The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0324.093" ~-",-",,,,,,-~,,,~~-,,"-",,.~ .. -----~,, ~" " . ." 'ft,];' Junoe 3, 1993 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Members of the Council: This is an informational report and no Council action is reauired. This report is to update Council on the 5~atus of the review of conceptual proposals for the Tower ","'ell &ite. Back.groun.4 In 19B8~ Council approved a: staff recommendation to abandon and dispose of Tour of the City' 5 ten "Wells, incl L<d 1 ng the TO'",cr Well, located at the corner of .!>!!!la Street and Hailo·thorne Avenue. On June 11, 1990, the City Council considered the recam~en~ation of th~ Sinqle-Roorr'l occupancy Committee to commit the Tower Well site fot' a new single-room occupancy (SPOO) development. Due to neighborhood residents' concerns about potential impacts rr~m an SRO at this site, the Council forwarded to the Planning commission for review and recommendation the SRO Comntittee recommendation to use the Tower Well site for an SHOo Prior to this time, the council had also referred disposition of the TOwer Well site to the Council's Finance Committee. On October 30, 1990, the Finance com~ittee def~~red taking action on the staff recomn'.endation, that a request for proposals ,'RFPj be issued for the Towe~ Well site, until after publ ie hr=ar ings ".Jere conducted and a recommendation ~as received from the P!anning Commission on the SRO Subcommittee's report. CMR:324:93 --""!I"'!'!"'l',!!",--_IIi~ __ Y. ·· .. ' .. '.·~'L· .. ·Tl~" I ! -, , , - On November 14, 1990, t'M.e PJanni:1g o:'l"1IT,ission creat,?-j the TOw'er 'Well site Subcommittee (Subconrr.,i'ttee) to stuO"J' issues of tt-~e disposition of the Tows-r Well site and make 2l rcco~:i":",endaticn to the Planning C('rr:r.:ission. 'l'he S\lbcomf.iitt~e-developed t.he c~nccpt of a Request for conceptual Proposa1.s {RFCP), .... hich provided for proposals to be ccnceptu~l and prepared in cc\":',pliance with specific ident-.itied criteria. The con'.;l11sions of t:r.e subco.rt1.c1ittee ·~, .. ers endorsed by the Planning Commission O!"j Feb:--:..lary 27, 1991. On April 1t5, 1991. the Finance Co~~.ittee approved th-=: Planning Commission's recom~endati0ns to initiate a ~FCP process to consider possible uses for the To,""er Well site. On Mar 29 1 1991, the council passed a motion directin; staff to proceed with a nine month Request for conceptual proposals for reu,se and disposition of the Tower ... ·ell site and to return to the Cit:t Council for approval of the final RFCP before it \o,:as sent out. On March 9, 1992~ the city Council approved the PFC'P packa.ge a:'1d directed staff to solici t concef,tual proposa Is. SolicitatiQ.J:l..J,:J;'ocess and Rev_ij~',~, of Proposals In March 1992, information flyers were sent to int2rested persons and organizations, and advertisements of the RFCP \olere placed in the local nel • .-spapers. proposals ,.rer'!! due December 15, 1992. and on that date three conceptual proposals were received. As directed b}' council, a Proposal Evaluation Commi tte~ (co:rn~ittee) 'Was formed to evaluate the proposals and :nake a recommendat.ion to the Hl11":1:an Relations Commis::;ion (HRC) .and the Planning Ccrnmi s5i on as reco1iU':'.ending bodies to t.he Finance committ.e.e and City Council. The COmJll.ittee was composed of sta.ff from the Finance and Planning Departments and represent.atives from the HRC and Planning commis sion. The Committee revie'",ed the w'ri'l:ten proposals and intervie.-..,;ed the proposers. The proposals ~.'ere eva.luate.d, pased upon tt'.E: criteria and guidelirJes approv~d by the City Council, and included in the RFCP~ On Marc!!. 30, 1933, the Co~r~ittee completed their evaluation and formulated. a recon~endation regarding the proposals to be for~arded to the HRC and Planning Commission. Of the three conceptual proposals, two incorporated the .... 'ater tower into the proposed development and one required the ..... ater to\,,'er be demolished. During the Committee's discussions of the-relatiVe merits and impacts of the proposed concepts, the issue of the removal versus the retention of t~he .,:ater to'~.'er was considered. The \riater tower is not listed on the cityrs Historic Buildings !nventory. and the RFCF did not requir~ or encourage its retention. However, the Committee did consider that the water tower's age, appearance and previolls function could rna}~e it historically relevant and that its removal might constitute a negative impact. The Committee~s recommendation regardin':3' the proposals included a condition to have the Historic Resources Board (HRB) consider the -~--.. tIilT_!ili.kl . 2M :'! I , , i , ~-~-------~- " - historical significance of the To~er Well sit~ prior to Council revlew of the conceptual proposals. Historic .Re90urc:es_~9_~'!:~ The HRB discussed the potential historical significance of the Tower Well site at their meeting of May 17, 1993 and passed ~otions to: 1) initiate 3 process to consider designation of the site on the City's Historic Buildings Inventory '\.'ith the intent to preserve it; and 2) request that staff delay any further revie"-' process of the TOwer well site propo£',als pending the possible designation of the site. }!.ttached is the n:e!;',o fro1!1 the HF.B requ.:sting the. delay~ Timi~q of Proposal Reviel(m_ Process HRC review of the conceptual proposals had tentatively been scheduled for June 10, 19'33 and Planning commission revieW' for June 30, 1993~ Finance Committee review was to be scheduled in July, C!nd city Council review in August or September ~ Based on the actions taken by the liRe at its meeting on May 17, 1993, staff intends to delC!y further revie'''' of ttle conceptual propos<;!,ls, pending possible designation of the TOwer Well site to the City's Historic Buildings Inventor:), ~ The HRB J s recommendation regarding possible designation of the site on the Historic Inventory could be expected by late July 1993~ If this schedule is maintained, final City Council action on the BRB / S recornrnel"'.datic'n en the: TC'I'wer Well site could occur in September, 1993. Respectfully submitted '--_~'I/I 1/...--" ()" ~,L,. EM!", HARRr so'N~ ~~~ Director of Finance ~~ Ci ty Manager Related Staff Reports: CMR: 324: 93 C"'J<:167:92 CMR:290:91 CV.R:2B9~91 eMF: 54 5: G CMR:374:0 CMR:3S1:0 CMR:497:9 CMR:267:8 3 KE~NETH R. SCHREIBER C'irectcr of :-lanning and CQmmuni ty Erwircnment Attachmer.t: Me:norandurr. from the Historic Resourc<;!s Board cc: Planning commission Human Relations Commission Historic Resources Beard Tower Well site Sub~o~mittee Palo Alto Housing corporation Palo Alto Community Child Care Carrasco , Associates CMR;324:93 • " ~ HIS"I'OOIC RESOt'RCfS BO.tRD May 23. 1993 TO; o Members of the Palo Alto City (ouncil Palo Alto Real Estate Department The purpose of this letter is to notify the City Council and City Staff that the Historic Resources Board is requEsting tn~t staff place a t~mporary hold on all efforts to dispose of the Tow~r Well S~te loc.ated 011 the corner of Alma ~nd Ha~horn€: Street in Downtcwn Palo Alto. Our request for this hold is based on the following cOrisiderati.ons: 1) As of Wednesda'y~ May i9th, the HRB ~nitiated efforts to determine ~hether the Tower Well ShD~ld be classified as a historic structure and placed on the City's Historic Inventory. OU;" inllestigatio'l 'Will consider both the physlcal elements of the stru;:ture a5 well as th~ symbolic value it may represent to th~ Community. 2. Wednesday, May 19th~ was the first presentation to .HR8 about the Towe-r Well. At the time of this preljminary HRB discussion, Requests for Conceptual Proposals (RFCP) for the use of the site already had been distributed to lflterested parties and s!jbsequent conceptual propos;als reviewed by an evaluation committee consisting of representati .... es fro~, the Planning (ull1miss.ion, Human Relation.s COmflliss;on and staff. This; RFCP process pre'"iously was apprQ\i'ed b.,)l Co~ncil. HO'lliever 1 since t~e HRS never haj considered this site as an addition to th~ in'.'entorj, the Board feels that efforts to possibly preserve the' structure would be thwarted unless the Board has; the cpportunity to COiisider adding the site to the lnverltory and preserving He structure. This interest and concern to preserve the site is further hei9htened by the language fOl.,;nd in the first paragraph of the RfCP; -The ~el1 facilities, including a )9-foot high rEinforced co~crete tower, remain on the site. BU.J'er/Te-nJnt will be respoflsible for removal ~f well facilities. and equipment,- JrClgl .... :b.t('f<IjJ.f..o1d l~~r 0"-< .' ... '.., :~·:~t~'· - 3. Fi~al'y. we agree wlt~ the dec1aratiJn mdje by the Mayer at the State Df the City Address ... , .tt'li:lt the City s.hould not reac1'l for easy budgetary solutions through the "fiscalization of valu~d properties," Tt!e de~olition of the Tawer Well ~ay represent such ~ scenario which will provide little economic benefit while taking from us all a ~alued symbol of ou,' heritage. 'We request that t.~is hOld on the process be ,put into effe.:t lr.:'-n-ed'iately 50 that meetings scheduled wlth the Human Relations co~ission on June 10th and -.ith the Ph;nn~T'lg Commission on June JOt!'! are d.elayed untn hte summer WlhlO'l'l presumably the MRS will have co~pleted its efforts in determining ~~ether the Tower Well structure ar,d sit~ sncu1d be pr-rserved, Yours truly.