congregation at the time the building was sold was that it would be demolished. Ms. Gray was unsure; however, the congregation at the time had been very interested in building a new church, which was usually driven
by the minister=s anticipating of growth. A large amount of land had been gained at the purchase of the new site which was no longer there. Council Member Andersen confirmed the sale of the original building had assisted in the acquisition of the site on Middlefield Road. Ms. Gray replied yes. According to her research, some opposition had been evident at the time.
10/07/96 80-281
Council Member Andersen clarified in order to purchase the new site on Middlefield Road, the old site had to be sold. Ms. Gray said some members had considered other options. Council Member Andersen said Mr. Jury had indicated that at the time of the sale, it was understood the building would be demol-ished. Ms. Gray did not know what the church's understanding at the time of the sale had been. Council Member Andersen asked whether Ms. Gray had gone through the building since the Loma Prieta earthquake. Ms. Gray replied no. The building had been locked up. Her group was interested in taking surveyors into the building. Mayor Wheeler was unable to see a direct connection between Ms. Gray's mention of wanting to be allowed by the PAMF to weather-proof the building during the interim planning process period and the recategorization to Category 1. She asked whether an elevation to Category 1 status would allow things to be accomplished which could not be accomplished otherwise. Ms. Gray said the Category 1 status would identify the building. Extensive history had taken place in the building with numerous lives affected and touched. Category 1 status validated on the local level what the state and federal governments had unanimously and unequivocally approved. The PAMF had been admonished by the state and federal government to examine the building by historians. Mayor Wheeler said Ms. Gray had indicated the current status made the building eligible for the National Register, which qualified it for funding options and gave it environmental protections, etc. She asked whether the Category 1 status would change anything. Ms. Gray said when a community recognized a building locally, the community was able to take a stand indicating the building was important. Without the improved categorization, that was not the case. The experiment of "wait and see" had already taken place. It made sense to follow the example of the other entities. Mayor Wheeler said Ms. Gray had mentioned a desire to be allowed to contribute toward weather-proofing the building to prevent further deterioration, which would require cooperation of the PAMF. She asked whether there was any way the PAMF could cooperate. Mr. Jury said the PAMF had already placed new tarps over the building which were secured by ropes tied to bolts anchored to the side of the building. If the tarps were inadequate, more could be done. The PAMF was willing to work with the public. The question
10/07/96 80-282
went to the amount of weight which could be placed on the roof. Whatever was necessary to weatherize the building would be done. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the staff recommendation to continue the current applica-tion for reclassification and maintain the current category of the building until after the City has conducted the Coordinated Area Plan for the South of Forest Avenue area. Council Member Kniss said HRB had strongly supported the staff recommendation. She had been surprised that the item had returned to Council, since it had been revisited fairly recently. Concern was expressed about the timing, which had not fit well with the PAMF, the historic resources work, and ordinances the City had indicated would be revised during the coming year. Ms. Gray had done an excellent job of arguing in favor of changing the status, but it would have been more favorable if more people had attended in support. Many people had discussed the requirements for restoration and maintenance of such a building, but not many people had indicated support. Although meritorious, restoration and maintenance work was expensive. The PAMF had mentioned several other structures on the property, one of which was the Roth building. Mr. Schreiber said Mr. Jury had indicated seven residential structures were on the PAMF property which were pre-1940, in addition to which were the Birge Clark and Roth buildings. Council Member Kniss said a Birge Clark building would need to be discussed at some length. The current time was not appropriate for reclassification; therefore, she supported the staff recommenda-tion. Council Member Andersen strongly supported the staff recommenda-tion. Ms. Gray's commitment to the structure was appreciated, and he understood from personal experience the emotional attachment involved in selling an older church building to relocate. Comments made by Reverend Harris were significant and appropriate for inclusion in the record per the City Attorney. A fair exchange had occurred. Issues would have to be examined as the process proceeded, however, he was not persuaded the building could be renovated without considerable expense and no one had indicated he/she would be able to make it happen and the PAMF should not be held responsible. The PAMF demonstrated a strong commitment to at least preventing weather from entering the building which was in serious condition as far as age and earthquakes. He had examined the basement the last time the item had come before Council. He had also had a very short conversation with Mr. Jury. The building was dangerous, and he anticipated some justification for demolition would be found because of the harm and risk. If and when the City
10/07/96 80-283
conducted a formal examination of the building, he would not be disappointed if the structure were considered unsafe and needed to be demolished. If the building wer found to be hazardous, it should be demolished. Another earthquake could cause injury to anyone around the building. The only reason it was safe was because of the fence placed around the facility by the PAMF. Vice Mayor Huber supported the staff recommendation. Council had been asked to examine the proposed findings, most of which were architectural and not necessarily historical or cultural in nature. Of the six findings, five spoke to architectural type. The building was not of an architectural type that was unique. However, the building was culturally unique and that was the reason a closer examination should be done at the time the area was backfilled, which would be the appropriate time to determine what should be done with the very large piece of property. If the building were still standing, a process might be worked out by which the building could be saved. People interested in saving the building needed to recognize it would take money and time and money would need to be available on the line in the future. The same issues had been aired in 1989, but nothing had changed in the interim except the fact the City would be more closely examining the entire area and the building would be included. Council Member Schneider thanked Ms. Gray for providing a history of the church, particularly as it related to Ms. Gray and her family. When the item had appeared before Council a few months before, she had voted in favor of tabling the issue. Decisions which had been made many years before by Council Members should not be changed. After careful purusal of the report, she had not found a reason to reconsider her original position. She had also closely examined recent Council actions in terms of historic preservation; however, the building was not a single-family residence. She was of the same mind as Ms. Gray and the HRB to preserve and protect valuable resources. Unfortunately, there was nothing the Council could do at the present time. She hoped something would occur during the area-wide study which would result in preserving and saving the church. She still considered the argument that once it was gone, it was gone forever. She hoped such would not be the case for the church; but if it were the case and the church could not survive at its current location, she hoped the funds could be raised to either reconstruct it elsewhere or that a financial angel would appear to rebuild it at another site. The efforts of Ms. Gray were applauded. She supported the motion. Council Member Fazzino associated his comments with Vice Mayor Huber's. He wished the building could be preserved and that someone would step forward with the funds to preserve it. Council had made a mistake in 1989-90 in not doing more to preserve the building because it represented a very important cultural resource for the community. However, the City could wait until the coordinated area-wide study was conducted before making a decision
10/07/96 80-284
regarding redesignation of the building. If the PAMF left the area, if a financial angel stepped forward, or if the City could find a way of preserving the cultural resource in the long-term plan for the area, he was open to doing so. He was concerned about the state of the property, but he believed the PAMF would continue to take steps to ensure the property would not deteriorate further over the next few months. He hoped a way could be found to preserve the site. He supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown "not participating," Simitian absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 5. League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin said fewer resolutions had come before the annual League of California Cities (LCC) conference each of which had been reviewed by staff for either consistency with existing Council positions or staff's experience in the areas. Staff had indicated its recommendations in the staff report (CMR:419:96) and on page vii and viii of the attachment entitled "Annual Conference Resolutions, staff's recommendations were delineated alongside recommendations which had come from the various policy committees during initial review. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to: 1) approve Resolutions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12; 2) disapprove Resolutions 2, 3, and 13; c) direct that no action be taken on Resolutions 11 and 14; and d) instruct the Council's voting delegate accordingly. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Simitian absent. 6. Agreements with Alma Place Associates to Provide Funds for the Construction of the Alma Place Single-Room Occupancy Housing Project at 725/753 Alma Street Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), 540 Cowper Street, said all of the funding was in place, with a commitment from the tax credit partners, loans were ready, and the PAHC hoped to close loans and begin construc-tion at the end of October 1996. A total of 14 months would be necessary to construct the project. She thanked the staff and the Council for their support throughout the hearings on the project. Council Member Andersen asked about the process and conditions for receiving housing applications in response to interest which had been expressed about having additional homeless population given access to the facilities. Ms. Prendergast said the PAHC intended to administer its usual standards of tenant selection and occupancy criteria, including
10/07/96 80-285
local preferences as well as everything previously stated to Council. Misunderstandings had been cleared up with members of the Homelessness Task Force. As heavily subsidized as the project would be, there were still debts and obligations to fulfill financially and careful management to consider. No criteria would exist which excluded some people while including others. Council Member Andersen clarified no barrier or incentive would exist with regard to homeless individuals seeking to enter the facility. Ms. Prendergast said no barrier would exist other than the obvious need to pay some rent, no matter how small. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to: 1) Approve the loan agreement (with its form of promissory note and deed of trust) and the regulatory agreement with Alma Place Associates, to consolidate the two existing City loans totaling $1,325,725 and to provide up to $1,369,275 in additional funds under a new loan of $2,695,000, for development cost subsidies and construction financing for the Alma Place single-room occupancy (SRO) housing; 2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the loan agreement and the regulatory agreement with Alma Place Associates in substantially similar form; and 3) Direct the City Manager to administer the provisions of the agreements and to execute any other documents necessary, including subordination agreements with the other lenders, for Alma Place Associates to secure the construction and permanent funding for the Alma Place SRO project. Agreement with Alma Place Associates to Fund the Development of Property at 725/753 Alma Street, Palo Alto Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants with Alma Place Associates MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Simitian absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler announced the Finance Committee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 15, 1996, had been canceled and that there would be a Palo Alto City Council Meeting that evening. She also announced on Thursday, October 10, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. there would
be a Stanford=s Homecoming Rally at the Civic Center Plaza. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:19 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation as described in Agenda Item No. 3.
10/07/96 80-286
Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 3. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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.
10/07/96 80-287