HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-05 City Council (13)City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Summary Rep r
9
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
AGENDA DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1996 CMR: 133:96
SUBJECT:PROPOSED CONCEPTS FOR USE OF THE TOWER WELL
SITE
REQUEST:
This report transmits three proposal concepts for use of the Tower Well site, located at the
comer of Alma Street and Hawthorne Avenue in Palo Alto, and requests Council direction
concerning these proposals. The proposal concepts, which were presented unsolicited to
staff, are: 1) a proposal by Tom and Katy Taylor to purchase the site for use as a single
family residence and public plaza, with the tower to be preserved; 2) a proposal by Steve
Ogburn to purchase or lease the site (preserving the tower) for a mixed use combining office
and residential use; and 3) a-proposal by Wayne Swan to use the site for apartments
especially suited for people without vehicles.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff feels that the Taylor proposal warrants Council consideration to determine if the
concept meets Council’s criteria for a beneficial use of the site. The proposal by Mr. and
Mrs. Taylor is a different use concept from those previously proposed for the Tower Well
site; it is free of some of the problems previous proposals had with parking, traffic and
intensity of development on this small site, and it preserves the tower. Although the proposal
does not satisfy the identified public needs called out in the previous Request for Conceptual
Proposals (RFCP), it is possible that the proceeds of the sale of the site could be dedicated
to one of those needs.
Staff therefore recommends that:
ao If Council wishes to pursue the concept set forth in the proposal by Mr. and
Mrs. Taylor, staff be directed to prepare an RFP. for an option to purchase the
CMR:133:96 Page 1 of 11
site for use and development as proposed or as directed by Council, and return
to Council for approval of the RFP; or
bo If Council does not wish to pursue any of the proposed use concepts for the
Tower Well site, staff be directed to continue the status quo, i.e., maintaining
the site as is, pending more appropriate uses to emerge.
The Ogbum and Swan proposal concepts are similar to previous proposals, which were
received in response to the RFCP and which were rejected by Council.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
If Council directs staff to prepare an RFP for the site which would accommodate the proposal
by Mr. and Mrs. Taylor (or others which might be submitted in response to the RFP), the new
RFP would differ from the previous RFCP in terms of: 1) encouraging preservation of the
tower; 2) recognizing that public benefit may be provided through direct use of the site
and!or through dedication of the proceeds from the sale of the site to an identified public
need; and 3) recognizing single family use as an appropriate use of the site.
The current zoning of the Tower Well site is PF (Public Facilities) and the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designation is Regional Community Commercial. The Taylor proposal
includes changing the zoning to PC (Planned Community Zone District), which was
encouraged in the previous RFCP. The Taylor proposal is consistent with Comprehensive
Plan Housing and Historic Preservation policies and programs. The most relevant housing
policies are Policy 3, Program 4: Use the Zoning Ordinance, other codes, and specific plans
to maintain high quality neighborhoods; Policy 7, Program 17: Evaluate commercial and
industrial properties with the intention of rezoning to housing where appropriate; and Policy
14: Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial and industrial areas. The relevant
policy concerning historic preservation is Urban Design Policy 2: Encourage private
preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural merit or both.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On February 21, 1993, the City Council passed a motion rejecting the three conceptual
proposals which had been received in response to the City’s RFCP for the Tower Well site.
Since that time, staff has continued to maintain the site and respond to inquiries from the
public concerning its status. Recently, Tom and Katy Taylor have come forward with a
proposed concept for use of the site which differs from the previously proposed uses and
which staff felt should be brought before the Council for consideration. This concept is a
proposal to purchase the site for use and development as a single family residence and public
plaza, with the tower to be preserved. Following newspaper publicity regarding this
CMR:133:96 Page 2 of 11
proposal, two additional proposed concepts for use of the site have been submitted. These
concepts, which are more similar to uses previously proposed for the site, are: a proposal to
purchase or lease the site (preserving the tower) for a mixed use combining office and
residential use; and a proposal to use the site for apartments especially suited for people
without vehicles. This report summarizes and discusses these three proposed concepts and
requests Council direction concerning proceeding with the proposed concepts for use.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None, at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Any environmental assessment required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) would be performed in conjunction with Council’s approval an option to purchase
or lease the site.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachmem A (site information)
Attachment B (Tower Well RFCP Criteria).
Taylor Proposal
Ogburn Proposal
Swan Proposal
Letter to Council from the Historic Resources Board
Letter to Tom Taylor from Public Arts Commission
CMR:133:96 Page 3 of 11
PREPARED BY: Janet Freeland, Senior Financial Analyst
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
Deputy City Manager,
Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
:er
CC:Tower Well Site Subcommittee Mailing List
Tom and Katy Taylor
Encino Design
Wayne Swan
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Palo Alto Community Child Care
Carrasco & Associates
Historic Resources Board
Related CMR’s: CMR:324:93, CMR:167:92, CMR:290:91, CMR:289:91, CMR:545:0,
CMR:374:0, CMR:351:0, CMR:497:9, CMR:267:8, CMR:162:94
CMR:133:96 Page 4 of 11
City of Palo Alto
C ty. Manager’s Report
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONCEPTS FOR USE OF THE TOWER WELL SITE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff feels that Mr. and Mrs. Taylor’s proposal warrants Council consideration to determine
if the concept meets Council’s criteria for a beneficial use of the site. The proposal by Mr.
and Mrs. Taylor is a different use concept from those previously proposed for the Tower
Well site; it is free of some of the problems previous proposals had with parking, traffic and
intensity of development on this small site, and it preserves the tower. Although the proposal
does not satisfy the identified public needs called out in the previous RFCP, it is possible that
the proceeds of the sale of the site could be dedicated to one of those needs.
Staff recommends that:
If Council wishes to pursue the concept set forth in the proposal by Mr. and
Mrs. Taylor, staff be directed to prepare an RFP for an option to purchase the
site for use and development as proposed or as directed by Council, and return
to Council for approval of the RFP; or
bo If Council does not wish to pursue any of the proposed use concepts for the
Tower Well site, staff be directed to continue the status quo, i. e., maintaining
the site as is pending more appropriate uses to emerge.
The Ogbum and Swan proposal concepts are similar to previous proposals which were
received in response to the RFCP and which were rejected by Council.
BACKGROUND:
In 1988, Council approved a staff recommendation to abandon and dispose of four of the
City’s ten wells, including the Tower Well, an 8,437 square foot site located at the comer of
Alma Street and Hawthorne Avenue (see Attachment A for site information). On June 11,
1990, the City Council considered the recommendation of the Single-Room Occupancy
Committee to commit the Tower Well site for a new single-room occupancy (SRO)
development and referred the recommendation to the Planning Commission for review. The
Planning Commission created the Tower Well Site Subcommittee, which developed the
concept of a Request for Conceptual Proposals (RFCP) process for reuse and disposition of
CMR:133:96 Page 5 of 11
the Tower Well site, and this was endorsed by the Planning Commission on February 27,
1991. On March 9, 1992, the City Council approved the RFCP process and directed staffto
solicit conceptual proposals. On December 15, 1992, three proposals were received: 1) a
proposal from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to purchase the site to construct
a nine-unit apartment complex, incorporating the water tower, with rents restricted to low
and very low-income tenants; 2) a proposal from Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC)
to remove the tower and lease the site for the development of a downtown, employer-
supported child care center for 25 infants and toddlers; and 3) a proposal from Carrasco &
Associates (Carrasco) to purchase the site for a mixed use, which would involve adaptive re-
use of the water tower as a professional office with two affordable apartment units above.
The proposal evaluation process was delayed to allow the Historic Resources Board (HRB)
to consider the water tower’s historic significance. On August 18, 1993, the HRB passed a
motion requesting that the City Council designate the Tower Well site a Category 2 building
on the City’s Historic Structure Inventory because of its historical significance. On February
28, 1993, the Council passed a motion to not designate the Tower Well site as a Category 2
building on the Palo Alto Historic Building Inventory and a motion to reject the conceptual
proposals. At this meeting, Council Members indicated their intent that the property be land
banked and a beneficial use considered in the future, and that if there were a good idea in the
community for use of the property, the City should let it emerge.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
If Council directs staff to prepare an RFP for the site which would accommodate the proposal
by Mr. and Mrs. Taylor (or others which might be submitted in response to the RFP), the new
RFP would differ from the previous RFCP in terms of: 1) encouraging preservation of the
tower; 2) recognizing that public benefit may be provided through direct use of the site
and/or through dedication of the proceeds from the sale of the site to an identified public
need; and 3) recognizing single family use as an appropriate use of the site.
The current zoning of the Tower Well site is PF (Public Facilities) and the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designation is Regional Community Commercial. The Taylor proposal
includes changing the zoning to PC (Planned Community Zone District), which was
encouraged in the previous RFCP. The Taylor proposal is consistent with Comprehensive
Plan Housing and Historic Preservation policies and programs. The most relevant housing
policies are Policy 3, Program 4: Use the Zoning Ordinance, other codes, and specific plans
to maintain high quality neighborhoods; Policy 7, Program 17: Evaluate commercial and
industrial properties with the intention ofrezoning to housing where appropriate; and Policy
14: Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial and industrial areas. The relevant
policy concerning historic preservation is Urban Design Policy 2: Encourage private
preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural merit or both.
CMR:133:96 Page 6 of 11
DISCUSSION:
Since the Council’s actions at the February 21, 1993 Council meeting, the Tower Well site
has continued to be maintained as is, and staff has responded to inquiries from members of
the public interested in the status of the property. Recently, Palo Alto citizens Tom and Katy
Taylor came forward with a proposed concept for the use of the TowerWell site which staff
felt should be brought before the Council for consideration. The proposed use differs from
those previously considered by the Council, and it is free of some of the problems of the
previous proposals involving traffic, parking, and historical preservation. Following
newspaper publicity regarding the Taylor proposal, two additional concepts for use of the
tower were submitted by Wayne Swan and Steve Ogbum, respectively. All three proposals
are attached and summarized and discussed below.
TAYLOR PROPOSAL:
Summary of Taylor proposal:
Mr. and Mrs. Taylor’s proposal is to develop and use the tower as a residence with a new
building for a garage/cottage and a public plaza. A three-floor residence would be
incorporated into the tower with some exterior modifications to increase light and ventilation.
The new garage structure could include a second residence. The plaza would occupy the
front 1500 square feet of the Alma side of the property and would include public art and
information to educate the public about the history of the tower and its significance in the
history of the Palo Alto Utilities.
Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, who have experience developing under-utilized sites and converting
industrial space to residential, propose to purchase the site, with the City reserving public
rights to the plaza area.
Mr. and Mrs. Taylor intend for the project to be collaborative, and would work with various
City and community groups, such as the HRB, the Public Arts Commission, Palo Alto Tree
Task Force, Palo Alto Historical Association and the North Palo Alto Neighborhood
Association to allow them to provide input on the direction and content of the project. Mr.
and Mrs. Taylor have already begun to discuss their proposal with some of these groups, and
letters concerning the proposal from the HRB and the Public Arts Commission are attached.
Mr. and Mrs. Taylor present the benefits of their proposal in terms of the guidelines and
evaluation criteria outlined in the previous RFCP. (See Attachment B for a summary of the
previous RFCP Guidelines and Criteria.) Public benefits called out by the Taylors include
retaining and preserving the tower, providing education about the tower, public access, a
public plaza, and public art. The proposal conserves the 90-foot eucalyptus tree on the site,
beautifies the site and relieves the City of maintenance and liability. The proposal is
CMR:133:96 Page 7 of 11
consistent with existin~ City goals and objectives in that it is in keeping with the
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element which states a desire for more single family
residential housing, more rental properties and the conversion of industrial sites to residential
use. The proposed development would meet applicable building codes and would involve
changing the current zoning of PF (Public Facilities) to PC (Planned Community). The
Taylors also propose that the HRB recommendation that the Tower Well site be designated
as a category 2 structure be approved by Council after completion of the contingencies
associated with an option to purchase. The proposed single family use and small public plaza
will have low impact on the neighborhood, surrounding community and the environment.
The history and assessment of the proposer’s ability to carry out the project includes the
proposer’s previous experience developing two homes, both of which were conversions of
commercial/industrial property to residential use. One home, the proposer’s current
residence, is a single family residence distributed on three levels, as the tower would be,
which was built on a small (3100 square foot) commercial lot. The second is a 4000 square
foot commercial building which was converted to residential. Similar to the tower, it was
an older, reinforced concrete building in need of seismic upgrade, which had light and
ventilation problems due to the nature of the building.
Mr. and Mrs. Taylor’s proposal is to balance the monetary consideration for acquiring the
property against the public benefits the development would provide. The proposed monetary
consideration is based on a 1993 City appraisal of the property of $360,000. The proposal
is to reduce this value for each public benefit requiring funding from the proposer, such as
the land value of the plaza, the cost to stmctural!y retain the tower, and the cost of the plaza
development (refer to Taylor proposal for details). At this stage, the figures are very general
estimates resulting in a purchase price ranging from $20,000 to $170,000.
Evaluation of Taylor Proposal:
Looking at Mr. and Mrs. Taylor’s proposal in terms of the previous RFCP criteria, it does
appear to be consistent with existing City goals and objectives; the proposer does have
experience in carrying out similar projects-, it offers monetary consideration in the range of
$20,200 to $170,000; and it has low traffic and parking impacts and is compatible with the
neighborhood. The proposed single family use has significantly less impact on the site and
neighborhood in terms of traffic and parking than the proposals previously considered by
Council. However, of the public benefits provided by this proposal, none satisfies the
identified public needs called out in the previous RFCP (child care, SRO housing, low-
income family housing and family projects such as single-parent transitional housing). Also,
many of the public benefits concern retention and historic preservation of the site. The
previous RFCP did not require or encourage retention of the tower, and the Council has not
gone on record as favoring its preservation. As stated above, on February 21, 1993, the
CMR:133:96 Page 8 of 11
Council chose not to approve the HRB’s recommendation that the Council designate the
Tower Well site as a Category 2 building on the Palo Alto Historic Building Inventory~
The attached October 18, 1995 letter from the HRB to the Council, regarding proposals for
use of the Tower Well site, reaffirms the HRB’s desire for the Council to consider placing
the Tower Well site on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 2 structure and requests
that, as the Council considers proposals for the tower’s preservation or adaptive re-use, it do
so with the recognition of the site as an important cultural resource. The letter further states
the HRB’s feeling that any proposal to develop the site should incorporate the preservation
of the tower, that the development of the site should incorporate an interpretive element
designed to tell the story of the importance of utilities to the Founding of Palo Alto, and that
this could dovetail nicely with the Public Arts Commission’s desire to incorporate public art
on the site. The Public Art Commission has also written a letter (attached) supporting the
public art concept outlined in Mr. and Mrs. Taylor’s proposal.
OGBURN PROPOSAL:
Summary of Ogburn Proposal:
Steve Ogbum of Encino Design proposes to adapt the water tower to provide both
commercial and residential spaces. The ground floor would consist of 1520 square feet of
office retail space with the upper floors to be four residential apartments (two units at 820
square feet and two at 1520 square feet). Primary exterior changes would consist of adding
windows and a structural stair tower on the northeast comer of the lot, where it would be
screened behind the eucalyptus tree. Off-street parking would be provided on the Hawthorne
side of the site, and the front of the property facing Alma street would feature a landscaped
plaza with benches and a water feature, which would provide both an element of civic art and
a reflection of the site’s historic importance as a prime water source for the City. Mr.
Ogbum would work with the HRB and the City’s Building Division to refine the design
solution, with an emphasis on retaining the historic fabric of the tower but allowing for
contemporary usage and adaptation of the structure.
Mr. Ogbum presents several fmancial options for disposition of the property. These include
an option in which the proposer purchases the property outright from the City and assumes
all development costs; an option in which the City leases the property to the proposer under
long-term lease with the proposer assuming development costs; and several options wherein
the City retains ownership, participates in the cost to develop, and leases the office space to
the proposer and the housing units to others (refer to Ogbum proposal for details).
CMR:133:96 Page 9 of 11
Benefits of the concept as presented by Mr. Ogburn include restoring the tower to a use that
preserves the overall architectural quality of the structure; providing commercial use on the
ground floor in keeping with the Neighborhood Commercial zoning of the area; providing
off street parking along Hawthorne Street to complement the existing parking schemes of
adjoining properties; and turning the property into a revenue source for the City. Mr. Ogbum
has fifteen years experience on the Peninsula, is a licensed architect, general contractor and
has experience with other historic renovations.
Evaluation of Ogburn Proposal:
The proposal has not been reviewed by staff for consistency with parking, zoning or building
code requirements. It is similar in use to the previous proposal by Mr. Tony Carrasco to
purchase the site for a mixed use, which would preserve and reuse the water tower as a
professional office with two affordable apartment units above. The Ogburn proposal includes
more housing units and less office space, more financial options, and a different design
concept than the Carrasco proposal; however, it proposes office use, which was discouraged
in the RFCP.
SWAN PROPOSAL:
Summary of Swan Proposal:
Wayne Swan proposes using the site, which is close to CalTrain and the transit center, for
a small apartment building especially suited for people without vehicles. He suggests a two-
story frame structure in front of the existing tower, which could house four one-bedroom
units and two studio apartments. The eucalyptus tree would be removed for space for a
garden; the 30 foot upper portion of the concrete tower would be removed and the remaining
concrete shell used for useful space. Mr. Swan does not propose to finance, construct or
manage the development himself; he is suggesting an idea for use of the site and offering his
assistance if the Council is interested in entering into an agreement for a joint enterprise
development, and if there is no land acquisition cost.
Evaluation of Swan Proposal:
The Swan proposal concept has not been reviewed for consistency with parking, zoning or
building code requirements. It is similar in use, but on a smaller scale, to previous proposals
for SRO and low income housing on the site. The Swan proposal would satisfy one of the
previous RFCP’s identified public needs; however, more information would be required to
determine its feasibility.
CMR:133:96 Page 10 of 11
CONCLUSION:
Based on the fact that the Taylor proposal is a different use concept from those previously
proposed for this site, that it preserves the tower and is free of some of the problems previous
proposals had with parking, traffic and intensity of development on this small site, staff felt
the proposal warranted Council consideration to determine if the concept meets Council’s
criteria for a beneficial use of the site, Although the proposal does not satisfy the identified
public needs called out in the previous RFCP, it is possible that the proceeds of the sale of
the site could be dedicated to one of those needs.
If Council chooses to pursue the concept proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Taylor and directs staff
to prepare an RFP for the site accordingly, unless otherwise directed by Council, the new
RFP criteria would differ from the previous RFCP criteria in terms of: 1) encouraging
preservation of the tower; 2) recognizing that public benefit may be provided through direct
use of the site and/or through dedication of the proceeds from the sale of the site to an
identified public need; and 3) recognizing single family use as an appropriate use of the site.
Other guidelines and criteria of the previous RFCP would remain the same, i. e., that the
proposed use be consistent with existing City goals and objectives and have low impact on
the neighborhood, community and environment, and that the proposer demonstrate an ability
to carry out the construction and operation of the project as proposed.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives are identified in the staff’s recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT"
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT"
Any environmental assessment required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) would be performed in conjunction with Council’s approval of an option to
purchase or lease the sit~.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAl,:
Depending upon Council’s action, staff would return to Council for approval of an RFP for
use and development of the site or continue to maintain the site as it is.
CMR:133:96 Page 11 of 11
ATTACHMENT A
TOWER WELL - SITE DATA SUMMARY
Owner:
Location:
Assessor’s Parcel Number:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Existing Zoning:
Parcel Size:
Existing Use:
Surrounding Use:
City of Palo Alto
201 Alma Street (Northeast comer of
Hawthorne and Alma)
120-25-60
Regional/Community Commercial
Public Facilities (PF)
75’ by 112.5’ - 8,437 square feet
Mtmicipal well no longer in use. The well
has been sealed; well facilities, including a
79 foot high reinforced concrete tower and a
small 210 square foot building remain on the
site.
The site is adjacent to commercial uses
(zoned CD-N (P)) on the north and east, and
across the street from multiple family
residential uses (zoned RM-30) on the west.
To the south across Alma Street is the
Caltrain station (zoned PF).
3.5 JANET/TOWERDAT
ATTACHMENT B
TOWER WELL SITE RFCP CRITERIA
o
o
The extent to which the proposed use provides public benefit
and satisfies a public need.
The RFCP encourages uses which provide for an identified
public need, e.g., child care, SRO housing, iow-income
family housingand family projects such as single-parent
transitional housing.
The RFCP discourages office uses.
Consistency of the proposed use with existing City goals and
objectives (set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Municipal Code).
The RFCP encourages compliance with the PC (Planned Community)
zone District regulations.
The impact of the proposed use (compatible services and uses,
traffic impacts, noise impacts, energy conservation, etco)
upon:
C °
The immediate neighborhood,
The community generally,
The environment.
°
The RFCP encourages uses with low traffic & parking impacts on
the neighborhood and use and design compatibility with the
adjacent neighborhood.
The history and assessment of the proposer’s ability to carry
out the construction, if any, and operation of the facility
and services as proposed.
5.The monetary consideration to be provided to the City°
TOWE R WE L | S |TE
D EVE LO PM E NT
RO OSA
JANUARY 5, 1995
TOM AND KATY TAYLOR
123 SHERMAN AVE°
PALO ALTO, CA.
943O6
H 415 325-5213
W 4O8 720-2459
F 4O8 720-2431
SUMMARY
This proposal is to develop the tower well site into a residence and a public plaza. A single family
residence would be incorporated into the tower. Visible modifications would be kept to a
minimum and would include incremental windows to increase light and ventilation. A new garage
building would include a second residence. The architectural style would be chosen to
complement the tower well as well as the surrounding neighborhood. The plaza would occupy the
first 1500 sq. ft. along Alma and would include public sculpture.
PROPOSAL
PROJ ECT COLLABORATION
We see this as a very collaborative venture. Below are stakeholders in the project we have
identified. We will work with these groups and allow them to influence the direction and content
of this project. Many of the details will need to be filled out after concept approval, we will work
with these groups to create something better than could have been done by any single group.
Other entities may be identified and added as the project moves along.
Group Contact Phone
1 Real Estate Janet Freeland 329-2662
2 HRB Monty Anderson 328-1818
3 Public Arts Commission Judith Wassermann 327-7620
4 PA City Planning Jim Gililland 329-2679
5 PA City Building Fred Herman 329-2496
6 PA City Arborist David Sandage 496-6905
747-0873
7 PA Tree Task Force Marge Able
8 Palo Alto FlAstorical Society 329-2436
9 Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST)Gail Woolley
10 North Palo Alto Neighborhood
Association
11 Utilities Commission Fred Eyerly 323-2576
RFP1-5 1
The proposal is divided into seven areas which reflect facets of the proposal evaluation:
1)PUBLIC BENEFITS
2)PUBLIC NEED FULFILLMENT
3)NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT
4)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
5)COMPLIANCE WITH COMP PLAN, ZONING AND BUILDING
6)CAPABI LITY OF PROPOSER TO COMPLETE PROJ ECT
7)MONETARY BENEFIT TO TH E CITY
1) PUBLIC BENEFITS
CONSERVANCY OF THE TOWER
This project would retain and seismically enhance the tower well. The tower well requires
reinforcements to improve its odds of surviving the next major earthquake. This enhancement
would be performed as part of the rehabilitation of the structure allowing the community to retain
this piece of Palo Alto history without the expenditure of public funds.
EDUCATION ABOUT TH E TOWER
The Historic Resources Board has begun to gather information about the tower well and has
placed it within the context of the history of Palo Alto and its utilities. As the oldest existing
public utilities building, it serves as a physical reminder of our city’s developmental history. To
complement this physical reminder, an effort would be made to collect historical information
pertinent to the structure and its relevancy to the History of Palo Alto. This historic / educational
text would be put together in cooperation with the following groups;
Historic Resource Board
Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Group
Palo Alto Historic Society
Palo Alto Utilities Department
Information would be presented in two ways. First, it would be presented in written format in the
plaza, the actual format to be worked out with the Public Arts Commission and the HRB in a
way that makes the information accessible to many age levels. Second, all material gathered
would be retained in binder format and made available at the main library with the Palo Alto
Historical Association materials.
PUBLIC PLAZA
The Public Plaza along the Alma side of the property would serve several functions. The prinaary
purpose would be to serve as a point of education about the site. As mentioned above, the method
of displaying this information would need to be worked out. In addition to the educational plaques
mentioned above and the public art discussed below there would be some park amenities, e.g..:
benches, tables, drinking fountain and planting areas with trees and bushes.
RFP1-5 2
PUBLIC ART
As part of the Plaza, an installation of Public Art would be presented. Alma is a high traffic area,
which is not yet renown for its beauty. The new installation on Alma along the front of the power
substation, is a great beginning. Public art, along with the general beautification of the site, would
assist in the renewal of this corridor. Working with the Public Arts Commission, an appropriate
installation would be created, which would be complementary to the tower.
H ISTORIC WALK
This plaza would serve as an incremental attraction to the planned improvements in the El Palo
Alto Park area. This would allow for people to move from University Ave or the Old Train
Station, to the tower well, and on to the E1 Palo Alto Park, with local history made more explicit.
2 PUBLIC NEED FULFILLMENT
INCREMENTAL RESIDENTIAL
The comprehensive plan makes many references to the desire to turn commercial / industrial land
to residential use. By converting the tower well site to residential the city would be demonstrating
it’s commitment to this goal. Palo Alto has tittle buildable open space residential project of the
future will mostly be infill developments. This would be a small, but symbolic contribution to the
number of residential units in the city.
TREE CONSERVATION
Although eucalyptus is not a native tree, many people have commented that the 90 foot tree
beside the tower is as important to them as the tower itself. David Sandage, the city’s arborist,
described the tree as an important urban asset. The tree is beautiful and it screens the tower,
keeping it from becoming a stark silhouette on the skyline. With care this tree can be maintained.
Working with the Tree Task Force and the City Arborist we could determine other incremental
trees which would be complimentary to the site and the city.
SITE BEAUTIFICATION
To some the site is beautiful because of the tower. I am among this minority. Most see it as a
patch of dirt in need of foliation. This project would address the street level foliation of the site
and add greenery to the area. The tower itself would not be much changed, but the surrounding
site can be improved.
DECRIMENTAL CITY MAINTENANCE
By selling the tower well, the city would no longer need to provide maintenance. In addition to
maintenance, privatization would be the decreased the potential city liability. The steel ladder on
the exterior provides relatively easy access to the top. The ivy on the tower’s side appears to be
trimmed by the traffic up and down the ladder. With a height of 76 feet a fall could be fatal. Since
the site is unattended, this could be deemed an attractive nuisance. The reuse of this structure and
the privatization of the property would remedy this problem.
RFP1-5 3
3. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT
Although this is not representative of homes in the neighborhood, it would increment the local
residential inventory. This would have very low traflac impact for the area. We would work with
the North Palo Alto Neighborhood Association to insure that their needs are heard and discussed
while the project is in the planing stages. We will bring the neighbors into the planning process
early, which will allow for a smooth implementation.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
This proposal is very low impact on the neighborhood and surrounding area. The primary impact
will be those associated with residential structures. Given the location these impacts will be
minimal.
5. COMPLIANCE WiTH CiTY CODES
H ISTORIC DESIGNATION
The HRB has prepared the documents to designate the building a category 2 structure. To allow
for the best preservation of the tower we would request that the designation be put in place after
the completion of the contingencies associated with an option to purchase. This would be an
assurance of preservation of the tower for the future.
BUILDING
We would, with the assistance of an architect and the building department, create a design for the
structures which would meet all applicable building codes.
ZONING
The current zoning of the property is PF. Since residential is not allowed in PF part of the
proposal would be to convert the zoning to PC. We would work through the standard channels to
accomplish this once an option to purchase was granted.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This proposal is in line with the current comprehensive plan. There are three specific ties to the
housing element; first is the stated desire for more single family residences (policies 2, 3, 4 and 6).
Second the desire for more rental properties (Policy 7). And third for the conversion of industrial
sites to residential (policy 14).
6. CAPABILITY OF PROPOSER TO COMPLETE PROJECT
Since the proposal is residential we will describe two homes we have constructed. Our current
residence, see attached articles; Sunset Magazine Times Tribune and PA Weekly, was built in
1990. We purchased a small (3100 sq. ft) lot in a commercial area. Although the cost per sq. ft.
was twice that of standard residential, the potential residential FAR. was six times greater
RFP1-5 4
Construction on a small lot proved to be a challenge. By working carefully with the City, our
architect and builder we were able to create a rather unique home on a lot which many had said
was un-buildable. Our fiNshed costs per square foot were about half of the standard home. This
was accomplished by using an industrial look for most finishes and by using low cost standardized
fixtures. This home, like the tower well proposal, is distributed on multiple floors.
In 1994 we purchased 255 Lambert, a 4000 square foot building which had been re-zoned from
commercial to residential. We converted it from it’s commercial use to a residential application.
We were concerned about its appeal as a rental until we ran the first ad. Based on one ad in the
Palo Alto Weekly, we received 50 calls, and about half of those resulted in site visits. We rented
within one day of running the ad.
This conversion of a warehouse to a warehome has many similarities with the tower well
proposal. Both shift the usage from commercial to residential. Both are older buildings made of
reinforced concrete which need seismic upgrades. Both have light and ventilation problems due to
the nature of the building. We were able to complete the warehouse conversion three months after
the acquisition, and final cost was 99% of the original budget.
Four things we enjoyed about these projects which would be in common with the tower well site.
1) Working with fixed yet unknown parameters to detem~ne the best use and the final design.
2) Conversion of an industrial space to residential.
3) Utilization of an under utilized asset.
4) Creation of innovative housing.
There are three new experiences to which we look forward.
1) Artistic collaboration to create the public art installation in the plaza.
2) Creating a plaza to facilitate historical education.
3) Working on an historic building.
RFP1-5 5
7 MONETARY BENEFIT
In 1993 the real Estate Department had the value of the site appraised. The value was placed at
$3601(, the removal cost of the tower was estimated at $150k. The anticipated net to the city for
the sale of the land was to be around $210k. This proposal would achieve the greater monetary
value to the city while retaining the tower and providing a new public space and adding to the
cities residential inventory.
These numbers are the best estimates at this time. All numbers would need to be finalized based
on city input and firm quotes from appropriate vendors.
Land Value based on 1993
Less land value of plaza (18% of the total*)
Less the cost to structurally retain the tower.
Proposed purchase price of property**
360,000
-64,800
-75,000
222,200
Less the budgeted cost of Plaza development***50-200k
* note 1) Property is 112 by 75 or 8400 sq. ft.. The plaza is proposed to be 1500 sq. ft or
18% of the total value.. The appraised value is 360k so the value of the plaza is
$64,800
** note 2) Assumes 2 residences, city maintenance of the plaza
*** note 3) Plaza development costs would be set by the city, paid for by the proposer
and directly offset the acquisition cost.
RFP1-5 6
BUILDING ¯DESIGN ¯CRAFTS
A lot of
house on a
narrow lot
A young family bztilds
an affordable home
by going commercial
N AFFORDABLE LOT
for a first home is a
challenge for any .
young family to
find. When Katy and Tom
Taylor started their search for
a building site, they knew
they wanted to live in Palo
Alto, California, because of
its excellent schools, mild cli-
mate, and close-to-work loca-
tion. However, sites in resi-
dential neighborhoods were
scarce and beyond their bud-
get, so they began to think
creatively.
The Taylors ended up buy-
ing a narrow lot on a side
street lined mostly with office
buildings. Because their lot
isn’t in a traditional residen-
tial neighborhood, they were
EXPOSED JOISTS AND A
FIREI’LACE SURROUND made of
the same corrugated metal
that covers the e.rterior of the
house lend a loftlike look to
the living room. Sliding glass
doors fi’ame a broad view of
the cottrt)’ard ben~’een the
house and the garage.
able to take advantage of
more lenient zoning rules.
Buildings in this commercial-
zoned area can extend right to
the property line and cover a
higher proportion of land. As
a result, the Taylors were able
to build a house and garage
almost three times larger than
what they could have built on
a lot of the same size in a resi-
dential area of Palo Alto.
Passersby have no clue that
the Taylor house is there. A
separate garage next to a tall
office building blocks views
of the house and a grassy
courtyard. Clad with corru-
gated metal siding, both the
house and the garage have an
unabashedly industrial look
appropriate to the neighbor-
hood. On a more practical
note. Tom Taylor says. "I
used to be a housepainter, and
I didn’t want to paint again."
The house, designed by ar-
chitect Larick Alan Hill of
Portola Valley, rises to three
stories, but covers an area
measuring just 30 by 30 feet.
The interior has the ruggedly
appealing look of a warehouse
or studio loft. Exposed beams,
industrial-style light fixtures.
and off-the-shelf doors and
windows consciously add to
the style but also helped keep
construction costs down. ~
By Peter O. Whiteh3"
114
RED DOOR AND BLUE TRIM enliven the business-
like facade of the lot-wide garage structure.
Trim detail and metal siding repeat in the tall
house behind (right photo).
SUNSET
Alma ~¢reet Water Tower Proposal
F_.ncino [Design
.~tephen Ogburn
(3ombined OFFice/C;ommerciaI-P-.egidential Adaptive P-.euse
January 4-, 1~
112’
,(,--Londscoped plozo ereo
~ \Almo Street Woter Tower Pro~osol
IEncino E)esign
Combined OFice/Commerciol-P-.esidentiol
Adoptive l:;Eeu~e
J~nuary 4, I~
Unbr 1
Un~r 2
Commercinl
Tower
Alma Street Water Tower Proposal
Encino Design
Combined O~ce/Commerciol-P-.e~identiol
Adoptive P-.euse
Jonuory 4-,
Alma 5¢ree¢ Wa¢er Tower Proposal
Encino E:)egign
Combined C:)~lce/CommercioI-P-..esiden~iol A, doptive P--.euse
January 4., 1~
Proposal {or the adaptive reuse o~ the Alma Street Water Tower:
Adapt the existing water tower to provide both commercial and residential spaces. The ground rqoor will consist
o~ office/retail space with the upper floors to be residential apartments. Primary exterior changes to consist
o{ adding windows and a structural stair tower on the North-East corner M the lot. Ch~ slTeet parking will
be provided on the Hawthorne side and the stair tower screened on the North-East corner M the lot behind
the Eucalyptus tree. A landscaped plaza with benches and a w~ter {ecrrure will be created at the {rant Mthe
property {acing Alma Street. The water {eature will provide both an element M civic art and a reflection M
the sites {ormer importance as a prime water source {or the city o~ Pale Alto. Changes to the Hawthorne
Ave $ Alma street elevations will be minimal with the addition M windows the primary architectural change.
Conceptual goal:
To remodel the existing water tower, preserving the {undamental structure o~ the water tower in a historically
sensitive adaptive reuse. Provide {or retail or alsace use on the ground floor with the floors above to be
residential apartments. Adapt the site and structure to {it in with the existing neighborhood. Limit the impact o~
alterations as much as possible, preserving the {rant, Atma Street and Hawthorne Ave elevations virtually
intact. Limit the extent o~the development o{the rest oTthe lot to keep the prMile ot the street corner as
open as possible.
Benefits:
¯ The most important aspect o~this proposal is that the tower structure will be restored to a use that does
not compromise the overall architectural quality o~ the structure. The proposal as outlined is a very low impact
adaptive reuse ~ a historically significant city structure.
¯ Providing commercial use on the ground floor o~ the structure is in keeping with the ’Neighborhood-
Commercial’ zoning o~ the area. By limiting any commercial use to the ground floor, handicapped access can be
readily provided {or all public spaces.
¯ Ot~ street parking is provided along Hawthorne St in o manner complimenting the existing parking schemes
adjoining properiies.
¯ Access to the floors above would be by a stairwell winding around the back o~ the building to a combination
stair’tower-bathroom space that would not be readily visible T~rom the adjoining streets. The stair tower would
be eFectively screened {ram the Alma St view by the majestic Eucalyptus tree on the east side o~ the lot.
Private spaces are separated {ram the more public use o~the {rant o~the property.
¯Turn the property back into a revenue source for the city. l~,evenue can be generated {ram both property
business, sales taxes and rental income.
@ual~cations o~ Encino Design
Architectural Design {irm with ~i~een years local experience on the peninsula.
Licensed Architect
Licensed General Contractor
Experience with other historic renovations on the peninsula
Alma _4treat Water Tower Propusal
Design Development,
Work with the Historic l~,esources Board and the City o~ Polo Alto Building Department to re6ne the solution
as outlined. Emphasis to be to retain the historic {obric o~the water tower but allow {or contemporary usage
$ adaptation o~the structure. As per Hi~oric P-.esources Building Act guidelines, some f~exibitity in building
codes to accommodate the historic nature o~the structure.
Finonciul Options
1.Purchase outright {ram city and provide all {unds ~ services to complete remodel.
Income generated by city-
.250,000 {ram sale o{ property
Soles tax, property tax ~ business tax revenue ~rom commercial operation
City retains ownership o~ property, proposer provides resources to accomplish remodel in turn {or long term
lease {ram the city {or agreed upon sum. At end o~ lease term, {ull rights to the property revert back to the
city.
Income generated by city-
Sales tax, property tax ~ business tax revenue from commercial operation
For a period d years no rental income-~-3~,500 a year {or commercial space thereo{ter
and rental income {ram apartment units-2 units @ ~l-300/month 2 units @ ..950/month
=~Sz~,OO/yr
Properl"y tax
Cost to city
None
F_.nter into cooperative agreement with the city for the remodel o~ the water tower. City will contribute partial
{inancing {or the project. ~chitect will provide services $ remodel work in return {or long term ~1 lease on
o~ce space. City retains full ownership o~ structure and rental income {ram units above.
Income generated by city-
.! lease/year on business {or period of years-.-3~,500 a year {or commercial space therea~er
~ental income {ram apartment units-2 units @ ~l-300/month 2 units @ ~_950/month
Soles tax, property tax ~, business tax revenue {ram commercial operation
Cost to city
Partial cost d remodel
City retains
compensated via shorter term reduced price lease on the office space.
Income generated by city-
BSOO/month, .~O00/yeor lease on business {or period M years-.-3~,500/~ yeor ~or
commerciol 5poce @ereo~er
~ntol income ~rom opo~ment units-2 unit~ @ Bl~OO/month 2 un#5 @ B~50/month =~,00/~
~ole~ ox, prope~ tax $ busines~ ax revenue ~rom commerciol opera, on
Cost 1o
Po~al cost d remodel
Create volunteer cooperative whereby city ~unds the pro~ect but local volunteer e~ort provides labor E some
materials. Architect donates services with right to lease o~ce unit @ _30% below market rote.
Income generated by city-
¯ .~25,550/yr lease on business {or period o~ years-.C-3~,BOO/yr {or commercial space thereo{Cer
¯ P--entol income {ram apartment units-2 units @ ~l-300/month 2 units @ ~_~_50/month =.54,00/yr
Sales tax, property tax E business tax revenue ~rom commercial operation
Cost to city
Partial cost d remodel
240 Kellogg Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
September 8, 1995
Mr. William W. Fellman
Manager, Real Property Real Estate Division
City of Palo Alto Department of Finance
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: Tower Well Site
Dear Bill:
This elder writes you about an idea for redevelopment of
the 75’ x 112.5’ parcel of city owned property at the corner
of Alma Street and Hawthorne Avenue. My recent investigation
for transit oriented development focused on the tower well
site. This location is a mere 5 minute walk from the CalTrain
station and Transit Center. It is a good homesite for people
without vehicles.
Why not allow a small apartment building fronting on Alma
Street? Such a housing project would merit the incentives
suggested by AB3152, The Transit Village Development Planning
Act of 1994.
The 76 foot tall reinforced concrete water tower has stood
there for 85 years. Itis a near white elephant hiding under
a large eucalyptus tree. We could wait a long time for this
old elephant to go elsewhere to die. So while this elephant
won’t move it certainly is ripe for a change,.. A public works
director from Utah said: "If you have to eat an elephant~
you’ll have to do it one bite at a time." Hmmm, maybe the first
bite is to discover a compatible adaptive reuse.
The property is zoned PF for Public Facility. It is located
between commercial and residential zones. Either classifica-
tion might be considered. Unique circumstances may warrant
special standards and flexible application of regulations.
Last year three conceptual proposals were submitted in response
to the RFCP for the Tower Well Site. The Council chose not to
designate the property as part of the City’s Historic Buildings
Inventory. And they chose n~e of the three proposals. I read
the February 17, 1994 staff report and the Council minutes for
the meeting held February 28, 1994. My suggested land use and
the attached conceptual site plan were prepared before I had
any knowledge of the three proposals submitted last year. To
my surprise ~ie idea is a small composite of two of the proposals.
A two,story frame structure with a 36’ x 56’ footprint could
include 4 one-bedroom units and 2 studio apartments. This
improvement could be built in front of the existing concrete
tower. Adequate 90o parking can be provided off Hawthorne.
In the rear yard of the apartment the eucalyptus tree should
be removed along with enough topsoil to make gardening possible.
I think the upper 30 foot portion of the concrete tower, which
was the water tank, should also be removed. The remaining
structure would be less than 50 feet in height. With creative
modifications the concrete shell could continue to encompass
useful space. At a minimum there would be about 700 square
feet of floor area for common use by the apartment tenants and
their guests or by others.
Careful attention should also be given to the streetscape.
The western end of Hawthorne Avenue might be reduced to a city
easement that would limit through traffic. A private cobble-
stone roadway could provide access for emergency vehicles,
service trucks, and additional parking spaces.
I suggest that Council consider a transit oriented development
that can change the present liability into benefits for the
city. It will be up to someone else to finance, construct and
manage. If the Counci-I is interested in entering into an
Agreement for joint enterprise development, and if there is
no land acquistion cost, then there are experienced local
players who can effect the transformation. And please feel
free to call upon me if I may be of any further service.
Very truly yours,
Wayne M. Swan
Attachments:Conceptual Site Plan
Photographs
Z
4"-I
CONCP.PTUFtL SiTE PLFtN
191o
~OTF__’.~LL DI f~4 EN,SlON,~AR,.~ R PP~OY, I MAT2’
October 18,1995
Letter to City Council
RE: Tower Well Site
The Historic Resources Board would like to reaffirm its desire for the Council to consider
placing the Tower Well site on the City’s Historic Inventory as a category 2 structure. We
feel that as the Council considers proposals for its preservation or adaptive re-use that it do
so with the recognition of the site as an important cultural resource.
The reasons for doing so are that the Tower remains as a past symbol of the importance
water and utilities have played in the history and founding of the City. Palo Alto was one
of the first municipalities in the country to own and operate its own utilities. The water
company was the first utility owned by the City providing its citizens with a cheap and
abundant source of water. This decision provided the City with the ability to develop many
of the City parks that we still treasure as a community. Water offered fire protection to a
City primarily built of wood when fire was a major threat.
The water company was purchased by the City soon after its incorporation. Today the
Tower stands as a symbol of our forward thinking City Fathers who sought to make Palo
Alto a model city right from the beginning. We feel any proposal to develop the site should
incorporate the preservation of the Tower and that the development of the site incorporate
an interpretive element designed to tell the story of the importance of utilities to the
founding of Palo Alto. This could dovetail nicely with the Arts Commissions desire to
incorporate public art on the site.
The Board feels that the Tower and other infrastructure elements often are worthy of our
preservation efforts and are just as worthy of historic recognition as are our other icons of
the built environment. Placing the Tower on our historic inventory could assure some
measure of preservation accompany any development of the site.
Montgomery IA
Chairman, Historic Re~.~Jlrces Board.
City ,- Palo Alto
Departrno~t of Communfty ~
September 6, 1995
Mr. Tom Taylor
123 Sherman Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Tom:
Divisionof
Arts & Culture
The Public Art Commission reviewed your proposal with respect to the Alma Street
Well Tower site project at our regularly scheduled meeting of August 30, 1995.
The Commission commends you for bringing this project to our attention at this
early stage and are delighted your proposal includes a provision for public art.
The Public Art Commission voted unanimously to approve the public art concept
outlined in the proposal you provided to us, with the condition that you continue to
follow the Public Art Commission guidelines and procedures regarding Art in Public
Places as your project unfolds. The Commission has an expectation that the art
element you are proposing will include an open competition for artists: Should your
proposal be approved by City Council, the Public Art Commission stands ready to
assist you with developing the parameters of such a competition, and will be
available to provide guidance in the drafting of an appropriate Request for
Qualifications which will initiate the competition process. The Public Art
Commission, of course, will be included in the final selection of the artist and in the
final approval of the public art element.
Finally, we would like to reemphasize our agreement with you that the art and
historical elements will be integrated into the total site design.
Sincerely, _
br’gdith Wasserman, Co-chair
Public Art Commission
Janet Freeland
Architectural Review Board
Lisa Grote, Planning Division
Leon Kaplan, Public Art Commission staff liaison
Palo Alto Cultural Center
1313 Newell Road
Palo Alto, CA 9’4303
415.329.2227