Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0206.094.t~staH W ""'1'01 t __ · ________ -, Marcll 31, 15194 HONORABL& CITY COUNCIL palo Alto, california Attention~ Policy and services CQr.~ittoc lofernbers of the COUl1ci,l; The purpose of this report is to propose that, tnrough the development of three prototype Request for Proposal (Rf'P) packages, a single RFP be developc-d contai.nlng critoria and a weigh.ting mechanism for evaluating the criteria, ;"'hich allows t.he council to select a use tor the WilliaT::1s property, located at 351 Homer Avenue. staff proposes that Council direct 0, staff COflllllittoo, composed of representatives from the F.lnancG, Platmin9', C01l'\munity services and Publ'ic works Departl!l:ents, to pr(!p~l'a the three prototype 'RFP's; or that counoil appoint ",n ad hoc cOia.·dttee, composed of repref10ntativee from tho Human Resources Conmissioh (KRC), HUman ResourCes Board (HRB) and Planning commis,ion. staff is also r.ccomrnendinq approval of som.€' interim expenditures which will maintain and protect the house ""hile another RFP procoss is pursued. bsltground On December 13, 1993, Council passed a motion to refer to the policy and services committee (P&S), the issue of an RFP for the Williams property and "a more precise definition of-the proposal, II and directed staff to return with a Budget Arnend~ent Ordinance for the appropriate funds to provide for continued maintenance of the property. On January 18, 1993, council approved a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $4,500 in additional-funds to maintain the property. On Fehru;:u:y 15, 1994, P&S passed a "frlotion to direct staff to defino: CMR:206:94 I l " I'. I I I I r " I 1. , an alternative process, which would enable council to ~Gtabllsh a more precise definition of ",hat it ,'anted for the willi.m. property. Iropooed Process tor D.term~~rere~red Usefs' Staff proposes} through the construction of three prototype RFP packages', to develop a slngla Rf'P containing criteria and a weightinq mechanism for evaluating the criteria, ~hich YoUld Dllo~ the council to select a use for the Williams house. Specifically, staff proposes the construction of three RFP packaq~s which. reflect the follow:f.ng options: i) relativl) ernphasis on historical preservation over public use or meeting a defined public nee.d; 2) relative emphasis on public use or meeting a def,ined public need over historical preservationj or 3) balancing the desire for' some lavel of historical preservation with the desiro for accommodating a public use 01." meeting a define.d public need. All proposals would have to meet the rcquira~ento of Rhona Williams' will, which re8;tricts t.he use of the property to park: and/or cultural uses. The RFP would require any proposer to show }tow the proposed use meets the conditions of the will. 'the RFP would also require that those proposing questionable uses may bo required to submit the opinion of a private attorney as to how the use ~eets the will requirements. Once a proposal qualified in terms of meeting the condition~ of the will, it would then be evaluated using tho following criteria, which would be weighted differently in each RFP, depending upon tho main emphasis of the. RFP. (The following criteria includo tho considerations required under the City's Policy for Leased Use of City Land/Facilities.) L .. Historic Preservation The extent to which the proposal is responsivQ to the guidelines and standards for r~habilitation for historic pr&servation of the property, as set out in the Hist.oric Resources Report and in accordance with the secr~tary of the Interior' So Standards for Rehabi) itation of 11istoric properties. Specific historic preservation expectations for the exterior and interior of the house and the gardens should be addressed. CM .... :206:94 2 II -~:. "., - \ 2. Public Benefit/Defined Public Nee'rJ The extent to which the proposed use provides a public benefit and satisfies an identif;ied"public need; the degree of public access" )::6., the. number of people, especially Palo Alto residents, who wAll be served by the proposed USC; the Caes that will be charged to Palo Alto citizens, if any. specific public needs or benefits ~hich are considered important could be identitied. 3. Financial Viability {of the proposer, as well as the net cost to the city) Evidence of the PL"OpOSer's ability to finance or to obtain flnancinq of the required improvements; the history and asaessment of the proposer's ability to carry out the proposed improvements and operate the facility and services as proposed; the five-year pro fOrJtla analysis of the proposed usc; the consideration (monetary and non··monetanr ) to be provided to the city. The degree to which the City will oc will not participate in costs should also be addressed. 4. Community and Environmental Impact Consistency of the proposed use with existing City <joals and objectives (as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, 20ning Ordinance, and Municipal Code); th~ impact ot the proposed usa upon the immediate neighborhood, the community generally and the environment. Attachment A provides jE!xarnples of relative weighting for the three prototype packages. For example, the purpose of Criteria Package 1, w8~9hted to emphasize historic preservation over public benefit, would be to result in a usa compatible with rninitnal changes to the o)(isting cnaracter and features of the property, which would provide publio benefit and access, but 'Which mayor may not meet an identified ,p:.Jblic need. Such uses might include museum use of the house, and park use of the garden. The historic preservation criteria should be specific enough to indicate to a potential proposer the city's expectations for the preservation of the property 1n terms of the relative importance of preserving the exterior of the house, the interior of the house and the gardens. The purpose of Criteria Package 2, weighted to emphasize public need and benefit over historic preservation, would he to result in a use whioh satisfies an identified public need but which might require more significant changes to the historic features or character of the property, such as a building addition or the removal of interior walls. Specific public needs or benefjts which CMR:206:94 3 '."r th-&: CQuncil considers important could be identified. This package {as ~ell as packages /1 and 13) should also specifically ~ddreS9 the City's expectations for the preservation of, the properly in terms Of the relative lfl1portance of pre,!;;erving the exterior of the houso, the interior of the' house and the gardens. Package ) vould weight historic preservation and public need more (lql-tally i its purpose 'Would ba to achieve a balance between the lovel of historio preservation and accommodating a public need. In all three packages, the issue of the city's ~xpectation9 for the tinanciol vlobil1ty of the proposal and the de9ree to which the City m~y or may not participate in th& costs for development and op,or.ftition of the property should bo addressed. The city's ~rticipation could depend on the degree of public benefit and/or h1$toric preservation of the proposed use. The RFP should attempt to achieve a balftnce betwoen the monetary flnd nonmonetary benefit provided by a proposed use, Le., t.he less public benefit to the CitYt tho ~ore ~onetary benefit to the City would be required. Staft proposer:. t'ttlO options for structuritlg the process for construction of the RFP packages: 1. staff pl;epares package options and returns to P&S or City counc.ll. This option would rely on a staff tcam l comprised of representatives from various departments, including Finance, Planning, Public Works and Community services to prepare package options. This option would most likely require loss till'e than option '2 (4 to 5 months) j and when staff returns to Council with the three prototype packages, a public hearing could be held to provide the opportunity for public input. 2. Council appoints members of an ad hoc 'committee, composed of two, members .of the HRB, two mere.bars of the }iRe and one me.mber of the Planning commission, to work wIth staff to develop RFP package options. Notices of ll',eetings and aqendas would be provided to all 'Who express an,: interest in participating in determining the preferred use tor the Williams property. This option may require tnoro time than option 1; however, it expands the opportunities for public involvement early in the RFP development process. CMR:206:94 \ &\YAnt_~t..mpotled PrC984' Ths proposed procesa addresses l!1~ny of the issues and concepts bro\lght fortt. in diecu8910ns at the February 15, 1994 P&S meeting, 89 folloW's: 1. The conflict batwoon the 90a1s of public benefit and historic preservation. 2. Many commonts at the I'lcetinq concerned the necessity for re801v1n9,~arly on the potential conflict betwe~n qo~ls for publ1e benefit and h.!ato);"ic proGorvation. For .instance, an -effort to presll:!r-vo thO' property tirst, before considering future use, could result in nakinq thO' 'property unsuita.ble for certain uses ~ootin9 a pOblic benefit objective. By the same token, it \lse is deterl'linec! first, histo1;ic preservation of the property could be dirsinishnd duo to the specific interests and needs of th~ user group. The proposed procQss \lill result in prototype RFP packages, eac:h 'Wci(j'ht:inq the conflicting Ilse9 of histot:' lc preservation and p\lblic usa in a diff(:!rcht way, which can be presented to th-a Council. council can revic ... • the pack.agee, and by oelecting one, give a clearer picture of what its specific objectives are for the property. By enabling the Council to give l'lore specific direction ~bout 'What it wants to see happen with the property, this process ma~' prevent the conflict in 903;19 tha,t occurred with the previous RFP. Monetary burden on the proposers The cit.y's requirelumt that the property be developed and operated at no not cost to the City was soon by many as being onerous for potential proposers, resulting. in the RFP being exclusive rathar th~n inclusive and resulting in the hist9rical and financial aspects coming into conflict. Sugq:estions included exploring City involvernElnt in costs, related to tho degreo Of public benefit de.rived and the degree to Which 'the use. would t,ouch a large segmont of ,the community. In other words, the city;v~uld participate. more in a project involving wide coml!lunity benefit than one Which did not~ The proposed process calls tor the issue of the City'S participation in costs to be addressed in the prototype RFP packages and rocommends that the participation be related 'to the degree of ,public benefit received from the proposed use. CI!R:206:94 5 , " r ! ! I I·e, . t I !' 3. More precise definition of the goals for the property Commonts ware nada at the February 15 P&S meeting concerninq requirements of the previous RrF being too broad. Thu p~oposed method will result in a more specific definitiQn of goals for th~ property, by providing for more definition in terms of use and historic p~esarvation and by woighting tho relative import~nce of various criteria. 4. Clear public benefit to the comrounity One concept ,emphasized .in the ~iscussiollB of I\n altornato process for determining ~ uso for tho propo~ty was that there should be a very clear puhlic henefit to the cotMlunity in whateve.r resulted. This would also be 1n accol"danco with the emphasis placed on public benefit and access and cot\n\mity noed in the City's policy for Leased Use of Public f~cillties. The proposed method includes public benefit as one of the four major criteria and enables the Council to select the degree to which it 'Wants to both define and elitphasiz~ this criteria~ 5. consistency vith CityJa Policy and Procedures (01' I.oa6od Use of City Land/Facilities Members of P&S requested that the city Attorney revie .... any proposed alternate process to determine \rW'hether tho pt"OGCSS meets the requirements of the City's Policy and Procedures for Leased Use of City .Land/Facilities or whether tho process w~uld require modification of the policy. The Pl;oposed process meets the requirel!lents of the Clty'G policy and would require no modification of the policy. Impact of proposed Process The e:hort-term impact of procoedinq vith the proposed proc~ss for the Williams house, as a priority project, will be ~ delay' of at least one month for Real Estate staff to return to Council with a recommendation on the Chuck Thompson site proposals (preyiously scheduled for April 1994)~ Longer~term impacts include the need for additional resources in the Real Estate DiviSion, should tho-ad hoc committee be/formed (Process Option 12); and the need to care for the Willj..ams property while the city seeks a tenant. If the ad hoc cOllU'llittee option is used, aSGuminq Real Estate Division staff will be required to act as liaison to the committee, additional staff assistance may be required, depend"inq upon the outcome of the Chuck Thompson site proposals a~d Arastradero house CHR:206: 94 6 assignments. Estimated cost of the addition"l staff assistance .is $7,300 to $10,~OO (part-time clerical staff for 6 to 9 months). An alternate process" to select a use \or'ill take m.onths, and even after an option to lease is awarded, the, house will need care and maintenance during tho two-year option period~ The previous RFP required the optionee to take responsibility for the c8Ire and maintenance of the property during the option period. However, because the process to determine a use ha!i taken longer than anticipated, staff now recommend's that Council direct staff to pursue getting a residential caretaker for the property, for security and to prevent further deterioration. In addition to providing needed care and security for the property sooner, havil1g a city caretaker will relieve the optionee of an additional responsibility during the option period and thereby reduce the financial burden placed on the proposer. Items necessary to blJ done to make. the house habitable and to retain a caretaker are listed on Attach-rrlent B, with the associated esti'r.lated costs. 'rotal estimatcd cost to g~t a caretaker is $9,700~ Staff also rp-conunends Council approve funds to complete lllinirnal maintenance and k'epair of the house: and to remove the underground tank on the property. Due to the unexpected amount of time it has taken to find a user for the house, sta:r.:: t'ccommends the city not delay any longer certain minimal T1Iain~.enai1ce and repairs of the house, which are listen in Attachment C. In addition, staff re.commends the city remove the underground tank on the property. Removal of the tank and possible contamination cleanup have been identified by the previo~ts and potential proposers as being a particularly onerous requirement because it is a major, but undetermined, cost associated with the property. In the case o( both the Peninsula Conservation Center (PCC) and the Lace Museum, proposers requested thQt a maximum of $25,000 be put on the tenantls responsibility for the cost of tank removal and any cleanup that may be necessary. !n hoth cases, the City Council allowed the $25,000 maximum and agreed to pay any cost over $25,000 up to a maximum of $50,000. The. city has funds available in a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for remova,1 of onderground tanks on C:tty property. These funds could be utilized for the Williams property. The 1991 soils investigation report estimated the cost to removo the tank to be $12,000 to $19,000. The report also indicated it was unlikely, but possible, that there may be contamination fr9m the tank on the sitej however, this cannot be detel'mined until thE?! tank is removed. Total estimated cost for the deferred maintenance and underground tank removal is $21,250 to $28,250. CMR:,06:94 7 '" ~ , ' , , I I , i \ <' .. ~-. .~ '~:""":'~".'. " R&90PU2h9n4MJ.2D staff recommends that Counoil: 1. Direct staff to proceed with the above-described proposed processes for determining a use(s) tor tho Williams property (construction of 3 RFP packages). indicating its preferred option for structure (committee or staff option); 2. DirElict staff to pursue gotting a resiQ.ential caretaker for the Williams property; 3. Direct staff to complete necessary short-term maintenance and repairs to the property ar.-1 remove th·e underground t('l;nlq and 4. Direct staff to return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to cover expenses associated with a residential caretaker, maintena.nce, ant~ removal of the tank. Respectfully submitted, (yt~=t"1C~ __ _ cc: Historic Resources Board W. Davis Larsen Sandplay Th~rapy & Training Institute Community Impact, Inc. Child and Family Resource Center The Perham Foundation -Electronics Museum Communit,Y Breast Health project Museum of American Heritage Bay Area Action Monte Bella Preschool Pacific Art League of Palo Alto Cfffi:206:94 a , "., '-: \ . '.' Attachnnts, \1 Attachment A, Examples of Relativ<> Weighting of Criteria Attach~ent B: Estimated Car.etaker Costs Residential Attachment C: Estimated Costs -Trash Removal and Deferred Mainten~nce R~lated "taCt reporto: CKR,326'91 (HR, 103,92 CKR, 188,92 CKR'208'92 CMR, 435,92 CHR,493,92 CMR,305:93 CMR,332'9J CMR, 446, 93 CKR,560,93 CHR:608,93 CHR:113:94 CMR,139,94 CMR,206:94 9 -:.-, Mt.chml>nt A (I of 3) EXAMPLE or REl~TIV[ WEIGHTING EMPHASIZING HISTORIC PRESERVATION Pwposer: _______ • Raw RaUng 11010 (10 I.b •• ,) -:a:~:;;:~-·--~=,=~~_~~~_~--~-~:~~~---·--r~~o~;.'~--L--~.lrul;~----_ ~blf<:Be n:~O~'~ -;:~,~ no;;;;---2.t "'_ '~" '_ ~ _______ ~ I~~ _ -!_~ _~_ Degree or publfc acr,..ess I I HiSIO(te PfeSClvaticlfl 3.5 . .'i,"-tOlAI Fee~.ch~.'.ged III EXlerio; 16', rnteriOl GardtJn ~-~--------------------------- r-inanclal Vjabllity El1d1Jnw or abilily History & aSSt3 ssmen\ FiV$ ~ea.r pro forma Conslderalbcn to Ci ly Community & Envirollmentat fmpaCI Consfsuml with CiI)' goals Impact on oaighborhooo elc. ---------------------------- 12~ II ___ ~ ~ __ 9L!"'_e:_I.9!!r~~_§cOfeL . ___ . ____ . _, ____ _ ---------~----------------- <. r _ \~.iohi,a-- ____ §W_ro ___ _ ,~tt.chment A (2 of 3l EXAIIPLE Of RELA'rI VE WE I GHli NG ENPHAS I ZING PUBlI C BEHf.fI T PRO~OS~L EVALUATION P'roposer: _____ _ E .... aluatlon Criler~I.,-___ _ PUblic Benelit ------_._----------- Mo~ Is public need Degree 01 public access Fee s charged Historic Pmservalion EKIOrioJ Interior Garden -------------------- Pi nanclal Viabi liey Evidence o~ .ability History & nssessment Five year pro forma Consideration to City Communily & Erwifonmenlallmpact C<lnslSl8m wilt! City goars Impact on nOig;hborhood otc. ---------.----------------- "." Raw,RenJog Weight 3.5..% total 25..%I01al 12X I 8% 5t -I 2..0.%lolal I 1 ZQ.% tot,t :~:,;,:~"J-...J --------------.-------------------.-----,--.---- t', , , 11010 (10 "0051) i Attact,ment A (3 of 3) EXAMPLE OF RELATIVE WEIGHTING BALANCING PUBLIC BENEFIT & HISTORfc PRESERVATION PROPOSAL EVALUATION Propos9'; ___ _ Hfsto;ic Preservation 4.2.% tolal Exterior 12% Inter!!}f 8% Garden 5~ -----------_._-----_ .. Finantlal Viability Evidance or abllily History & aSSeSSm6n1 FJve )'ear pro forma Consideration to Cily ----.----------------------,----- C{)mmuni.ty & Environmentaf Impaci Consistent with City goals Impact on no:ghborhooo etc . . _--.-------.------------- tffi % lotal 2,S.%IOlol TOTAL OVERAi:U;COR'C' ,,', Raw Rating 1 1010 (10 Is bosl) I",' A't tachment B ESl'IHATED c()STS lISS0CIA'rED WITH RESIDENTIAL CARETAKER Garage & house cleanup of trash Chi~neys checked & cleaned service water heater Install sm~ke detectors Flush water lines & treat sewer line Toilet repair Hew furnaco & removal of furnace fuel oil tank & piping House & window clt~ning Clean & bUff wood floors '.&st1mated CQ~ $1,500 200 100 250 300 50 6,000 850 450 .. " Attachment C ESTIHATEJ) COSTS -TANK REJ!OVAL & D&FERRED MAINTENANCE Re.ltOvaI of undergr<HHld t.'lnk Roof patching & "sl<yl1ght flashing Misc. eloctrioal EstimS'tad Cost $12,000 -19,OOQA $ 3,000 1,250 5,000 $ 21,25~ -28,2~ -Estimata does not includo the cost of any clean-up of contamination that may be rlccessary.