HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-03 City Council Summary Minutes
02/03/97 −251
Regular Meeting
February 3, 1997
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................81-253
APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................81-253
1. Proposed Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 2876 between the City
of Palo Alto and the Town of Los Altos Hills for Sewage
Transportation Treatment and Disposal (CMR:128:97)....81-253
2. Ordinance 4398 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification
of a Portion of Property Collectively Known as ‘Charleston
Meadows Tract 795' From R-1 to R-1(S)” ...............81-253
3. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation ...81-254
4. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....81-254
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of
the decision of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment to approve an upgrade of the front, back and side
facades, seismic upgrade and parking lot improvements to an
existing retail building located at 2741 Middlefield Road
(CMR:132:97)..........................................81-254
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider the
recommendation to accept proposal from Thomas and Kathleen
Taylor for an Option to Purchase the Tower Well Site, 201 Alma
Street................................................81-271
7. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator’s decision for a Conditional Use
Permit 96-UP-5, allowing live entertainment, including music
and dancing, at an existing restaurant (Q-Billiards), located
at 529 Alma Street....................................81-282
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m............81-296
02/03/97 −252
−253
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:07 p.m.
PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 7:20 p.m.),
Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:08 p.m.), McCown,
Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Regina Pustan, P. O. Box 60725, spoke regarding Linus Pauling.
T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding tourism, education, Palo Alto,
etc.
Richard Gruen, Box 2351, spoke regarding levee at high tide.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado, spoke regarding Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 18.41.070.
Stephanie Munoz, Los Altos Hills, spoke regarding a traffic citation.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve the Minutes of November 12, 1996, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Eakins “abstaining.”
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2.
1. Proposed Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 2876 between the City
of Palo Alto and the Town of Los Altos Hills for Sewage
Transportation Treatment and Disposal (CMR:128:97)
2. Ordinance 4398 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification
of a Portion of Property Collectively Known as ‘Charleston
Meadows Tract 795' From R-1 to R-1(S)”
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CLOSED SESSION
3. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation
Subject: Peterson v. City of Palo Alto, et al., SCC No. CV 753103
−254
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
4. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation
Subject: Arkady Shcheslavsky v. City of Palo Alto,et al., SCC
No. CV 748140
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
Public Comments
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of
the decision of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment to approve an upgrade of the front, back and side
facades, seismic upgrade and parking lot improvements to an
existing retail building located at 2741 Middlefield Road
(CMR:132:97)
Contract Senior Planner Alison Kendall said the application
represented a minor facade remodel for an existing retail building
with some associated landscape and parking lot improvements. A
number of issues were raised by the applicant, the most significant
of which was the requirement for a conditional use permit. The
original application had since been revised to remove the necessity
for a conditional use permit by combining the retail use with an
office use in the mezzanine area. The appellant also raised the
need for a variance, which would not be required since the facility
was already nonconforming, as well as issues regarding loading and
delivery. Staff did not believe, given the additional circulation
and parking problems, it would be advisable to change the
long-standing delivery location. A number of parking and
landscaping improvements were proposed by the applicant which the
ARB needed to review in more detail, and a sign application still
needed to be filed which would provide an opportunity to review the
use of any illuminated signs.
David Ross, Chairperson, Architectural Review Board (ARB), said the
ARB unanimously supported the project. It did not consider any
information with regard to the conditional use question since it
was not within its jurisdiction.
Vice Mayor Andersen queried the process if the applicant had merely
wanted to paint the building.
−255
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
changing the paint would be allowed without any type of design review.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the appeal was a legal
interpretation question. While Council's decisions on appeals did
not create binding precedent, to the extent staff established a
standing administrative interpretation, it was, in effect, binding.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, appellant, said Council needed to
consider at least two precedent-setting issues. One related to an
interpretation of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.94,
for which he urged reliance on the City Attorney, and the other was
whether the proposed application was a single or multiple use.
Paragraph 3 of Attachment A to the staff report (CMR:132:97),
Findings for Approval, referred to the project as a retail business
selling office furniture with related consultant services. He
believed the language as written indicated one business rather than
two. When asked to verify the application would be all retail with
a binding condition, the application became offices again. The
application changed the use for at least part of the building, and
he asked whether the Fire Department would review the actual plans.
While the City discussed Midtown becoming a retail area in the City,
the first change in the area was from retail to office use. All
of the on-site parking should be used by the employees who parked
all day and delivery vehicles; otherwise, they would use the two-hour
public parking spaces or park in front of neighboring residences.
On page 4 of the ARB minutes, Attachment E to the staff report
(CMR:132:97), the applicant indicated parking would be open to
everyone in Midtown, although staff disagreed. Regarding the
loading area in the City parking lot, staff failed to respond to
whether the current encroachment was legal. If it were, he believed
Mr. Fellman of the Real Estate Division would have pointed Council
to its action which permitted the encroachment. Deliveries should
be prohibited during certain hours in the spirit of being a good
neighbor. Planning Commissioner Schink, part owner of the property,
regarding the Q-Restaurant application, preferred it be conditioned
so that noise stopped at a reasonable hour in order to be good
neighbors. He urged the same courtesy be attended with regard to
Mr. Schink’s building in Midtown. Signage should receive ARB
approval rather than staff approval. He was concerned the design
of the Middlefield Road entrance evaded the requirements of the
neighborhood commercial zone that front yard setbacks be landscaped.
Per the Fire Department Code, only two doors on either side of the
front would be used for the required entry and exit because the others
were designed to be obstructed by goods of the business. Therefore,
most of the frontage should be landscaped as required by the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Regarding the conditions in Attachment
A to the staff report (CMR:132:97), Condition 5 indicated the
proposed changes would increase the building's compatibility with
−256
the surrounding retail. He believed the opposite was true because
offices were proposed to replace retail. He requested City Attorney
interpretation regarding the noncompliance issue in Condition 7.
Regarding Condition 10, on-site parking should be used by the
employees. He believed the landscape drawings omitted the rear
entrance. He queried what was proposed, especially since the design
and redesign of the entire Midtown area related to making the entrance
to the parking lot a major entrance for customers. Mr. Richmond's
letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) referred to new lights
in the parking lot off of Colorado Avenue even though he did not
see them on the drawings. Regarding whether the office use was a
response to the appeal or whether it was something the applicant
always intended, he referred to the July 26, 1996, Palo Alto Weekly
which reported the Council's actions of July 22, 1996. Mr. Rapp,
in talking about a major office use for the area, guaranteed at least
40 percent would remain retail. On October 9, 1996, Mr. Schink said
he would be submitting an application to the ARB for a combination
office/retail use. A similar article appeared in the Palo Alto Daily
News of October 22, 1996. Shortly thereafter, the application was
all retail. The cumulative effect of actions taken by the Council
in response to recommendations from the former Chief Planning
Official and now the Economic Resources Officer created significant
effects in Midtown. For example, there had been a requirement of
one space for every 150 square feet. Currently, it was one space
for every 200 square feet even though a study reflected there was
not enough parking on the west side of Middlefield Road. There was
also the catering use permit issue with Victoria Emmons. Recently,
Mr. Overway revealed the 11 key intersections in Palo Alto, with
Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway being the worst. It was one
of only two intersections at level of service F, only one where the
p.m. peak hour traffic exceeded the 2010 year peak hour, and one
of two intersections where the three-hour peak hour was greater than
2010.
John Northway, 437 Lytton Avenue, supported the findings in the staff
report (CMR:132:97).
Council Member Schneider queried The KnOwhere Store, and what type
of retail store it was.
Roxy Rapp, P. O. Box 1672, Palo Alto, said The KnOwhere Store was
out of Hilton Head, North Carolina, and there was another store in
Boston, Massachusetts. It was a completely new concept which came
from the increased home office user. The KnOwhere Store was an office
furniture store which sold environment for the home and carried all
different types of computers, software, educational materials, etc.,
for the home office or small business. The KnOwhere Store had
another division known as M.G. Taylor, which provided office space
and would be located upstairs. Originally, the office was not a
part of the plan, but now that the building was not going to be used
−257
for 100 percent retail, the remainder would be office. Everything
on the ground floor would be for retail sale.
Sandy Sloan, Attorney for the applicant, 1100 Alma Street, Menlo
Park, was somewhat perplexed by the City Attorney's comments. She
understood the item was an ARB appeal, and that the interpretation
of the PAMC was already made by the Planning Department and the City
Attorney's Office. She referred to page 8 of the staff report
(CMR:132:97), and indicated the application proposed less than
15,000 square feet of retail and less than 5,000 square feet of office
space. In terms of the use, the proposal complied with the zoning
ordinance.
Duane Bay, 2261 Columbia Street, Co-Op Market Board Member, supported
the staff recommendation. The Co-Op Market believed additional uses
in the Midtown quadrant was important to both the City and the other
merchants. They looked forward to a tenancy in the building at the
earliest possible moment.
Daniel Hanley, 2701 Middlefield Road, represented the owners of the
two buildings north of the proposed project. In July 1996, the City
Council approved a conceptual master plan for the Midtown area.
The old Bergman's building was a difficult one to develop, and he
applauded the efforts of Roxy Rapp and Jon Schink. The ARB approved
the application, and he supported it. He hoped it would be the first
step in developing the conceptual master plan and making the shopping
center a reality. He was disappointed that an office use was
introduced into the project. A few months ago, he was in conference
with Messrs. Rapp and Schink, and the plans reflected all retail.
Residents on the committee with him and Vice Mayor Andersen demanded
retail use, and now to get the project through without a conditional
use permit, office use was introduced. He believed it was
counterproductive. He urged moving forward with the conceptual
master plan.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the proposed project was
much better than what was presented to the ARB in terms of
landscaping, entry, and project description. The project was a
regional retail and office building which lacked 85 percent of the
needed parking on its own site. The success of the building depended
on the City parking lot and the rear entry. The new loading doors
did not conform to the property line and extended out into the City
parking lot. Regarding the various requirements of PAMC Chapter
18.41.070, the plan did not address how the potential noise and glare
might impact the neighbors on Midtown Court and Colorado Avenue,
the conflict between Conditions 3 and 17 was not addressed by the
ARB, and no neighborhood protections were evaluated as part of the
application. She was particularly concerned about the residential
neighbors opposite the rear entry, and the impact of lighting on
residential units in those areas. In the past, the standards for
the turn off on the lights were absent, and sometimes they were
−258
up as high as 35 or 40 feet. She particularly inquired about heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), lighting, landscaping, and
street trees at the ARB meeting and received no answers. She urged
a condition limiting the hours of operation, including loading,
delivery, recycling, and garbage, to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. While
the landscaping on Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue would be
a great improvement, she believed the front landscape could be
enlarged to be more attractive since there was 2,500 square feet
of area between the curb and the building. The current street trees
were in poor shape, and while the conditions required 24-inch box
street trees, the ARB said the applicant could retain the damaged
trees. The street trees were half dead being hit by trucks and cars
because they were too close to a curb which was only two to three
inches high. Those street trees should be removed and replaced
particularly where the bus stop was. The bus stop was a tremendous
heat island, there was no tree to protect it, and there was no shade
at the bus stop. The rear entry should be significant since it was
supposed to be the main entry, and it would set the standards for
the entire Midtown shopping area. The plan called for removing the
landscaping under the curbed area. The rear entrance was difficult
because there were three City parking spaces blocking it, and one
had to maneuver the area sideways. It would be a simple matter to
make the area a handicapped parking space. Landscaping needed to
be incorporated into the hidden entry to make it interesting for
both residents and customers. She also urged that the signage return
to the ARB level for consideration.
Michael F. Wallau, 2503 Middlefield Road, supported the project.
As a resident and merchant in Midtown, he was excited to see new
possibilities in the area. He urged moving ahead to revitalize the
area.
Tom Foy, 2775 Middlefield Road, one-half owner of a vacant building
at the corner of Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue, supported
the proposal. He referred to the statement on page 4 of Attachment
F to the staff report (CMR:132:97) regarding parking adequacy and
access. In order to exit or reach additional parking, customers
needed to enter a drive through tunnel under the building to reach
the City-owned lot where additional parking was available. Under
a long-standing, informal agreement, access to adjacent parking was
provided from the Colorado Avenue lot, and at his request, the ARB
added that the same courtesy be extended to the parking lot he owned
which faced Colorado Avenue with the entrance from the proposed
project.
Mr. Borock appreciated Mr. Handley's comments that over the past
couple of months the applicant had shown him an all retail use, and
at that time the press reported an office use inside the building.
If there was a hearing on a conditional use permit for an all retail
use, someone would ask the question Council Member Schneider asked
regarding the length of the lease. It would then be reasonable to
−259
condition the use to retail for that period. The reason for the
partial office proposal was because that was the way it had always
been. He disagreed with parking off of Colorado Avenue and using
it as access for the City parking lot. The easiest way to access
the City parking lot was through Midtown Court. He was pleased that
other proposals for Midtown were forthcoming, and no other buildings
would require a use permit for an all retail use. Perhaps some of
the past office uses could convert to retail to make up for the change
in the subject building. Regarding the landscaping on Middlefield
Road, ARB members Francisco Alfonso and James McFall both indicated
there should be more landscaping across the width of the building
to screen the traffic on Middlefield Road. The PAMC for entry and
exit only applied to the two doors on the side, and the proposal
was to not have those middle doors always accessible. The only
exception in the neighborhood zone from the requirement for
landscaping in the front yard setback was for access to the entry
doors. He believed more of the front 78-foot width needed to be
landscaped.
Mr. Northway said the pending landscaping issues would be resubmitted
to the ARB when the appeal was settled along with the redesign of
the back and side entry. Both Messrs. Rapp and Schink were devoted
to trees, and would entertain any additional ideas Council might
have about them. The building fronted onto Middlefield Road, and
that was where the signs would be. The revised landscaping plans
reflected more trees on the site than on the entire Midtown quadrant.
The parking lot off Colorado Avenue was developed to be a prototype
of what was expected throughout the entire center. Sign issues would
also return to the ARB for approval. They were excited about the
development.
Council Member Wheeler believed accommodating Mr. Foy's request to
the ARB involved the removal of a planned tree. She asked whether
that was reflected in the revised plans.
Mr. Northway said access to Mr. Foy's property was maintained.
Council Member Wheeler said the point was raised about the delivery
location in the back parking lot, and she accepted the ARB's rationale
for maintaining it in the back lot. She also believed the point
about limiting the hours of great activity was well taken, and asked
whether the applicant would accept it as a condition.
Mr. Northway said staff recommended that no deliveries be allowed
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., which was an acceptable
condition.
Mr. Rapp said when Midtown took off and the back parking became busy
with customers, he saw no reason why a truck could not pull in and
unload the goods into the side door and be checked in, etc. He
believed it had more to do with traffic, and he hoped all the parking
−260
spaces would be used. He pointed out the number of trees being put
into the lot where there were none currently. More landscaping was
requested in the front elevations, and six big trees plus shrubbery
underneath was being added. Instead of using cement in the entryway,
the intended use was a slate material which went inside the retail
stores. It was a retail store, and adding more landscaping across
the front would hurt signage and stop people from entering the store
because they would not notice it was a retail store. He believed
adding 40 percent landscaping to the front of the store was more
than any retail store normally did. He disagreed with Mr. Borock
on the landscaping. They were also adding two benches so people
could enjoy the landscaping being installed to make it more of a
public space.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed.
Vice Mayor Andersen disclosed a conversation with the appellant prior
to the appeal being filed, and one with Mr. Rapp afterwards.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to deny the
appeal and uphold the approval by the Director, based upon the
following findings and conditions for the Architectural Review Board
appeal as amended, and with the additional condition that no
deliveries shall occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 96-RB-190
The Architectural Review Board has determined, in approving this
proposed project with conditions, that the proposed project, as
conditioned, will fulfill the following general goals and purposes
of Chapter 16.48.010, namely, to promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the city; to enhance the desirability of residence
or investment in the city; to encourage the attainment of the most
desirable use of land and improvements; to enhance the desirability
of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas;
and to promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic
quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate
of each other.
1. The design, as proposed and conditioned, would be consistent
and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, including the Urban Design Element as
previously described in this report. The proposed design will
help achieve the policy objective of revitalization of the
Midtown neighborhood commercial district.
2. The design would be compatible with the immediate environment
of the site. It maintains the existing building height and
size, which at two stories is appropriate for the kind of vital
neighborhood retail district which is desired for Midtown.
The redwood trellises proposed above each entry would provide
a unifying element within the Midtown center which relates to
−261
the neighborhood’s architectural character. The design
combines adobe colored stucco and redwood, materials
characteristic of buildings in the area, with teal metal bracing
and windows which would provide a contemporary accent
appropriate to this neighborhood retail area. The exterior
renovations produce a building design suitable for this
prominent location and appropriate for this site, which is a
key location within the Midtown Revitalization Project Area.
3. The proposed design is appropriate to the function of the
project, which is to house a retail business selling office
furniture with a related consulting service. The proposed
renovation will upgrade the finishes on the building and add
building design features and landscaping which will enhance
the general attractiveness of this neighborhood retail
district.
4. To the degree that the Midtown area has a unified design
character, this project is compatible with that character.
The elements which are reflected in the design are the use of
wood and stucco in natural colors, large expanses of glass and
sleek contemporary lines which are found in many Eichlers, and
in some of the churches along Middlefield. The redwood trellis
element is also incorporated into a number of churches, houses
and small retail buildings in the Midtown area. These elements
have been attractively combined in this design.
5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different designated land uses.
The design maintains the existing building height and size,
which at two stories is appropriate for the kind of vital
neighborhood retail district which is desired for Midtown, but
not abruptly different from the surrounding one- and two-story
residential development. The proposed changes will increase
the building’s compatibility with surrounding retail and nearby
residential uses.
6. While there are no relevant approved improvements on or off
site, the proposed design is compatible with the general
concepts behind the Midtown Concept Plan developed by property
owners and currently being refined to guide public and private
improvements. In particular, the increased landscaping and
improvements to the pedestrian and parking areas are compatible
with the Concept Plan and the general objectives for
revitalization of the Midtown commercial area.
7. Within the constraints of the existing building and parking
facilities, the planning and siting of the various functions
and the building on the site create an internal sense of order
and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors
and the general community. Unfortunately, the existing
−262
Colorado Avenue parking lot does not provide enough parking
to fulfill the requirements for these uses. In addition, the
narrowness of the lot requires a one-way access to the parking
from Colorado, and requires cars to exit the lot under the
drive-through to the assessment district lot. As
non-complying facilities, the applicant is not required to
change these facilities unless he increases the degree of
non-compliance. The inclusion of office use and the provision
of a disabled persons parking space and bicycle parking will
decrease the degree of non-compliance slightly.
8. The amount and arrangement of the proposed open space is
appropriate to the design and function of the structures. The
open space in front of the building would be landscaped to
improve the appearance of the building, and provide an
attractive, shaded plaza and seating area which connect to the
pedestrian arcade of an adjacent building. The parking lot
off Colorado provides shade to a south-facing facade and would
be substantially improved, with an additional 18 trees to
provide substantial shade to parked cars and pavement.
9. There are not ancillary functions needed to support the main
functions of the project beyond parking, described under
standard (7). Within the constraints of the non-complying
facility, these are acceptable.
10. Access to the property and circulation within it is safe and
convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, within the
constraints imposed by the site and the non-complying parking
lot. Pedestrian access from Colorado Avenue requires that
pedestrians walk in the parking aisle to reach the side
entrance. Hazards to pedestrians would increase if deliveries
were made via the Colorado Avenue lot, as suggested by the
appellant, and trucks had to back up to exit because they did
not fit beneath the drive-through.
11. Two existing trees at the front and back of the property are
the only notable existing natural features on the site. They
are retained and integrated in the proposed design.
12. The renovation proposed superior building materials and
textures to the current concrete block building. These factors
are an appropriate expression to the design and function of
the project. The extension of the adobe stucco treatment to
three sides of the building is a distinct improvement over the
current painted concrete block. the proposed materials,
textures, colors and details are also compatible with
neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions.
13. As recommended by conditions of approval, the landscape design
concept for the site would create a desirable and functional
−263
environment and creates an appropriate unity with the various
entries to the site. The proposed design would increase the
amount of landscaping and number of trees visible from
Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue. The landscaping
improvements could help enhance the Middlefield frontage as
a more vital pedestrian area. The conditions would make less
of the landscape area off limits to pedestrians, and encourage
pedestrian use of outdoor area. Conditions of approval would
require tree planting and landscaping wherever possible in the
parking lot, improving the appearance of the area and the
pedestrian experience along Colorado, while maintaining the
function and capacity of the existing parking lot.
14. Plant materials were specified in the January 9 submission of
a Landscape Plan, and are appropriate to the site, drought
resistant and generally low in water consumption.
15. The design is generally energy efficient. It incorporates
shade trees and landscaping to reduce heat gain in the paved
parking area, a redwood trellis and shade trees to reduce heat
gain from the south-west facade, and skylights and increased
window area to provide natural lighting.
CONDITIONS 96-ARB-190
Recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment
for the Architectural Review Board’s review for an upgrade of the
front, back and side facades, seismic upgrade and parking lot
improvements to an existing retail building.
This ARB approval is conditional upon approval of a conditional use
permit, if required, pursuant to Section 18.94.040(b) and Section
18.94.030(b) and other relevant sections of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
Planning/Zoning
1. The final site and/or landscaping plan shall be submitted to and
reviewed by the ARB and to include the following modifications:
a. Revised landscaping of the Colorado Avenue parking lot
per Tom Richman’s drawing of December 1, 1996 and continued
access to adjacent parking lot.
b. The landscaped area in front of the building along
Middlefield shall modified so as to create a tree-shaded
pedestrian area with outdoor benches and the possibility
of outdoor displays or tables and chairs.
−264
c. Bicycle parking is required in accordance with PAMC,
Chapter 18.83. Class 2 and 3 parking shall be located
as close to the front doorway as possible, which may
require some redesign of the front area. Additional Class
2 and 3 bike parking should be placed near the side entrance
to the parking lot on Colorado Avenue, if this can be
accomplished without displacing existing parking.
2. Final architectural plans shall return to the ARB and include
the following modifications:
a. Modifications to provide additional architectural
interest at east and north entries.
3. All public trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree
inventory or landscape plan to be prepared and submitted to the
Planning Division, shall be protected during construction. The
following tree protection measures shall be approved by the
Planning Arborist and included in construction/demolition
contracts and be implemented during demolition and construction
activities unless otherwise approved. The following tree
protection measures shall apply: PAMC Sec. 8-04-070. Any
modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing,
by the Planning Arborist.
a. The City’s Planning Arborist shall consult with the
project arborist and submit a tree protection plan for
the site prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be
shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios,
fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
5. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and
off-site plantable areas out to the curb must be submitted to
and approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape
Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of
design intent shall be submitted for each project.
These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect
and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation
plans shall include:
a. All existing trees identified both to be retained and
removed including street trees.
b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species,
quantity, size and locations.
c. Irrigation schedule and plan.
d. Fence locations.
−265
e. Lighting plan with photometric data.
f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
6. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate
application. Sec. 16.48.050a, Sec.16.48.120a(14),
Sec.16.48.120(c).
7. The applicant shall submit a plan addressing trash disposal.
The project shall include a recycling area or enclosure which
complies with the design guidelines adopted by the ARB and
approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 16.48.070(PAMC).
Sec.16.48.120a(12), Sec.16.48.120(c).
Engineering
8. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for
the parking lot off Colorado Avenue to Public Works Engineering,
including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns
to and from adjacent properties are not altered. Sec.16.28.270.
9. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious
area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations
showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit
application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place
in the month following the final approval of the construction
by the Building Inspection Division.
Transportation
10. Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance
requirements of PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages
where driveways are present, and in parking lots. Landscaping
shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as
meeting these height requirements.
11. Bicycle parking is required in accordance with PAMC 18.83. Class
2 and 3 parking must be located as close to the front doorway
as possible, which may require some redesign of the front area.
Additional Class 2 and 3 bike parking should be placed near
the side entrance to the parking lot on Colorado, if this can
be accomplished without displacing existing parking.
Utilities
12. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers,
and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the
landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict
−266
will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and
shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design
and setback requirements. Sec. 16.48.120(a)(13) and (c).
Sec.16.82.060(c).
13. The Palo Alto Fire Department will be reviewing the renovation
cost of improvements to see if PAMC 15.04.170, Subsection
1003.2.9, 5) becomes applicable for automatic sprinklers
installation throughout. Please review the referenced section
of the PAMC on improvement costs.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
14. Color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit
drawings shall be attached to the cover sheet of the building
permit drawing set by the Project Planner. Section
16.48.120(a)12 and (c).IBP16.
Public Works Operation
15. Street trees shall be required in 24-inch boxes spaced at minimum
30-foot intervals along project frontage. Species shall be
determined by the Planning Arborist in consultation with the
Midtown Contract Planner. Newly planted street trees shall
be irrigated and maintained by the property owner.
During Construction
Public Works Engineering
16. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at
(415)496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public
right-of-way.
17. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other
property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard
Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments.
Prior to Finalization
Planning
18. The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to
Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the
landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects
of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been
installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing and
function, and all plants including street trees are healthy.
19. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or
removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved
standards. Sec.12.08.010.
−267
20. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit
prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site
improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
Vice Mayor Andersen sympathized with the issue of the pedestrian
walkway in the rear entrance, and believed the final design would
accommodate it. The previous structure was awkward in terms of being
right on top of an automobile when exiting the store. While it was
a public space, there might be something to the suggestion that it
be an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) space. He sympathized
with the notion that the employee's park in the project's own lot,
and while he considered making it a condition, he believed it could
be worked out among the retailers as the two-hour limit began to
be enforced and as business boomed. He thanked the applicant for
the additional effort to make the project a beautiful, much improved
site in the Midtown area. He was sure it would be a stimulus to
the rest of the center. He supported the staff recommendation and
encouraged Council support.
Council Member Wheeler said the proposed rework of the building was
in complete agreement with the agreements reached after many
mornings with the Midtown Working Group, both in terms of
architectural treatment and what was inside the building. There
was quite a stir when the local press reported the use of a very
large portion of the building for office because that was contrary
to the thoughts and agreements reached among the parties that had
taken such an active roll in trying to revitalize Midtown. While
she recognized the business would draw its customers from beyond
the immediate neighborhood, that was true of many businesses within
the Midtown shopping area. Because she worked quite a bit with the
neighbors in the Midtown area last year, she was well aware of how
active and interested the neighbors were in getting involved in the
technological age. Many were interested in having the kinds of
products and services that The KnOwhere Store would provide. The
neighborhood was actively "networking" in the modern technological
way. She believed there would be many neighbors of the particular
use that would be very interested in shopping in the store. It would
draw from its own neighborhood as well as from other parts of the
City.
Council Member Schneider congratulated all of the parties involved.
When the project began, she had a hard time believing anything would
ever come of it because there were so many diverse opinions. There
was discussion about multiple owners of the properties, the neighbors
desires, and what made financial sense. She believed the project
could be used as a beacon for other neighborhoods as a way to work
things out. She was delighted to see Midtown get the boost it had
been needing for a long time.
−268
Council Member Rosenbaum said the Council, the residents, and Mr.
Borock were greatly interested in having as much retail as possible
and were concerned about office uses. The applicant came in with
20,000 square feet of retail and Mr. Borock appealed evidently
correct in his concern that a conditional use permit was required
with more than 15,000 square feet of retail. The problem seemed
to be the applicant did not care to apply for a conditional use permit
to do what everyone said they were interested in. He queried why
not apply for the conditional use permit. He also asked for
clarification of the City Attorney's comments regarding the
precedent.
Mr. Northway said the problem with the use permit was when the item
came up, even moving as quickly as possible to get the application
in, the hearing would not be until March. Not having someone in
the building cost roughly $30,000 per month. Basically, the
decisions were economic ones.
Mr. Calonne clarified the appeal was not really fact-driven. It
was a Code interpretation. The factual issue was identified by staff
on page 9 of the staff report (CMR:132:97), e.g. the uses would be
separated by a wall on the mezzanine, and the architect said there
would be separate access. The question was whether that was
sufficient separation to backup the distinction between office and
retail. What was placed on the record was correct. The process
had been one of trying to avoid a conditional use permit (CUP)
process. From a legal standpoint, he was comfortable with staff's
interpretation. He remembered a similar question being asked with
regards to the Varsity where there was some historic mezzanine area
no one wanted to wall off so the City authorized using materials
to block the area off. The uses appeared to be separated in fact,
so the Code interpretation appeared okay. Typically, when Council
heard an appeal, it was not making any kind of law for the future.
In the subject instance, Council was being asked to ratify a staff
interpretation of the code.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked for more information regarding the
changes in the application. For example, no additional walls were
added in connection with the fact it was only going to be 14,000
square feet of retail. He asked whether it was only an
interpretation or was there a physical change to the building.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
the applicant submitted a modified interior design. The applicant
and staff discussed both the physical separation that would occur
between the retail and office areas as well as the organizational
difference between the areas. While there was one overall company,
there were two different divisions and somewhat related but different
functions. Both aspects were discussed in determining that the
project proposed a legitimate office use both physically and
functionally.
−269
Council Member Kniss said Council had been working toward the Midtown
success story for a long time. She associated with the comments
of Council Member Schneider.
Council Member Eakins clarified the office use represented people
who might want to rent offices.
Ms. Sloan said it was really a management consulting use.
Council Member Eakins clarified it was the same ownership as the
retailer.
Ms. Sloan said that was correct. Both businesses were owned by Matt
and Gail Taylor. One business was the M.G. Taylor Corporation, which
was a management consulting business, and the other business was
The KnOwhere Store.
Council Member Eakins clarified the office use was management
consulting, not how to put tables and printer stands together.
Ms. Sloan said that office use focused somewhat on conceptual ideas
about leadership and forward thinking.
Council Member Eakins clarified the office use was not related to
the furniture and the equipment so people who were not buying
furniture or computer-related equipment would be the likely clients.
While they might be the same clients, one would not have to buy
furniture to utilize the consulting services upstairs. She echoed
the comments of Council Member Wheeler regarding neighborhood versus
destination. It was impractical to consider the project a
neighborhood use only because for many who considered Midtown their
shopping area, they could not walk there in five or ten minutes.
Automobiles would be used to go to and from the shopping area, and
she did not see the question about whether the use was neighborhood
serving, as a useful distinction.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider the recommendation
to accept proposal from Thomas and Kathleen Taylor for an Option
to Purchase the Tower Well Site, 201 Alma Street
Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland said the item transmitted
the proposal submitted in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP)
for an option to purchase the Tower Well site, and the recommendation
of the Tower Well Site Proposal Evaluation Committee that Council
approve the proposal submitted by Thomas and Kathleen Taylor for
a single live/work space and public plaza on the site. The RFP
anticipated that any structural investigation of the tower would
be performed by the optionee following Council award of the option.
−270
However, due to questions raised during the proposal process
concerning the unknown structural conditions of the tower, staff
believed it would be best for both the City and the proposer for
the proposer to undertake structural investigation prior to the award
of the option to purchase. Staff recommended Council approve the
proposal submitted by Thomas and Kathleen Taylor, and direct staff
to negotiate an option to purchase with the Taylors, prepare an
environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Taylor proposal and
return to Council for approval of the EIA and option to purchase.
Roger Kohler, Historic Resources Board (HRB) Member, said the City
Manager's report (CMR:108:97) came out too late for the HRB as a
whole to review the various proposals so he could not comment based
on HRB action. On several occasions the HRB appeared before the
Council and requested the Tower Well site be placed on the historic
inventory and was rejected. The HRB had not looked at the matter
as it was before the Council.
Council Member Fazzino respected Mr. Kohler's strong opinions on
the issue and he communicated them to the Council. On a number of
occasions over the past few months, however, many HRB members, Public
Arts Commissioners, and Planning Commissioners appeared before the
Council as advocates on particular issues or projects that might
also appear before the Commissions or Boards for review. He was
confused about the appropriate role Commissioners and Board Members
played in terms of being advocates or representing the decisions
or recommendations of Boards and Commissions. The issue arose
during the demolition moratorium issue when a number of people from
the HRB spoke as individuals.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne believed there were two pieces of the
issue. The first came up in the fall with the HRB involvement in
the historic demolitions. Staff intended to propose to Council an
ordinance defining incompatible offices or functions for Board or
Commission members. For example, staff would recommend Council
create rules which stated Commissioners or Board Members not solicit
people who came before a Board or Commission to do business with
the City for business in front of their own Board or Commission.
On the political reform side, the law said one could not make or
participate in the making of a decision in which one had a material
financial interest. Certainly, one could not both make a decision
and represent a client at the same time. There was a limited
exception for architects and design professionals who had no one
else to represent a client which allowed them to appear in front
of their own Board. They could not participate in the decision but
they could appear. Generally speaking, the dual participation was
allowed for sole practitioner design professionals. Staff still
needed to address and wanted to recommend that Council ultimately
address the problem of appearances of incompatibility between
representing private clients in certain ways and working on a City
−271
Board or Commission. Obviously, the impact on the applicant pool
was an issue Council would want to consider.
Council Member Fazzino said Mr. Kohler, for example, had been an
effective advocate for a point of view on the particular issue.
Certainly, any citizen, and he assumed even a member of the Planning
Commission or HRB, had a right to appear before the Council and state
a point of view. However, for the community and the Council,
sometimes there was a distinction between the role of an HRB member
or the roles of various members of the Public Arts Commission as
Commissioners and as private citizens which became blurred for both
Council and the public. He asked what was appropriate for an HRB
Member or another Board or Commission member with respect to personal
advocacy as opposed to representation of the Commission on which
he or she served.
Mr. Calonne said it was a value question and he could not say what
was appropriate. He had strong feelings about what appeared
improper, and he would lay them out when staff returned with the
compatibility listing. Council might well defer or feel that more
stringent restrictions were necessary. While staff had been
advising on a case-by-case basis, he knew there had been some
confusion about the sole practitioner exception. The City
Attorney's Office was in a bit of a fix with regard to the HRB
currently in that it was not staffed to advise the HRB yet they were
performing a function with the demolition ordinance which called
for a fair amount of energy. He knew the Council liaisons to the
HRB had been helping on procedural issues.
Mr. Kohler pointed out his personal feelings about the particular
item were tempered by his role on the HRB. Even though he served
on the committee to review the proposals, he was careful to approach
those proposals based on HRB standards and requirements and the City
Council's mandate. He was there that evening because he was the
only one available and his statements would focus on what the HRB
had discussed.
Council Member Kniss said essentially the proposal was to sell the
site and the benefit for the City for doing so.
City Manager June Fleming said whether the Council desired to the
sell the site was a policy issue. The item before the Council was
staff's best response to Council direction. The directions and the
process staff followed would culminate in the sale of the site, but
whether Council wanted to proceed to sell was still an issue for
Council to determine.
Council Member Kniss said when Council sold in the past, it clearly
attempted to maximize its return.
Senior Planner James Gilliland said that was correct.
−272
Council Member Kniss queried the public benefit and roughly the size
of the plaza as compared to the 8,400 square feet represented at
the site.
Ms. Freeland said the public plaza represented 1,500 square feet,
and it was to be improved with public art and possibly some
interpretive elements.
Council Member Kniss presumed the plaza would be accessed only on
foot and that no parking would be provided.
Ms. Freeland said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss clarified the public use was roughly 1,500
square feet of public use from 8,400 square feet overall and
preservation of the tower but not use of it.
Ms. Freeland said that was correct except the ground floor would
be accessible because the use would be a business open to the public.
Council Member Kniss clarified the tower would be protected.
Ms. Freeland said the tower would be protected with a facade easement.
Council Member Kniss said if the tower were turned into a residence
it would fall under the interim regulations for pre-1939 units.
Deputy City Manager Emily Harrison said staff's uncertainty was due
to the structure not being used as a residential structure in the
past.
Ms. Fleming said the structure was not subject to the pre-1939
regulations because it was not a residence, but it would be an issue
if it were converted.
Council Member Kniss clarified the maximum to be returned to the
City monetarily from the sale was roughly $100,000.
Ms. Freeland said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss clarified the benefit to the City for getting
close to one acre of land in the downtown area was roughly $100,000
a 1,500-square-foot public plaza accessed by foot with potential
art work and rehabilitation of the tower. The staff report
(CMR:108:97) indicated the property was appraised several years
prior at roughly $300,000 if it were not encumbered.
Ms. Freeland said that was correct.
Council Member McCown referred to discussion in the staff report
(CMR:108:97) on all the proposals pursuant to the evaluation criteria
of compatibility or consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the
−273
Zoning Ordinance, and the impact of the proposed use in the
neighborhood and the environment, etc. She asked whether
consideration was given by staff to refer the proposal to the Planning
Commission for input on those evaluation criteria.
Ms. Freeland said no.
Council Member McCown asked whether Planning Department staff was
on the evaluation committee.
Ms. Freeland said yes.
Council Member Schneider clarified the ground floor would contain
a business available to the public. She asked what type of business
would be there.
Ms. Freeland said the anticipation was that someone would live
upstairs and operate some type of business downstairs related to
an art, craft, or profession.
Council Member Schneider clarified it would be a commercial or
professional business on the ground floor. The business would
really have nothing to do with the well site.
Ms. Freeland said that was correct.
Council Member Eakins queried who would be responsible for the
maintenance of the public plaza.
Ms. Freeland said the future owner of the property would be
responsible. Performance guarantees would be secured during the
option negotiation period.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the question was whether the
structure, as it currently stood, was subject to the historic
demolition ordinance, and the answer was no. If the structure were
converted, it would be subject to the ordinance. He did not believe
the historic demolition ordinance was a factor.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
Donald Phillips, One Carriage Court, Menlo Park, encouraged Council
to reject the recommendation of the evaluation committee. Council
owed it to the community to use the valuable City asset for a
significant public benefit consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. His proposal converted the water tower into an archive
facility and constructed six rental units. The RFP clearly stated
the City's objectives to satisfy a public need consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The first order priority was to develop a use
which preserved and enhanced the tower without significantly
altering its appearance. If the solution did not require windows,
it would help to preserve the tower's integrity. Using the tower
−274
for archival, historical and family records, photographs, and art
as well as other important documents and records would fulfill a
much needed public benefit and preserve the architectural integrity
of the tower. The architect produced a high-quality, creative
design which provided for an inspired mural on an interior wall which
depicted the contributions and vision of the early founders of Palo
Alto; a commemorative plaque related to installation of the tower.
As in the case of the mural, participation and advice of the HRB
and Public Arts Commission (PAC) would be encouraged. A gallery
would be open to the public. The housing element provided six rental
apartments, including one below-market-rate (BMR) unit, located in
close proximity to the train station. The plan represented a good
example of transit-based housing and was within walking distance
of downtown services and facilities. The project met two major
themes of the Comprehensive Plan, e.g., reducing reliance on the
automobile and increasing the overall supply of rental housing.
It also met the criteria in Program T3 for locating higher density
development along transit corridors.
John Eller, partner, Sandy & Babcock International, Architectural
and Planning, 1349 Larkin Street, San Francisco, said their firm
had worked with Don Phillips to construct in excess of 500 market
rate housing units. They designed their proposed project to make
a positive architectural contribution to the economy and community.
The design intended to create a sense that the development grew
up around and enhanced the existing tower. The tower on each
elevation was the center piece and focus. A recommended minor
modification to the tower was to give the existing dome a tile roof
to bring it into architectural compatibility with the proposed six
units of rental housing. The architecture itself proposed to follow
a Spanish revival theme inspired by the vernacular of Palo Alto
buildings by notable local architect, Birge Clark. Mr. Clark, in
his history, provided University Avenue and a number of other areas
in Palo Alto with his distinguished buildings. The plaster walls,
classic barrel tile roofs, wood details at the balconies, divided
window lights, and french doors enhanced and were reminiscent of
those styles. The plan proposed a single, one-bedroom unit and five,
two-bedroom units. The two-bedroom units were about 1,200 square
feet, and parking was provided for each of the six residential units
at a one-to-one basis and three additional parking spaces to provide
public access to the archive and the reuse of the tower.
Jonathan Carter, 2315 Eastridge Avenue #723, Menlo Park, proposed
converting the Tower Well site into an owner-occupied single-family
residence with minimal physical changes to the property. A one car
garage was proposed on the Hawthorne side of the property. Excessive
landscaping would encompass the rest of the property highlighted
by an art enclave for use as determined by the Public Arts Commission
(PAC). Regarding financing, a covenant on the property would
specify that 25 percent of profits from all future sales would be
donated to the City's Historic Association or the PAC. In terms
−275
of the financial benefit to the City, typically, about 25 percent
of the value of a residential property resided in the land itself.
The plan allowed the City to retain its land interest, defacto,
and an interest in all future appreciation of the property. He
proposed an entirely residential use of the property, and the Taylor
proposal was mixed commercial and rental. The Taylor proposal
called for six additional parking spaces on the Alma side of the
property, and City zoning ordinances called for nine parking spaces
with at least one covered spot. Regarding upkeep, an owner's value
came from the appreciation of the property, and it was in an owner's
best interests to maintain the property in good condition. A
landlord, however, derived value from the property from the rent
it provided, minus the upkeep costs. The idea was to keep rent high
and upkeep costs low to maximize value. All to often, rental
property fell into disrepair as the owner was not motivated to
maintain it. The two proposals also differed in aesthetics. The
Taylor proposal filled over half the Alma facade with public, paved
parking spots. If the City ordinance of nine parking spots were
enforced, over half of the land between the tower and Alma Street
would be allocated to parking. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan
policies set forth on page 2 of the report (CM:108:97), he believed
his proposal was more in line with the City's stated goals. Alma
Street was designated as the City's primary skyline, and goals for
the development of the corridor were outlined. His proposal created
a serene and attractive environment for the Tower Well with 75 to
140 feet of uninterrupted landscaping and greenery commensurate with
the City's guidelines for urban design on Alma Street. He urged
Council's affirmative vote for his proposal.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked for an example of how the City would
receive 25 percent of future profits.
Bernard Carter, 2315 Eastridge Avenue, #723, Menlo Park, said the
formula would be the same as the Internal Revenue Service used as
the basis of a property minus the sales price. As one normally passed
the basis of a property up to the next house, there was a value
established at that time. The 25 percent calculated at that time
would be what went to the PAC or to the Historical Association.
It would be a covenant against the property in perpetuity.
Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma Street, said several years prior, the Council
considered a proposal to develop a single room occupancy (SRO) hotel
on the site, which the Board of Directors at 101 Alma opposed as
incompatible with the adjacent residential area. One year prior,
some limited proposals were entertained, and he stated the best use
for the property would be to preserve it as a park commemorating
the tower for the water utility. While Council Member Kniss
indicated support, no one else did. He had been was attracted to
the Taylor drawings because he believed it was compatible with the
neighborhood, preserved the tower, and gave some commemoration to
the water utility. He knew that a facade type easement worked because
−276
he had gone through it years before with the Squire House and it
worked well. Having read the proposals before the Council, he
supported the Taylor proposal as recommended because of its limited
impact on parking, preservation of the tower, and open space. While
the Carter proposal was interesting, he was unable to find any
drawings on it. He urged approval of the staff recommendation.
Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, represented the Downtown North
Neighborhood Association (DNNA). Downtown Palo Alto experienced
a number of improvements over the past few years, and it looked as
if the pace would continue. Two years prior, the Chamber of Commerce
successfully promoted the color zone parking scheme to improve on
the irritating parking situation Downtown. While things improved
for shoppers, the situation was worse for residents, and now they
were contending with a divisive parking permit system to mitigate
the color zone improvement. Stanford's desire to improve the
traffic flow on Sand Hill Road in order to expand its shopping center
threatened to increase cut-through traffic in the Downtown North
neighborhood, and DNNA was about to wrestle with the defensive tactic
of street barricades. It now appeared the neighborhood needed to
respond to the Tower Well site improvement. He was not sure why
they needed to improve the water tower since it was not bothering
anyone, but there were some development proposals to improve the
site. The DNNA suggested rather than dealing with each of the
improvements on an ad hoc basis, it would help to slow things down
and consider a more inclusive plan. If the water tower became an
office or a house instead of remaining a park, it might be a lost
opportunity to do something beneficial for the much improved
neighborhood. If barricades were determined to be a solution to
keep shopping center traffic out of the neighborhood, perhaps the
water tower site should be part of the scheme. It was important
to determine how the Tower Well site could be improved in such a
way as to make a positive contribution to the surrounding
neighborhood. DNNA recommended final disposition of the Tower Well
site be postponed until the status regarding the Sand Hill Road
project was known and the onslaught of traffic in order to make
an enlightened decision.
Dan Lorimer, 465 Hawthorne Avenue, President of the DNNA, said he
and Tony Badger, past president of DNNA, consistently stated the
tower should be used for a public benefit rather than private gain.
DNNA also believed the City land around the tower could be combined
with a strip of what was now the end of Hawthorne Avenue to form
a park to serve as a buffer from nonlocal traffic. The retracted
proposal from the Foundation for Global Communities seemed best
because the impact of landscaping and the fountain were all positive.
Proposals other than those submitted by Carter and Taylor, were
insulting to the neighborhood and showed no regard for the concerns
of current residents. Both the Carter and Taylor proposals left
the tower substantially in its current condition. The Carter
proposal was best in that there were virtually no changes to the
−277
appearance of the tower and the site. The Taylor plan proposed an
external stair tower, the addition of exterior doors, and a lot of
parking. The first Taylor proposal was probably better in that it
was a single family use. DNNA did not understand why a single family
use needed parking since paving and an out-building would detract
from the tower. Further, both Carter and Taylor responded
positively to the DNNA's desire to close Hawthorne Avenue as part
of the neighborhood traffic control measures. DNNA believed a basis
existed to work with either party where both the private party and
individuals in the neighborhood could win. However, DNNA preferred
that none of the proposals be accepted in their present form that
evening. It should be understood that DNNA did not propose to close
Hawthorne Avenue without protections for the other east and west
streets, but the opportunity presented by the Tower Well site was
unique. Nowhere else in Downtown North could a small park be created
from land already owed by the City. The site could potentially
become both a buffer and a small unique spot to visit. It could
include a rose garden or a fountain as suggested by the Foundation
for Global Community. The site should ideally be developed as a
City and neighborhood asset; e.g., if anything was to be done with
the tower at all, the use should make the tower better from the
standpoint of residents of Palo Alto, particularly those who lived
and worked closest to the tower. Previous suggestions ranged from
an art studio to museum space, and DNNA believed many of those
proposed uses were compatible with the character of Downtown North.
Nevertheless, since the RFP was poorly publicized, most people were
unaware they could have submitted proposals until it was too late.
When people discovered the parcel's proposed sales price of $1,000
to $100,000, they were dumbfounded. It was well known that such
a site could sell for $500,000 based on comparable sales, although
that overlooked the value of the tower. The tower, were it developed
for private use, allowed an unbelievable violation of the daylight
plane. Nowhere could a building of such height be built, and yet
the proposals discounted the value of the building based on the notion
that it might need seismic upgrading. He urged that any plan to
sell the tower be deferred for at least two months while the
neighborhood developed its own proposal and to allow other citizens
of Palo Alto to introduce ideas founded on the notion of community
benefit rather than private gain.
Monty Andersen, Cody, architects, 941 Emerson Street, clarified he
spoke as the architect and not as a member of the HRB. Even though
his relationship with the tower project dated back to 1992, he did
not participate in any discussions and debates at the HRB level on
the issue. In 1992, as a member of the HRB, he was first approached
by George Zimmerman in the Planning Department who knew he was a
member of the Dream Team and familiar with the history of the area.
Mr. Zimmerman showed him the original RFPs which did not mention
the need to preserve the tower. In fact, those proposals made it
the proposers responsibility to haul the debris of the tower away.
He shared that some might consider the tower as symbolic of the
−278
relationship between the City and the founding father's forward
thinking that lead Palo Alto to become one of the first municipalities
in the country to purchase and operate its own utilities, a decision
which still made Palo Alto unique. It was an important enough matter
that it should be discussed at the HRB level. The HRB debated the
matter and twice appeared before the Council to recommend the tower's
inclusion as a category 2 structure on the historic inventory. It
was never acted upon, and the whole issue of the tower was shelved
until such a time as Council's call for unique options which might
be brought forward from the public. The Taylor's answered the
Council's public challenge, and their proposal spurred the new RFP.
His interest in the tower and its preservation lead him to his
involvement with the Taylor's and the development of their proposal.
They discussed many creative options for the use of the tower, and
arrived at a residential type of reuse for several reasons. As an
architect, the adaptive reuse issue of older buildings was often
dealt with. He knew an aggressive program for development would be
at odds with the goal of preserving the tower. An overdeveloped
public use would create many obstacles which would undermine the
ability to keep the basic shape of the tower intact. Eventually,
the low intensity, residentially-oriented proposal was deemed to
be the most appropriate with their preservation goals. The other
aspect of the proposal was the public use aspect. If the tower were
to be saved, then something needed to be done to educate people as
to why it was an important symbol in the community. With the
centennial of the Utilities Department only a year away, the
interpretive aspect of the public plaza and its ability to educate
people would be unique. Whatever happened with the tower would
require a unique vision which should be balanced with the
preservation of the tower. Putting the tower into the Taylor's hands
would be placing a unique project into the hands of people with
demonstrated abilities to carry off such an undertaking while serving
what he believed should be the City's goals of preservation and
education. The Taylor's put considerable effort into their planning
and assembled a dedicated group of people with specific talents and
abilities capable of pulling the project together. Such projects
required intensive planning and development. Since the City had
not indicated a desire to take over the stewardship role of the
property, the best approach would be to put the property in the hands
of people who would. Benign neglect was not preservation.
Council Member Kniss clarified the bottom floor was a studio and
meant to be accessed by the public which was the reason for the six
parking spots.
Mr. Andersen said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss queried whether the studio was to be used by
the applicant or rented out to someone.
Mr. Andersen believed the idea was that whoever ran the retail aspect
of the tower would theoretically live above.
−279
Council Member Kniss clarified the studio was not meant for the
Taylors to live in but rather to be developed by them.
Mr. Andersen deferred to the Taylors for response.
Council Member Kniss presumed the second floor was not a living area.
Mr. Andersen said the second floor was sandwiched in between the
bottom and upper floors and it was very difficult to get light into
it. The aspects of storage and dark room were put on that level
because they did not require the need for light. By putting the
living area up on the top, light could be brought down through the
center of the structure.
Council Member Kniss clarified the living area looked essentially
like a studio apartment.
Mr. Andersen said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss clarified the studio apartment was meant for
one or two people.
Mr. Andersen said that was correct. He deferred the actual use
aspect to the Taylors.
Council Member Kniss heard the concern of the neighborhood and the
number of cars.
Ronjon Nag, 204 Cowper Street, was somewhat surprised to read about
the development and how inexpensive it was to actually get into the
site. He queried how ordinary people could be part of such
attractive developments. The specific benefit was not clear to him,
and he was surprised that one could get 8,400 square feet of land
for $100,000. If the project were delayed and the opportunity was
available to everyone, he believed a lot more proposals would be
brought forward. He believed there was some merit in delaying the
decision. If the tower structure itself held water, he imagined it
was very strong and the need for seismic upgrades would be limited.
Council Member Fazzino said he was a Downtown North resident and
was sensitive to the issue of lack of communication. He asked
whether Mr. Nag was aware of the extensive conversations with Mr.
Badger a year or so prior regarding the proposals before the Council
at that time and the possibility of the neighborhood developing a
proposal.
Mr. Nag said no. He did not believe the Palo Alto Weekly was
sufficient. He believed there were more efficient ways to use the
computer.
−280
Council Member Fazzino said the Downtown North neighborhood, through
Tony Badger, was extensively involved in the issue the first time
around.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:30 P.M. - 9:40 P.M.
The City Council met in a Closed Session to discuss matters involving
existing litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 3 and 4.
Mayor Huber announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda
Item Nos. 3 and 4.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by
Rosenbaum, to bring forward Item No. 7 for the purpose of opening
the Public Hearing, and continue the hearing to the March 3, 1997,
City Council Meeting.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the
Zoning Administrator’s decision for a Conditional Use Permit
96-UP-5, allowing live entertainment, including music and
dancing, at an existing restaurant (Q-Billiards), located at 529
Alma Street
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0.
ITEM NO. 6 CONTINUED
Tim Gray, 1670 Virginia Avenue, said while he submitted a proposal
for the Tower Well site, he spoke as an advocate of the arts and
public benefit. The public facility zoning, could be honored in
principal by sharing public use of the structure grounds. If sold,
the buyer was not simply a purchaser, but was assigned a stewardship
of public trust to assure public benefit. His proposal was
approximately 6,000 square feet of outdoor space and 900 square feet
of indoor space fully dedicated to the public use in the form of
a neighborhood inn, e.g., one housing unit and ten affordable
neighborhood inn units. His proposal would generate more than
$30,000 per year in lodging tax, reduce congestion as people staying
would not have to drive and park Downtown, and people staying Downtown
would more likely take a taxi or train. Short- term housing or
lodging was truly a public benefit and relatively more scarce than
housing or public parks. He requested that public benefit be defined
by impact on the broader community versus any narrowly defined
constituency. The Downtown North neighborhood had paid its pound
of flesh in the urbanization of Palo Alto. While he sympathized
with their needs, he believed whatever use was defined for the Tower
Well site should include some art space.
Natalie Wells, 3259 Alma Street, Co-Chair, Public Art Commission
said PAC, one week prior at its regular meeting, heard the proposal
by Tom Taylor. PAC supported the public plaza concept with the
−281
inclusion of public art and recommended a fuller involvement by the
PAC in the process of selecting the public art.
Vice Mayor Andersen said Council had received a letter stating that
the PAC agreed it could support Mr. Taylor's proposal provided the
applicant could fulfill all the conditions required of public art
elements. He asked for clarification.
Ms. Wells said the conditions included a full participation by the
PAC in selecting the artist and the art work to be included in the
plaza.
Vice Mayor Andersen queried whether Mr. Taylor had already indicated
an artist.
Ms. Wells said that was correct. The PAC believed the presentation
on the artist and his work was incomplete.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether the artist would be involved in
a competitive process.
Ms. Wells said that was one possibility, or other artists could be
presented with fuller documentation of the artist's work.
Vice Mayor Andersen clarified whether it was the artist the PAC
questioned, not the process by which they would be selected. He
queried to what extent the particular artist was “off-the-shelf”
by the PAC.
Ms. Wells said the artist selection was not accepted.
Council Member Eakins asked whether the City could require approval
of the PAC for public art with the "benefit package."
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said yes. As a proprietor, the City
could place whatever conditions a seller would.
Russell Hancock, 3348 St. Michael Drive, favored the Taylor proposal.
To do nothing amounted to an endorsement of the current condition
of the sight which should be unacceptable. Those who desired to
do nothing should be required to show how the City would benefit
and who would maintain the site. City staff spent countless hours
on the subject. To do nothing would squander the investment of
person hours, and the City would have to continue to revisit the
situation. If Council did nothing, it should at least allocate
enough money to make the site more safe and attractive because no
one would stand for the present condition of the property in their
own neighborhood.
Tim Schmalbeck, 745 Christine Drive, believed the Tower Well site
was an attractive nuisance. Recently, many young people became
aware of the presence of the site, and at the top of the 76-foot
tower they could drink and smoke with no fear of being caught. The
−282
ladder up the backside might look intimidating to many adults, but
to teens it was an opportunity or a challenge. The ivy stopped
abruptly at the ladder due to the constant pruning by those who
climbed up the backside. There was graffiti on the top east side.
Someone climbed to the top, hung over, and painted their name.
There was also graffiti on the right side of the front door. There
had been a well-preserved trespassing sign on the property since
the 1920's which was stolen within the past two months. The recent
publicity had brought negative attention to the site. He cautioned
Council to make haste in making a decision because the site could
not afford to be left alone. The tower could be saved through the
public/private partnership and simultaneously decrease the City's
liability and increase the City's attractiveness. The potentially
dangerous nuisance could be turned into an attractive landmark.
Council Member Schneider understood there had not been any police
reports of problems at the site.
City Manager June Fleming checked with the Police Department and
was told they did receive occasional calls to the site. The calls
were usually about people using the tower for some activities but
not to the extent described by Mr. Schmalbeck.
Council Member Schneider asked whether it was necessary to put
additional patrols in the area if what Mr. Schmalbeck said was
correct.
Mr. Schmalbeck suggested that if someone resided in the tower or
the tower was being worked on, it might discourage teens from climbing
on or defacing it.
Council Member Schneider said from what she heard from the Police
Department, she was not sure the activity reported by Mr. Schmalbeck
was actually occurring. She clarified the City Manager was
comfortable with the protection at the site and that it was not a
public nuisance.
Ms. Fleming was not prepared to respond to that specific question,
but she did not need further direction from Council to address
whatever issue might be there. She did not anticipate additional
resources would be needed to take care of the problem.
Franz Busse, 2389 Amherst Street, supported Tom Taylor's proposal
for use of the water tower. In terms of the possibility of a park,
the Taylor's worked on their proposal for well over a year, and no
one had stepped forward with a park project. Bowden Park was 90,000
square feet, whereas the Tower Well site was only 8,400 square feet.
The play space at Bowden Park was 100 feet back from the street
while the entire depth of the Tower Well site was 112 feet. Large
trees separated Alma Street from the play area in Bowden Park which
the Tower Well site did not have. Clearly, the tower Well site was
−283
not an ideal park location. He urged moving forward with the Taylor
proposal.
Tom Taylor 123 Sherman Avenue, said the Tower Well site had seen
a fair amount of garbage accumulate, and some of the $90 per month
the City spent on maintaining the site was in its removal. The
primary benefit of their proposal was the actual preservation of
the tower. A lot had been made of the monetary contribution versus
preservation. There was a real trade off. In 1992, Council decided
not to tear the tower down and not to maximize the financial gain
made by selling it. If Council wanted to revisit that decision,
the return on the property could be maximized by bulldozing the tower
and auctioning the lot. It was worth a lot more money without the
tower on it. With the tower, one was really looking at a restricted
development. Their proposal contained about 2,000 square feet which
drove the value of the property and what they were able to offer
for it. The broader and larger the development, the more one could
pay for it. While he believed the Phillips' proposal with six
attractive residential units was an overdevelopment of the site,
it would probably bring a lot more money, yet Mr. Phillips offered
the same amount for the property as the Taylors. A public plaza
on the site was much more beneficial than a park. He believed the
tower access, limited though it might be, in a live/work environment
would be far greater than it was currently. Currently, the only
people who could gain access to the property were those who made
an appointment and went to it. Their proposal offered a budget
for art while other proposals provided space for it. The size of
the budget was equal to that of the huge Hobach installation on
Sheridan and Park. Hobach was allocating about $30,000, and if one
included the entire plaza, theirs was over $60,000 for art and City
contribution. One of the concepts put forward by the PAC was to
reassess the artist. In a forum called "Art in Architecture," the
committee advocated selecting an artist at the time the project team
was put together. He picked an architect and selected an artist,
and they had been working together for almost 18 months on different
proposals. He requested Council respect that process and allow the
creative team which put the project together to continue. He urged
support for the proposal.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked who would maintain the public plaza.
Mr. Taylor said he and Kathleen Taylor would maintain the plaza at
their expense, and he assumed extension of the existing facade
easement would include language to that effect.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked how the obligation would continue
if the Taylors wanted to sell the property.
Mr. Taylor said all the facade easements continued in perpetuity.
−284
Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether that was also true for
maintenance of the public plaza.
Mr. Taylor said that was correct. The facade easement was very
specific about how the building was to be maintained. If the City
did not believe the easement was being maintained properly, it could
either do the repair itself or have someone else do it and bill the
owner.
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that the staff report
(CMR:108:97) indicated the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) required
nine parking spaces; yet, the proposal reflected six parking spaces.
Mr. Taylor had spoken with Manager, Planning Projects Jim Gilliland
who originally believed the first two floors were the commercial
portion of the mixed use space, whereas only the ground floor could
be considered commercial because of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) restrictions. The second floor was residential, storage,
etc., and as such, he believed six was the correct number of parking
spaces.
Manager, Planning Projects Jim Gilliland said Mr. Taylor was correct.
When the preliminary zoning checks on all the proposals were done,
he assumed the second floor would be a part of the studio, which
was at a different requirement. If the second floor was part of
the residence only, then the parking requirement was six spaces.
Council Member Rosenbaum said staff was particularly happy with the
Carter proposal to have some percentage of future sales go to the
City, and he queried whether Mr. Taylor would consider such a
proposal.
Mr. Taylor said his proposal put money up front and invested in the
plaza and the art, which he believed was a good contribution. The
Carters were not offering any up front benefits but rather something
down the line. He would not be adverse to accepting the staff
recommendation, but felt it would be somewhat disingenuous to tout
it as a real public benefit in that it was not their intention to
develop and sell the property quickly.
Council Member Kniss clarified the Taylor's intent was not to live
in the property.
Mr. Taylor said their desire was to live in the property, and they
submitted two proposals. One proposal was for their residence, and
one was a conservative application for the building which required
the least amount of change. The proposal before the Council met
the goals enunciated by Council and preserved and used the tower
productively. They would not live in the property until possibly
−285
after their children were grown, but a life/work space was very
attractive to him and his wife.
Council Member Kniss clarified the Taylor's intent was to develop
the site and rent it.
Mr. Taylor said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss referred to page 15 of the staff report
(CMR:108:97). The monetary consideration to the City under Option 1
was $1,000 to $100,000. She presumed the Taylors would subtract
out their own costs and the City would get the remainder.
Mr. Taylor said the intent was to "risk share" with the community.
The $100,000 mark was the same offered by Don Phillips and twice
that offered by the Carter proposal. While he had sufficient
resources to do the project assuming all went well, his fear was
if they got into the project and realized the retrofitting was very
expensive. If he was unable to afford the retrofitting and complete
the project, it would be a no-win situation for the community and
for him. He sought to include a provision where he would allocate
enough funds in order to give something to the City and be able to
cover the risk. For example, in another rehabilitation of a 1957
concrete tilt-up warehouse, the structural assessment indicated
$2,500, and the retrofitting cost another $2,000. While the Tower
Well site was a building of incredible strength, historically, there
were a lot of examples where under tests and current code, many things
needed to be done regardless of the physical strength of the building.
He was really looking at what was needed to meet the building
requirements set forth by the City. Some of the structural engineers
had spoken to said a steel and concrete member inside would be
required and the best way to accomplish that was the floor.
Janet Freeland asked whether the floor was then a deduction and the
improvement was made at the City's expense. He needed a floor.
The delta was what was required to maintain the building, what a
floor cost, and what a structurally reinforced steel and concrete
floor cost. He paid for the floor.
Council Member Kniss clarified overall the City would not receive
more than $100,000.
Mr. Taylor said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss said the City would receive something between
$1,000 and $100,000, depending upon what was discovered when the
property was developed.
Mr. Taylor said it depended upon what the structural engineer
discovered and recommended and what the building code required.
It would not be his personal decision.
−286
Council Member Kniss said the goal was to benefit the public. The
question was the amount of money the City received and secondarily,
the public benefit. She estimated the public benefit was a
relatively small public plaza which would have some art on it, but
no benches were proposed.
Mr. Taylor did not know whether the plaza was an attractive place
to sit.
Council Member Kniss clarified the tower would be rented out for
some period of time, and Mr. Taylor and his wife might live there
in 20 years.
Mr. Taylor said that was correct.
Council Member Schneider asked how much it would cost to develop
the parcel.
Mr. Taylor said a ballpark figure was somewhere between $267,000
and $375,000. One of the largest unknowns was the structural
requirements.
Council Member Schneider asked about the ability to get financing
for such a project.
Mr. Taylor said it could be difficult. One of the main hurdles was
insurance. Several insurance agents rejected him. The financing
would probably be private, and he was confident he could raise it.
He needed to pursue the insurance further; there were high risk
carriers.
Katy Taylor, 123 Sherman Avenue, appreciated the recommendation for
the life/work space proposal, and believed it was a good blend of
their former proposal and the City's desire to keep the tower as
unchanged as possible. Six criteria were used for the evaluation
of the project and their proposal met or exceeded the needs of the
City in those areas: 1) Public Benefit. Due to the live/work nature
of the project, there would be public access to the tower, and their
plaza proposal included art. Other proposers allowed a space for
art. The proposal also included interpretive elements to inform
the public why the tower was worth preserving. Although listed as
a separate item, the preservation of the tower was a public benefit;
2) Tower Preservation. Their proposal offered the fewest changes.
Other proposals would paint, tile or cut new windows into the tower;
3) City goals. The larger projects were grossly underparked and
would negatively impact the neighborhood with both parking and
traffic; 4) Neighborhood and community impact. Positive site
improvement, minimal traffic and parking impact were key elements
of their proposal. The larger projects would have a detrimental
impact on the area with insufficient parking and increased traffic.
They contacted the DNNA and were willing to work with them in the
−287
development of the project; 5) Proposer's ability to carry out the
project. They had worked on similar projects and converted
industrial and commercial spaces to residential properties. It was
something they enjoyed doing and saw it as a family project; and
6) Monetary considerations to the City. They offered a sliding scale
based on the unforeseeable risks that might be associated with the
project. Based on the low level of development, they could not offer
to pay more than what was proposed. She urged approval of their
proposal.
Trevor Southey, 69 Belcher Street, San Francisco, said he was the
artist the Taylor's had been talking with for the past 18 months.
He was excited about the history of the tower and had been toying
with ideas that would directly address the history, the original
settlers, and their experience with water. His idea was to take
existing ingredients off the site, particularly fragments possibly
from some of the pipes that were part of the original workings of
the tower, and incorporate them into a figurative piece of sculpture.
His background was extensive in public work, and he offered his
references. He worked with people, he did not arrogantly attempt
to persuade or insist that his view was the way it should be. Art
was a people experience and not his experience to be imposed on
others. Naturally, he preferred to do work which reflected his
history and background. He volunteered to present to the Council
and the PAC his background, the kinds of works he completed, and
allow input on the ideas he would present.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed.
Council Member Rosenbaum said as an owner of City property, he did
not know how to evaluate Mr. Taylor's offer. He asked whether the
City would hire an appraiser to determine whether the City was getting
fair value based on what was being proposed.
Deputy City Manager Emily Harrison said although Mr. Taylor's
proposal was probably much more developed than others, they would
probably need more definitive information than what they currently
had. They had a value, as Council Member Kniss pointed out, which
was somewhat dated for the land itself absent the tower which could
be updated. To a certain extent, they needed to depend on Mr.
Taylor's estimates for what his development would be.
Council Member Rosenbaum believed a knowledgeable appraiser could
say how much the land was worth based on what was being proposed,
and the income from the development taking the expenses of developing
the property into account.
Ms. Harrison believed if they were restricting it to the Taylor
proposal, they probably could.
−288
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve the proposal submitted by Thomas and Kathleen Taylor for
a live/work space and public plaza on the site and direct staff to
negotiate an option to purchase with the Taylors, prepare an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Taylor proposal, and
return to Council for approval of the EIA and option to purchase.
Council Member Fazzino said the Tower Well site issue was not new
for most of the Council, and he appreciated the spirit with which
the proposals were offered. There were some innovative ideas, but
on balance, the Taylor proposal had a low impact on the site, best
preserved the public space and the historic tower, and provided art
which was an important objective. The Taylor proposal was also
consistent with what he hoped would be done in the near future with
respect to traffic calming in the Downtown area, which was an
important objective. If Council wanted to maximize profits on the
site, it could move forward to sell the property, lose the historic
flavor of the site, and create a much greater impact on the
neighborhood. The City ignored the property for so many years, and
he was fascinated that suddenly the tower had become the most
wonderful historic site in town. Where was the Council over the
years when the proposals to designate the Tower Well as a historic
structure were rejected, or even six or seven months ago when two
Council Members argued strenuously that the site had no historic
value. The Tower Well was a precious historic site, and unless
Council accepted a creative proposal which involved the private
sector, he was convinced within three weeks time once the speeches
given that night were past, the property would be ignored once again.
He was amused that some characterized the site as a park because
it looked more like the back lot of a supermarket. The property
would suffer from benign neglect unless Council took immediate action
to turn things around. While the degree to which the property was
an attractive public nuisance had not been established, there was
no argument that something needed to be done. Interest was also
expressed in waiting a couple of months and looking at other
proposals. Council went through the process three or four times,
and he was ready to act. The Taylor proposal best met Council's
objectives, and he encouraged support.
Vice Mayor Andersen agreed the proposal provided a low impact way
of making the tower something the City could be proud of and a
community benefit. He offered friendly amendment to the motion.
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER
that 10 percent of the profit of future sales be contributed to the
City of Palo Alto for the purposes of public art, and that the public
art as proposed by the applicant and his artist be reviewed by the
Public Art Commission.
Vice Mayor Andersen associated completely with the comments of
Council Member Fazzino regarding the benefits to the community as
well as the fact that it was time to take action. The decision to
−289
sell the property, along with other sites, was made in 1988.
Clearly, if Council wanted to maximize profits for the City, it would
tear town the tower and sell the property. While many people in
the community wanted to see the tower preserved, he doubted the City
wanted to get into the business of paying the kinds of expenses
necessary to maintain the Tower Well site in some real way. Through
the combinations of the private sector and the City, the opportunity
existed for low use and public benefit. He urged support for the
motion.
Council Member Kniss still favored the status quo. It presently
cost the City roughly $60 per month, and to turn the property into
a park or someplace attractive, it would have to allocate a small
amount more and plant several small bushes or trees. Nothing had
been done to the site by the City because it was designated as a
well site to be sold. She believed the property still represented
a fine example of history in the Palo Alto community. The Tower
Well site commemorated the City's utilities, and a good deal of water
was safely stored there. Clearly, the Taylors ideas were excellent.
Her job was to deliver to the City a fair price for something such
as the Tower Well site, and $1,000 to $100,000, and probably closer
to the $50,000, was a very small amount. The property would be
developed, and even though there was some risk, eventually there
would be some profit. She confessed that she and Council Member
Wheeler enjoyed time at the property the day before and saw no
shopping carts nor debris. She was surprised to hear of the site
being an attractive nuisance, of climbs to the top of the Tower,
and people potentially falling down. If that were the case, the
police should be made aware of it. Even though Council Member
Fazzino said the Downtown North neighborhood was very involved, she
was concerned that several from the neighborhood indicated they had
not heard about the process. Somehow simply leaving land open in
Palo Alto had become very unpopular. She opposed the motion, and
urged the status quo.
Council Member Eakins did not have the years of history other Council
Members had and was not worn down by it. She agreed the Taylor
proposal was a low impact one, and she liked seeing Council preserve
something that was genuinely old instead of continually building
imitation old things. She was concerned the continuing care of the
plaza area be safeguarded. A plaza should be walkable and a place
where one could sit as well. It should all be part of the art design.
According to the motion, the public area would be purchased for
a token and the trade-off was preserving the tower. While the PAC
was being asked to work with the artist, she was concerned the PAC
have adequate strength in its review position in case the artist's
proposals were inadequate according to the standards of the PAC.
She had strong views about the PAC's position being sufficiently
strong if it did not have a chance to have a competition, which was
usually the case with public ground. She was not sure how that should
be conditioned.
−290
Vice Mayor Andersen believed there was a spirit of collegiality and
cooperation from the applicant and the PAC. He anticipated by
working together they could improve upon the proposals through the
use of the PAC. He suspected if they could not agree, they would
return to the Council. He queried the type of "hammer" Council
Member Eakins envisioned.
Council Member Eakins said there would have to be agreement, and
if that could not occur, then the PAC could open the work to a
competition.
Ms. Fleming said if the motion went forward as it stood, the project
would have to go through a number of review bodies. Included were
the Architectural Review Board (ARB), HRB, and the PAC. Those bodies
would submit a recommendation to the Council on which final action
would be taken.
Mr. Calonne said while it was not a public art program, the PAMC
was explicit that Council had distanced itself from matters involving
art.
Council Member Fazzino did not want the Council to sit in judgment
of public art. Council had a group of experts and artists, and he
had no problem handing over the responsibility for the public art
component to the PAC and having them deal with it. Council would
obviously have final review if it wanted, but he preferred to have
the recommendation come from the PAC. If the PAC could not work
out an agreement with the Taylors and the proposed artist, he believed
it was entirely appropriate to suggest someone else.
Ms. Fleming said it was clear in the history and in the record that
Council did not involve itself in making decisions about pieces of
art. When the project returned to the Council, if there was a
recommendation Council did not like from the PAC or one where they
had not reached agreement, Council did not have to make the decision.
Council could simply send the project back. PAC's review would
be included without any modification to the motion.
Council Member Fazzino understood but believed Council Member
Eakins' point was important. As originally stated, the motion
assumed the Taylors would select the artist period.
Vice Mayor Andersen said the intent of his friendly amendment was
to simply allow the current team to continue to work on the project
and be reviewed by the PAC. Council would return to square one if
the PAC could not agree on the art. Square one was if disagreement
was placed before the Council and Council would in turn return the
matter to the PAC with instructions to rebid the matter. He saw
no question but that the PAC would be the final judge.
−291
Council Member Eakins said the PAC's view was that generally stronger
proposals and a better result were achieved with a competition than
with just one artist. In the absence of a competition which would
be the PAC's preference, what the City Manager explained about the
process was an adequate safeguard. She did not believe anything
more needed to be added.
Council Member Wheeler said in June 1996, when Council discussed
the RFP, she did not join with Council Member Kniss. She was dejected
at that point about the care the City had taken with the piece of
property, and with Council's attitude about the historic merit of
the property or lack thereof. At that time, she supported the RFP
because she was curious what the private sector could do to preserve
the tower more reasonably than what the City seemed willing to do.
In the meantime, the community expressed to Council how it felt
about the issue of historic preservation and the retention of the
character of the City. Council and the community received an
increased education about the values and merits of historic
preservation, and if they were back at that original discussion,
she hoped Council might come out in a different place with regard
to the status of the subject property. As part of the RFP response,
Council saw that the tower and its retention or development into
something useful to the private sector was as burdensome to the
private sector as it seemed to have been to the City. She could
not, however, reconcile accepting a figure perhaps as low as $1,000
for the property in exchange for retaining the tower when the bare
piece of property was worth a minimum of $500,000. She could not
make that square with the way she believed she needed to represent
the community nor with how she saw her fiduciary responsibility to
the community. She would like to see the tower remain and to see
the City invest a little more than $60 per month and make the corner
at least presentable. She suggested to the Downtown North
neighborhood representatives that if the property remained in public
hands, it might be an opportunity for the neighbors and community
members to get involved with the resources of the "Palo Alto Together"
program to fix up the site without expending a lot of monetary
resources. She would be glad to help with the neighborhood on such
a proposal. She opposed the motion. She appreciated not only the
Taylor's proposal, but everyone else who took the time and gave the
thought and effort into responding to the RFP to preserve the tower.
While she opposed the motion, she agreed the tower should to be
preserved.
Council Member Schneider commended all the applicants for their
proposals and staff for its many hours. Back in June 1996, when
Council had its public hearing regarding an option to purchase the
Tower Well site, she voted for the RFP, but what she had in mind
was not what she received in the proposals. She anticipated
something like an historic archive but without housing. She
envisioned something from which the community would truly derive
benefit. She was further taken by the comments by Mr. Griffin and
Mr. Lorimer regarding their neighborhood. It was their
−292
neighborhood, and as Council Member Wheeler indicated, there was
a great opportunity for the neighborhood to get together and do
something with the site. In June 1996, she was probably one of the
strongest voices that did not believe the site had any historical
significance and favored tearing it down and putting up a parking
lot. Her views had changed since then. She believed the Tower Well
site belonged in the hands of the City and that it truly had historical
value. The property did not belong in the private sector. With
a few dollars and elbow grease, they could do something with the
site and with the tower to make it truly of public benefit that
everyone in the community could enjoy. She would oppose the motion.
Council Member McCown said having read the material and listened
to the proposers as well as the neighborhood, she was not comfort-
able the Taylor proposal provided the public benefits which were
the purpose of embarking on the RFP. She believed the proposal from
Mr. Phillips was very well done and conceptually had many more of
the public benefits one might look for. It proposed a total public
use of the tower, a number of new housing units very near to transit
on one of the City's major arterials and with all the parking provided
for those units. While the number might not be right, she was not
persuaded the Phillips proposal was scrutinized the way it might
be if Council was really going to consider it. If, after scrutiny
and participation by the neighborhood, she did not know whether some
adjustments might be possible. In any event, if Council were
pursuing a private/public use of the site, and through the option
process if Council were truly committing to a further investment
of time, she would be much more interested in pursuing it through
the Phillips kind of concept than through the Taylor concept. Yet,
she was not prepared to recommend it either. When Council talked
about the matter the time before last, it was clear it was not going
to be initiating anything, but rather seeing what came out. There
were three ideas last year which caused Council to go ahead with
the RFP. Council knew, when the RFP was approved, that it was
somewhat neutral about what it would get back or how it would be
evaluated. She regretted that people invested a lot of time, but
at that point she would not support the staff recommendation or the
motion on the floor. If the motion failed, it gave the neighborhood
a chance to become proactive, and she encouraged them to do so for
the reasons others put forward.
Council Member Rosenbaum supported the motion for the reasons stated
by Council Member Fazzino. He offered a friendly amendment to secure
an appraisal of the property and negotiate a sales price of the land
based on the expected revenue and the cost of the development.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked what Council Member Rosenbaum hoped to
achieve through the process.
−293
Council Member Rosenbaum said his intention was to provide some
assurance to the Council that the offer by Mr. Taylor was indeed
reasonable.
MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that staff
be directed to secure an appraisal of the property.
Mayor Huber supported the motion for the same reasons he supported
going out to an RFP in June 1996. He did not believe the City was
going to put any money into the project, and it would be a question
of benign neglect forever. Structurally the tower needed some work;
and while the Taylor proposal might not be the best in the world,
it was reasonable and would provide the City with a substantial tower
that would stand.
MOTION FAILED 4-5, Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss “yes.”
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 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.