Upfront ARCHITECTURE
Giant sign approved for new Alma Street grocer Grocery Outlet gets green light for glaring sign despite resident objections by Gennady Sheyner
F
or decades, Alma Plaza in Palo Alto has served as a graveyard for grocers’ dreams. The reputation stuck even after the plaza at 3445 Alma St. was redeveloped and rebranded as “Alma Village.” Years after Lucky’s and Albertsons shut their doors and left town, the plaza welcomed its latest tenant, Miki’s Farm Fresh Market, which stayed open for less than six months before it closed its doors in April and its owner filed for bankruptcy. Now, the City Council is trying its best to keep the latest entrant into the plaza from suffering a similarly ignominious fate, even if it means ruffling some feathers in the neighborhood. That’s what happened Monday night, when the council voted 6-3 to approve a large, illuminated “Grocery Outlet” sign despite an appeal from neighborhood leaders. At 104 square feet, the sign for the discount grocer would be more than 30 times what is normally allowed for signs in the area. In this case, however, the council agreed that typical rules don’t apply. With Miki’s failure, amid accusations about the site’s poor visibility and insufficient
parking, council members agreed to bow to the grocer’s request for a 3-D “cabinet” sign that some in the neighborhood called excessive and unsightly. The city’s Architectural Review Board and planning staff had approved the sign earlier this year, but the council was asked to take up the issue after an appeal from a group of residents led by Midtown leaders Sheri Furman and Annette Glanckopf. Both argued that while they support the new grocer, they oppose the installation of what would be the largest sign on the Alma corridor. They urged the council to reduce the size, despite an assertion from a Grocery Outlet executive that the store would pull out if it doesn’t have its way. “The sign exceeds all the signordinance limits,” Furman told the council Monday. “We are protesting that excess.” The council ultimately voted 6-3, with Karen Holman, Greg Schmid and Gail Price dissenting, to uphold the architecture board’s approval. Though no one was thrilled about the proposed sign, few dared to call Grocery Outlet’s bluff and risk being once again without a supermarket at
Alma Village. The city had previously approved an even larger “banner” sign for the development, though Miki’s went out of business before that sign could be installed. The newly approved 26-foot-tall sign would be slightly smaller than its approved predecessor, but it would be brighter. Its letters would be illuminated and it would reach 10 feet above the store’s roofline. Tom DuBois, one of the appellants, argued that allowing such a sign would put Palo Alto on a slippery slope. “Small signs work when everyone has them,” DuBois said. “Once we have large signs, it will kick off an arms race. If I owned a store and saw a large sign, I’d definitely want one, too.” Holman agreed with the residents that the sign is excessive and argued that the business could survive with good marketing, even without the giant sign. Others were more cautious, largely because of the city’s recent experiences with the site. Councilman Pat Burt, who was on the planning commission about 15 years ago when Alma Plaza was going through its long approval process, said the question for him
VIDEO: ‘First Person’ interview with Elton Sherwin Elton Sherwin, former cleantech venture capitalist turned climate-change entrepreneur, talks with Lisa Van Dusen about his efforts to hunt down the most practical ways to make carbon emissions “net zero” planet-wide by mid-century. Watch the video by Veronica Weber on www.PaloAltoOnline.com. is: “How do we make something that is moderately successful at this site?” “I don’t want to see another failure,” Burt said. “I don’t think this whole Planned Community development at this site is the best design, but it’s built. We’ve got to get past that.” Burt challenged Marc Drasen, Grocery Outlet’s vice president for real estate, to consider a compromise with the neighbors, but this suggestion went nowhere. Drasen told the council that after thoroughly studying the issue, “We feel this is the minimum sign schematic that would be beneficial for success for our store.”
Most on the council agreed with Burt and approved the large sign despite major reservations. Councilman Marc Berman noted that the site was “cursed” (though he quickly downgraded his assessment to “challenging”) in explaining his willingness to go along with the staff recommendation. Councilman Larry Klein noted that cars typically drive fast up and down Alma, and the larger sign is thus justified. Councilwoman Liz Kniss, who made the motion to approve the sign, said she doesn’t want to risk losing a supermarket but noted that she is (continued on page £x)
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Stanford is shopping for new firefighting services University’s request for proposals threatens long-standing relationship with Palo Alto
S
tanford University is looking around for a new provider of firefighting services, a move that could transform or even end the university’s nearly four-decade-long relationship with the Palo Alto Fire Department. The university put out a request for proposals in late November for an agency that would provide fire-department services, including firefighting, paramedic and “specialty-response,” to its 4,000acre property in unincorporated Santa Clara County. The campus includes roughly 700 university buildings and 965 single-family residences. The request has a deadline of Jan. 31, and Palo Alto expects to submit its proposal next month, city Fire Chief Eric Nickel told the Weekly. Stanford’s search could have significant repercussions for Palo Alto’s fire department, whether or not the university agrees to continue to rely on Palo Alto’s services. The two fire departments, Stanford’s and Palo Alto’s, merged in 1976 as part of an effort by the university to save money
and update its force. The merger came in the wake of a 1972 fire that destroyed a wing of Encina Hall and drew about 250 responders from throughout the area. The emergency-services partnership has been in place ever since. In addition to providing Stanford with emergency-dispatch and ambulance services, Palo Alto firefighters staff Station 6 on the university’s campus. For that, the city is amply compensated. The Fire Department draws 30 percent of its revenues from Stanford University, though the campus draws only about 25 percent of the department’s responses, Nickel said. However, Stanford receives in return 30 percent of all of the revenues the department collects from customers, whether or not these calls pertain to the campus. This long-standing but somewhat rudimentary formula will probably fall by the wayside with Stanford’s decision. From the city’s perspective, that might not be a bad thing. Nickel said his department, much like the university, would like to see changes in
by Gennady Sheyner their agreement and noted that the request-for-proposals process will give both parties an avenue for addressing these changes. Nickel said the department fully expected Stanford to shop around for other providers at some point and called the university’s search a “great business practice.” Specifically, Nickel said, the department would like to see more staffing flexibility and more provisions relating to fire prevention and inspections. For instance, the city currently monitors about 500 fire alarm systems at Stanford, Nickel said. Educating the campus community about ways to prevent false alarms would create a “huge opportunity to drop the call volume.” He also noted that the call volume from Stanford falls significantly during holiday periods, when students go home for vacation, and spikes during weekends, particularly when there is a big football game. It would be worthwhile to consider these factors in determining staffing levels, he said. Both Stanford and Palo Alto
acknowledge that the university’s needs have changed since the partnership had begun. Most of the 1,248 calls that the Palo Alto Fire Department responded to on Stanford campus in 2012 related to medical services and false alarms. The request for proposals notes that Stanford “has not suffered from serious fires over many decades.” According to the request for proposals, Stanford is looking for an initial contract with a five-year term, with automatic five-year renewals thereafter for “acceptable performance.” Cancellation of a contract would require at least a 12-month notice. The university is looking to approve the new contract by next April. Even if other agencies submit the bids, Palo Alto would hold several key advantages. The most important is location. Because the city has several fire stations at and near Stanford, it is best positioned to meet Stanford’s response-times requirements. The request for proposals specifies that for medical calls and small fires, the first unit of responders should arrive within
7 minutes from the receipt of the 911 call 90 percent of the time. Even though at least four personnel from the contracting agency would occupy Stanford’s fire station, incidents that require additional staff would probably involve more driving and a longer response time. The fact that the city already provides other emergency services to Stanford should also strengthen its negotiating position. If the university opts to switch to a different fire department, fire calls would still be dispatched to Palo Alto before being transferred to the new agency, lengthening the response time. Stanford also made it clear in the request for proposals that it only desires to contract with “another full service, public fire department,” which further constrains the potential applicant pool. “I believe at the end of the day we will still be their fire department, but it’s going to look very different,” Nickel said. N Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be emailed at gsheyner@ paweekly.com.
ÜÜÜ°*> Ì " i°V ÊUÊ*> Ê Ì Ê7ii ÞÊUÊ iVi LiÀÊÓä]ÊÓä£ÎÊU Page 7