HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-29 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting
Council Chambers
April 29, 2014
7:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 April 29, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the
presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to
discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the
Council, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES
Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times
are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to
another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur
in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their
remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Study Session
1.THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CANCELLED
Special Orders of the Day 7:00-7:40 PM
2.Presentation From Jim Lawson Regarding Valley Transportation Agency
Transit and Road Projects
3.Palo Alto Advisory Committee on Early Care and Education - Partner
Presentation
4.Proclamation - Animal Services Founders Day
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of
the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker.
REVISED
2 April 29, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY mCLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
City Manager Comments 7:40-7:50 PM
Oral Communications 7:50-8:05 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval 8:05-8:10 PM
March 17, 2014
Consent Calendar 8:10-8:15 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
5.Consideration of an Appeal of the Director's Individual Review Approval
of a New Two-Story, Single Family Home Located at 1737 University
Avenue
6.Approval of Concept Plan Line and Implementation Schedule for the
Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project
7.Receive Update Concerning City Response to Google Fiber City Checklist
and Ongoing Negotiation of Google Fiber Hut License Agreement to
Cover Potential Location of Google Network Hut Equipment Facilities on
City-Owned Properties; Adopt a Resolution Prohibiting Disclosure of
Certain Non-Public Utilities-Related Information Retained by the City
that is Subject to California Public Records Act Exemptions
8.Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of
$250,000 in Expenses and $140,000 in Revenue to Operate the Palo
Alto Municipal Golf Course Through May and June of Fiscal Year 2014
9.Approval of Second Contract Amendment With the Riezbos Holzbaur
Group LLC to Increase the Total Compensation by $30,000 from
$121,212 to $151,212 for Design Work for the Administrative Services
Department
10.Approval of the Updated Guidelines, Procedures and Selection
Processes for the City of Palo Alto Cubberley Artists Studio Program
(CASP, Formerly the Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program) in
3 April 29, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY mCLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Preparation for the Spring Release of a new Application and Selection
Process
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
8:15-9:45 PM
11.Staff Requests Direction From Council on Pursuing the Four-
Component Organics Facilities Plan for Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings,
and Biosolids, Which Includes: Recommending No Near-Term Uses for
the Measure E Site, Developing New Biosolids Facilities That May Also
Process Food Scraps at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control
Plant, and Continuing With Off-Site Composting of Yard Trimmings in
the Immediate Future, and Rejecting All Proposals in Response to the
Energy Compost Facility or Export Option Request for Proposals
9:45-10:15 PM
12.Approval of Staff Recommended Framework for Development of a
Business Registry Certificate Ordinance & Fee Program as a
Replacement/ Enhancement of the City's Current Use Certificate
Program to be Implemented by December 31, 2014
13.Public Hearing - Council Adoption of an Ordinance Modifying: (1)
Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to: (a) Address
Sidewalk Width and Building Setbacks (Setback and “Build-to” Line
Standards, and Context Based Design Criteria) Along El Camino Real,
and (b) Reduce the Allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN Zoned Sites
Where Dwelling Units are Permitted at 20 Units Per Acre; and (2)
PAMC Chapter 18.04 to Adjust the Definition of Lot Area and Add a
Definition for “Effective Sidewalk”. Environmental Assessment:
Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15305 (Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations) (THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED
BY COUNCIL MOTION ON APRIL 21, 2014 TO JUNE 2, 2014)
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
Staff Memo
Updated
Information
14.Discussion and Direction to City Manager Regarding City of Palo Alto Response to the FAA
Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Regarding the Northern California Optimization of Airspace
and Procedures in the Metroplex (NorCal OAPM)
Staff Memo
Updated Information
4 April 29, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY mCLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
5 April 29, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY mCLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Informational Report
City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the Third Quarter, Fiscal
Year 2014
Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4649)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Palo Alto Advisory Committee on Early Care and Education -
Partner Presentation
Title: Palo Alto Advisory Committee on Early Care and Education - Partner
Presentation
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
See attachment
Attachments:
Attachment A - PAACECE_1_Pagenew (DOCX)
1
PAAC-ECE: A History of Early Childhood Advocacy in Palo Alto
Thank you for inviting us to present our work during this celebratory “Week
of the Young Child.”
The Palo Alto Advisory Committee on Early Care and Education continues the
legacy started in the 1970’s by a group of Palo Alto residents concerned about the
care of Palo Alto’s youngest citizens. At that time, the group worked with the City to
create a bold partnership to devote public funds to childcare: a ground-breaking
step for a municipal government at that time. The agency which developed out of
that original partnership became known as Palo Alto Community Child Care or
PACCC, and the goal, which continues to this day, was to establish high quality
childcare services for city residents, subsidizing costs for families that could not
afford the full fee for services.
In the 1980’s the legacy continued with the creation of the City’s Child Care
Master Plan, which promoted availability, accessibility and affordability of high
quality childcare and education. And that mission continues today.
Palo Alto is currently home to 62 licensed childcare and early education
programs and 32 licensed family childcare providers serving thousands of children
in Palo Alto.
The Palo Alto Advisory Committee on Early Care and Education, or PAAC-
ECE, has three main goals: we CONNECT providers and educators in the early
education community through collaboration and ongoing professional development.
We SUPPPORT early education programs in their ongoing efforts to enhance quality.
And we ADVOCATE on behalf of families and teachers of young children to raise
awareness of the challenges and opportunities facing early education programs
today.
Highlights of PAAC-ECE’s work over the past few years include:
-Hosting a First 5 Kindergarten Readiness panel discussion to support teachers as
they prepare kinder-ready students.
2
-Creating scholarships for teachers to attend CAEYC, the preeminent conference for
early education professionals.
-Partnering with Stanford WorkLife Office to bring International Educator and
Stanford graduate Dr. Lillian Katz here to lead a professional workshop for early
education teachers.
-For the past six months, we created an innovative “Community of Practice” for
teachers from multiple programs to reflect on intentional teaching and learning
with young children.
-And, finally, we kicked off our Places to Play in Palo Alto project, creating a guide to
the city by our youngest citizens. This booklet, which will also be created digitally
for the City’s website, is a beautiful tribute to the valuable thoughts and
contributions of young children in our community. Fourteen programs and 36
young artists chose to share their favorite places to play in Palo Alto. In June, their
original artwork will be displayed at the Palo Alto Art Center. We thank Mayor
Nancy Shepherd for her evergreen message, which graces the inside cover of the
booklet. Community members will be able to access this book via the City’s website,
the libraries, community centers, and other central locations around the city.
If a community member has any questions for us, please e-mail us at:
paacece@cityofpaloalto.org.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4500)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Animal Services Founders Day
Title: Proclamation - Animal Services Founders Day
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Attachments:
ASD Founders Day Proc 2014 (DOC)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
Animal Services Founders Day
WHEREAS, the pioneering residents of Palo Alto voted to incorporate as a Town on April
9,1894, and the Palo Alto City Council, known at that time as the Palo Alto Board of Trustees,
convened for the first time on April 28, 1894 for the purpose of establishing the offices deemed
essential for the administration of the Town; and
WHEREAS, at that first meeting the Board of Trustees acknowledged the presence of an
unchecked and expanding feral dog population causing problems on University Avenue, and to
address this issue created the Office of Poundmaster for the purpose of rounding up said stray
dogs, and appointed the Chief of Police, known at that time as the Town Marshall, the first
Poundmaster; and
WHEREAS, in the years that followed, the people of Palo Alto maintained a passionate
engagement with the issue of lost and unwanted pets, campaigning successfully for the creation
of a facility that went beyond the expeditious removal of stray dogs to the humane sheltering and
re-homing of all wayfaring pets; and
WHEREAS, our present-day Palo Alto Animal Services Division is the result of decades of
progressive actions by our citizens to address the humane care and control of not only the stray
dog and cat populations, but also that of our many and varied companion animal species and
native wild animals, and that the Palo Alto Animal Services continues in the spirit of our
venerable 19th Century founders, charged by the people of Palo Alto with the responsibility to
provide for the humane care and sheltering of all animals.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Nancy Shepherd, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the
City Council do hereby proclaim April 28, 2014 to be Founders Day for the City of Palo Alto’s
Animal Service Division.
Presented: April 28, 2014
______________________________
Mayor
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4657)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
Summary Title: Appeal of 1737 University IR Approval
Title: Consideration of an Appeal of the Director's Individual Review
Approval of a New Two-Story, Single Family Home Located at 1737 University
Avenue
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal of the Individual Review (IR)
application (file 13PLN-00000-00346) for a new two story home at 1737 University Avenue,
thereby upholding the Director of Planning and ommunity Environment’s approval.
Executive Summary
This request is an appeal of the Director’s approval of a Single Family Individual Review (IR)
application for a new two-story home at 1737 University Avenue. Four or more Council
Members’ votes would be needed to remove this item off the consent calendar to set the
matter for a future hearing.
Appellant Flora Dong is the owner of 1741 University Avenue, a single story residence located
directly adjacent to the subject property along the northeasterly property line. As required by
the Code, Staff mailed all decision and hearing notices regarding the project to the appellant.
The Manager of !dvanced Planning conducted the Director’s Hearing on March 6, 2014, and
upheld the tentative approval. The appellant’s objection is a privacy concern from a second
floor hallway/stairway window.
Background
Council Review Authority
The ity’s Individual Review (IR) procedure provides for ity ouncil “call up” of appeals. When
the Director approves an IR application after a Director’s Hearing and a directly affected
property owner appeals the decision, the project is placed before Council on the consent
calendar for final action. The Council has two options. First, it may approve the item on
City of Palo Alto Page 1
consent, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Director. Second, if four Council
members vote to remove the project from the consent calendar, the Council may determine
whether to set a new hearing before the City Council. If the Council agrees to hear an appeal, a
hearing is scheduled as soon as practical, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
Section 18.77.075.
Project Review and Director’s !pproval
The Single-Family Individual Review rules are design guidelines intended to mitigate the effects
of second-story construction on neighboring homes in residential neighborhoods. The
Director’s approval letter (!ttachment !) sets forth the applicable P!M sections and notes
that the project on the subject property met all of the IR guidelines and R-1 zone regulations to
allow the approval.
The IR application was submitted on August 29, 2013. On September 25, 2013 staff conducted a
site visit to better understand the appellant’s concerns. On October 9, 2013 staff met with the
applicant, Kelly Johnson, to review staff comments. The applicant brought a scale model of the
proposal to better understand site lines between the two properties and potential privacy
impacts.
Initial Revisions
The applicant submitted revised plans on November 7, 2013 to address comments prepared by
staff on September 30, 2013. In regards to privacy, the revised plans included several remedies.
The applicant:
Proposed landscape screening between the homes; three 24-inch box evergreen trees
will be planted on the subject property,
Implemented obscured window glazing (to a height of five feet from finished floor) for
the first and second floor master bathrooms, as well as for the second floor master
bedroom,
Arranged the casement window operations to have the openings directed away from
the appellant’s windows,
Reduced the height of the second floor windows by one-foot (with the exception of the
stairway window),
Rotated one second floor window to create an architectural feature parallel with
University Avenue, facing away from the neighboring property, and
Lowered the plate height of the second floor, lowering the overall building height.
Staff met with the applicant on November 27, 2013 to discuss details of the revisions and to
review the appellant’s remaining concerns. The applicant and appellant met with staff on
December 4, 2013, to discuss the concerns. The applicant’s model (showing both properties)
was used for the discussion of sight lines and distances between windows. Evergreen privacy
screening was also analyzed using the model.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Second Revised Plan Set
On December 11, 2013, the applicant submitted revised plans that resulted from the discussion
of December 4, 2013. The applicant:
Proposed two additional 24-inch box screening trees,
Eliminated a window on the second floor, and
Obscured the top pane of the second floor master bathroom window (the lower pane
was already obscured in earlier plans).
Provided a summary of revisions that were incorporated to address the concerns of the
appellant.
The Chief Planning Official tentatively approved the revised application on January 6, 2014. The
approval letter was mailed January 13, 2014. On January 24, 2014, prior to the effective
approval (14 days after the tentative approval date), the appellant requested a Director’s
Hearing.
Director’s Hearing
During the hearing, the appellant reiterated the concerns she had expressed in the hearing
request; stating that she didn’t believe the current plans sufficiently address her privacy
concerns. She cited four windows on the second floor; namely, the stair/hallway window, a
master bathroom window, and two master bedroom windows. As noted, the November 7 and
December 11 plans indicated that obscured glazing would be extended to a height of five feet
from the finished floor, in the master bath and master bedroom windows. At the hearing, the
applicant agreed to provide obscured glazing for all window surfaces of these three windows.
The applicant expressed the desire to retain the stairway/hallway window as proposed. The
applicant provided a diagram that indicated that the stairway/hallway window would be
located approximately 61-feet, 10-inches from the neighbor’s kitchen window. The appellant is
most concerned about the views from the project to her kitchen window. Staff’s analysis of the
distance, taken at the most extreme site lines, indicated a distance of 55-feet, which is still a
substantial distance with respect to privacy concerns.
The applicant explained that it was the intent of the owner to plant screening trees, as
indicated on the submitted plans, and comply with the condition of approval requiring planting
of the 24-inch box Pittosporums (as shown on the site plan) prior to issuance of the building
permit. It is also a requirement these trees will reach a minimum of 12-feet in height from
grade at the time of planting.
Architect Roger Kohler, representing the appellant, provided a diagram showing a previously
approved IR of one of his projects, which he believed set a precedent. It showed a second floor
window located 62-feet away from a neighbor’s second floor window. Obscured glazing for
privacy at 4-feet, 8-inches from the finished floor was required for IR approval in that case.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Director’s !pproval and !ppeal
On March 24, 2014, following the Director’s Hearing, the Director approved the application
with the additional conditions that the plans be revised to provide obscured glazing for the
three windows in the master bathroom and master bedroom. On April 3, 2014, the appellant
officially appealed the Director’s decision to approve the IR application (!ttachment ), based
on privacy concerns.
Discussion
The project meets all five of the guidelines for Individual Review and complies with the R-1
Zone District regulations for. Findings for the project’s compliance with IR guidelines can be
found in Attachment A, the approval letter, which is dated March 21, 2014. The letter briefly
discusses the findings on pages one and two, and the seven page attachment to the approval
letter (also labeled as Attachment A) provides additional detail about the project and findings.
The IR guidelines include criteria related to: basic site planning; neighborhood compatibility for
height, mass and scale; resolution of architectural form, massing and roof lines; visual character
of street facing facades and entries; and placement of second-story windows and decks for
privacy. The Individual Review program applies to construction of second stories and is
intended to mitigate the effects of that construction on neighboring homes (per PAMC Section
§18.12.110(a)). Development applications subject to IR must be consistent with these
guidelines (per PAMC Section § 18.12.110(d)).
Alternative to Staff Recommendation
The ouncil’s alternative to the staff recommendation is outlined in PAMC Section
18.77.075(g)(2):
“Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require four votes, and
set the application for a new hearing before the City Council, following which the City Council
shall adopt findings and take action on the application.”
If the Council so directs, staff will identify a date for the hearing and will provide appropriate
public notice in advance of the hearing.
Policy Implications
The Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with staff’s implementation of
the Individual Review Guidelines, and with the policies and intent of the Individual Review
Process.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Approval Letter March 21, 2014 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Attachment B: Appeal Letter April 3, 2014 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 5
ATTACHMENT A -
ATTACHMENT B -
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4621)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
Summary Title: Matadero-Margarita Bike Blvd
Title: Approval of Concept Plan Line and Implementation Schedule for the
Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle
Boulevard Project Concept Plan Line and Implementation Plan.
Executive Summary
The Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard is identified as the second highest
priority bicycle boulevard Project in the Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan
2012. The project provides a key link in the Plan between the Bol Park Path, connecting with
Gunn High School and the Stanford Research Park, and the Park Blvd Bicycle Boulevard, which is
the first highest priority bicycle boulevard project and also currently under design.
The Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard includes traffic calming measures to
encourage both bicycle and pedestrian use, branding signage consistent with other bicycle
boulevard facilities, high visibility green bicycle gateway markers at each end and key entry
points to the boulevard, and provisions for studies to implement additional improvements at
key intersections such as El Camino Real and Orinda Avenue.
The proposed implementation plan for the project takes advantage of existing city CIP projects
(PE-86070) with the street resurfacing program to implement speed humps, speed tables, and
pedestrian refuge improvements as early as this summer. The Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan Implementation CIP (PL-04010) will be used to fund branding and gateway
market improvements at the same time. In addition to the planned physical improvements
over the next two years, the implementation plan includes additional planning and design for
possible future improvements at El Camino Real (with the California Department of
Transportation – Caltrans), and at Orinda Avenue.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
The City held two community outreach meetings for the Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue
Bicycle Boulevard project in 2013 to develop the proposed concept plan (Attachment A). The
Planning & Transportation Commission also participated in two sessions to discuss and to help
refine the project, ultimately providing their recommendation to forward this item to the
Council for approval at their February 12th meeting.
Discussion
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012
The Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 includes a Proposed Bikeway Network of
multi-use paths, bicycle boulevards, enhanced bikeway facilities, bicycle lane facilities, and
bicycle routes. The Proposed Bikeway Network, provided in Attachment B, is the guiding policy
document for the deployment of bicycle facilities in the City of Palo Alto.
The Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan was developed through an extensive community outreach
process that took place over 18 months through 2011 and 2012. The Council approved the Plan
at its July 9, 2012 meeting.
Implementation of the plan started in 2013 with the expansion of the Park Boulevard Bicycle
Boulevard along Castilleja Avenue and Park Boulevard to Oregon Expressway. The City Council
also authorized up to $1.2M per year over five years as part of the current year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) to help implement the plan. In 2013 the City initiated the
Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard project using in-house resources.
Traffic Data Collection
The Planning & Transportation Commission requested increased traffic data collection to help
understand bicycle/pedestrian activity along the proposed route and to help justify
improvements that can neighborhood concerns. The City collected 7-day counts using both
video cameras and traditional tube counters in response to the commission request to collect
bicycle/pedestrian/vehicle volume data along with vehicle speed data, Attachment C. The City
now uses this 7-day count as a standard for all of its bicycle boulevard projects. The data is
useful to help establish benchmarks for the City as implementation of the Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan continues.
The findings of the Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard traffic counts show
that bicycle and pedestrian use is as high at 10% of the vehicle volumes. The data also
validated community input regarding faster vehicle speeds near the west end of Matadero
Avenue and near the Josina Avenue intersection at over 30-MPH. Vehicles speeds near the
west end of Margarita Avenue were similar, but along Matadero Avenue the corridor lacks
grade-separated sidewalk facilities because of the Barron Park Neighborhood Design
Guidelines. As a result, the pedestrian experience along Matadero Avenue is much different
than that on Margarita Avenue because bicycles and pedestrians are forced to travel adjacent
to the higher speed vehicles. The project proposes five speed humps along the west end of
Matadero Avenue to help reduce vehicle speeds and a speed table at the Josina Avenue
City of Palo Alto Page 2
intersection to help support pedestrian connections with Tippawingo Street. Greenback
Sharrows will also provide a continuous reminder to motorists that they are sharing space with
bicyclists and guide bicycle placement on the street with shared-road design concept.
Matadero Avenue-Margarita Bicycle Boulevard
The proposed Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard project takes advantage
of proven traffic calming measures along bicycle facilities and sets the stage for enhanced
measures to be used along future bicycle boulevard and enhanced bikeway facilities. The
general perception of the community is that bicycle boulevard facilities mean “bicycle lane”
facilities. In fact, bicycle boulevard facilities typically do not include bicycle lane facilities.
Bicycle Boulevards take advantage of low-volume residential streets (less than 3,000 vehicles
per day) and provide traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speed to below 25-MPH so that
bicyclists and pedestrians may comfortably share space with vehicles, and in some instances
prioritize bicycle/pedestrian use through the diversion of traffic back onto arterial streets.
The Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard takes advantage of existing traffic
barriers along Park Boulevard to divert traffic away from Margarita Avenue creating a
comfortable connection to the Park Blvd Bicycle Boulevard facility. Along Matadero Avenue the
City sees substantial use of bicycle and pedestrian activity to support Safe Route to School
connections to Barron Park School, Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, and commuter
activities to the Stanford Research Park. Below is a summary of the proposed implementation
plan for the Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard project:
Phase 1 – Traffic Calming Improvements (Summer 2014)
o Speeds Humps – A total of five (5) new speed humps along Matadero Avenue
between Laguna Avenue and Whitsell Avenue.
o Speed Table – One (1) new speed table at the intersection of Matadero Avenue &
Tippawingo Street-Josina Avenue that also dubs as a raised crosswalk table for
pedestrians supplemented with pedestrian-activated flashing beacons.
o Pedestrian Refuge & Drainage at Matadero Avenue & Josina Avenue – Construction
of a new valley on Josina Avenue at the Matadero Avenue intersection to provide a
walkable surface for pedestrians. Berms are shown in the Concept Plan to help
create pedestrian refuge areas at the intersection and to dub as traffic calming tools
to slow vehicles speeds through the intersection. The City is exploring the
installation of asphalt sidewalk extensions at the intersection instead of the berms
pending drainage design. The asphalt sidewalk would create grade-separated space
for pedestrians at the intersection. The City is also exploring the modification of
existing guard rails at the Josina Avenue intersection and expansion of asphalt
pathways adjacent to Matadero Avenue pocket park, up to the Barron Creek Bridge
in response to Commission input. The improvements will be explored for
City of Palo Alto Page 3
implementation as part of the near-term traffic calming measures and an update
provided at a later date as implementation of the project continues.
Phase 2 – Bicycle Boulevard Treatment Implementation (Fall 2014)
o Bicycle Boulevard Branding and Wayfinding Signage – New signage at every
intersection corner to brand the bicycle boulevard facility and wayfinding signage to
highlight the path to points of interest.
o Greenback Sharrow Roadway Markings – Although still considered experimental
traffic control devices, greenback sharrow markings are proposed to highlight the
presence of bicyclists to motorists and to guide bicyclists where to position
themselves on the roadway. The City has greenback Sharrows installed along
Cowper Street – North of E Meadow Drive and on Channing Avenue – East of Guinda
Avenue.
o Greenback Bike Boulevard/Super Sharrow Entry Markers – Entry markers off of the El
Camino Real intersection and at each end of the bicycle boulevard to highlight the
facility to motorists and create awareness of bicycle activity.
o Crosswalk Improvements – Enhanced crosswalk markings at the Bol Park Path and
the Tippawingo Street-Josina Avenue intersections.
o Traffic Study for All-Way Stop Removal at Margarita Avenue & Orinda Street – Begin
a traffic study to determine if removal of the existing All-Way Stop at Margarita
Avenue & Orinda Street is feasible along with identification of appropriate
mitigation measures, such as a traffic circle or other community-preferred
alternatives.
o Park Boulevard Barrier Modifications – Minor improvement project to widen the
bicycle path entries at the traffic calming barriers at Park Blvd & Margarita Avenue
to provide a minimum 6-FT wide entry for bicyclists. Signage and markings to guide
northbound versus southbound bicyclists through the barrier will also be provided.
Phase 3 – El Camino Real Intersection Improvements (Spring 2015)
o Caltrans Project Study Report –Begin a study with Caltrans to determine the level of
improvements at the El Camino Real & Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue
intersection that are acceptable to the State of California. Proposed improvements
include traffic signal modifications with bicycle-focused roadway sensors,
intersection bulb-outs to reduce pedestrian crosswalk lengths, and median island
modifications to help better channelize left turning traffic at the intersection. This
project will include planning for improvements at El Camino Real & Maybell Avenue
City of Palo Alto Page 4
as well.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Phase 4 - Margarita Avenue & Orinda Street Intersection Improvement (FY2016)
o Pending the results of the Margarita Avenue & Orinda Street traffic study for the All-
Way Stop removal, the community-preferred intersection improvements will be
designed and built.
Phase 5 – Future Year Improvements (No Schedule)
o Pedestrian Bridge at Matadero Avenue & Tippawingo Street-Josina Avenue –
Proposal for a new pedestrian bridge over Barron Creek along the north side of the
intersection. This project will be recommended at future community outreach
meetings for inclusion in the next Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update,
planned in Fiscal Year 2017. Once included in the plan the project may be eligible
for grant funding.
o Chimalus Drive Green Belt – This project will also be considered for future updates of
the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan and includes a possible Class I trail
along the north edge of the Barron Park Neighborhood. Public feedback for this
project received mixed reviews during the design of the Matadero Avenue-
Margarita Bicycle Boulevard project but staff believes that additional public input is
necessary before making any final decisions on the project. The Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan Update in Fiscal Year 2017 is an appropriate venue for the
greater Palo Alto community to weigh in on this potential link to the
bicycle/pedestrian network.
o El Camino Real & Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Intersection Improvements –
Pending the results of the Caltrans Project Study Report, grant-funds will be pursued
to build the recommended study improvements. Improvement opportunities for
the El Camino Real & Maybell Avenue intersection will be coordinated as part of the
Caltrans Project Study Report.
Resource Impact
The near-term Phase 1 Traffic Calming and Phase 2 Bicycle Boulevard Treatment measures of
the Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Bouelvard are being coordinated through the
Annual Street Resurfacing Program (PE-86070 and the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan
CIP (PL-04010). The Phase 3 El Camino Real intersection improvements and Phase 4 Matadero
Avenue/Orinda Street improvements will also be coordinated through the Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan CIP. Phase 5 improvements are currently unfunded and require additional
community input.
Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by City Councl for adoption of the Bicycle Plan
on July 9, 2012. Certain aspects of Phases 4 and 5 of the Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Bicycle Boulevard project will require additional environmental review at a later time should
they proceed, incluidng removal of the All-Way Stop at Margarita Avenue & Orinda Avenue.
Also, the El Camino Real & Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue study will yield specific project
recommendations for which environmental review may be required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Matadero Margarita Concept Plan (PDF)
Attachment B: Matadero-Margarita BB Traffic Data Summary - Dec 2013 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 7
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4601)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Google Fiber Update
Title: Receive Update Concerning City Response to Google Fiber City
Checklist and Ongoing Negotiation of Google Fiber Hut License Agreement to
Cover Potential Location of Google Network Hut Equipment Facilities on City-
Owned Properties; Adopt a Resolution Prohibiting Disclosure of Certain Non-
Public Utilities-Related Information Retained by the City that is Subject to
California Public Records Act Exemptions
From: City Manager
Lead Department: IT Department
Recommendation
On February 19, 2014, Google announced it was considering the City of Palo Alto
(“City”) and thirty-three (33) other communities nationwide as potential candidates to
study for future Fiber Network deployment. Google provided the City with a Google
Fiber City Checklist (“Google Checklist” or, the “Checklist”), attached hereto as Exhibit
B, which sets forth a series of extensive information requests and conditions from
Google that must be satisfied by the City by May 1, 2014. In connection with the
Google Checklist effort, Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Receive an update concerning the City’s response to the Checklist.
2.Receive an update concerning the City’s ongoing negotiations with Google Fiber
Company (also referred to as “Google” herein) of a Google Fiber Network Hut
License Agreement, to cover the potential future location of Google “Network Hut”
equipment facilities on city-owned properties, with specific site locations for such
Network Hut(s) to be determined later. Descriptions of Google’s Network Huts are
available in Exhibit C and Exhibit D attached to this Staff Report.
3.Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit A) prohibiting disclosure of certain non-public utilities-
related information retained by the City that is subject to California Public Records
Act exemptions.
ITEM # 7
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background
Over the last few years, gigabit-speed broadband service has moved from idea to
reality, with dozens of communities evaluating strategies to entice third parties to build
next-generation communication infrastructure, including all-fiber networks capable of
delivering ultra high-speed broadband and other services to homes, businesses and
anchor institutions such as schools. Consumers are increasingly interested in fast,
reliable and reasonably priced access to broadband services. To that end, Google is
currently contemplating offering high-speed Internet services to Palo Alto and thirty
three (33) other cities to expand Google Fiber beyond Kansas City, Kansas, Kansas City
Missouri, Austin, Texas and Provo, Utah.
According to Google, its Checklist is based on a collection of best practices and
recommendations from the Fiber-to-the-Home Council Americas, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors and Gig.U, a group of leading research universities, in partnership with their
local communities, which are working toward accelerating the offering of ultra-high
speed network services to their communities.
Deployment of fiber networks are large construction projects which benefit from
advance planning and consideration of a number of local factors that could affect
construction, such as topography (e.g., hills, flood zones), housing density and the
condition of local infrastructure. As a result, the information and data the City supplies
in the response to the Checklist has the potential to be helpful to Google Fiber as it
studies new areas to build its networks, and to other providers that may be
contemplating similar expansions.
Discussion
Status Update: The City’s Response to the Google Checklist
On February 19, 2014, Google announced its plans to start “early discussions with 34
cities in 9 metro areas around the United States to explore what it would take to bring a
new fiber-optic network to their community.”1 Mountain View, Santa Clara, San Jose
and Sunnyvale are among those California cities, in addition to Palo Alto, that are
participating in the Google Checklist process. Since the Google announcement in
February 2014, a cross-departmental team led by the City’s Chief Information Officer
has been working to collect and review information and data responsive to the Google
Checklist’s requests. The following departments have been actively engaged in the
Google Checklist effort: City Manager, Administrative Services, City Attorney,
Development Services, Information Technology, Public Works and Utilities. Staff now
recommends that the City receive an update on the City’s progress in responding to the
Google Checklist in advance of the May 1, 2014 deadline.
1 Google’s description of its 34-city Fiber effort is available at: https://fiber.google.com/newcities/
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Google’s Proposal
The Google Checklist is an element of Google’s “two-part planning process.” Google will
use the Checklist to determine if a community is fiber ready. At the same time, Google
has indicated that it is undertaking its own study to evaluate costs, timelines and other
factors associated with building a fiber optic network in the thirty-four (34) communities
Google has selected. Cities must submit Checklist information by Google’s established
May 1, 2014 deadline. Google will endeavor to notify communities whether they have
been selected for a potential fiber build out by the end of 2014.
The Google Checklist Request
The Google Checklist requests that the City provide Google with the following categories
of information and data, including explanations about how City processes might differ
from Google’s preferred approach to construction, permitting and maintenance:
Category #1 – Provide information about existing infrastructure:
Gather and submit all required data asset requests as outlined in Google’s
comprehensive Data Request List (see Google Checklist Appendix 1A), which
includes a wide range of public information (e.g. parcel numbers, addresses) and
non-public information (e.g. underground utility routes).
Identify which infrastructure and/or data is not owned, operated or controlled by
the city.
Category #2 – Help ensure access to existing infrastructure (poles, conduits):
Provide a description of any existing state laws, local ordinances, and/or
commercial agreements that satisfy the attachment and use rights described by
Google.
Work with Google, as needed, to ensure that Google and other service providers
have access to these rights.
Category #3 – Help make construction speedy and predictable:
Review the Google Fiber Permitting, Construction, and Maintenance Proposal
(see Google Checklist Appendix 3A) and identify where the city’s current
practices differ from Google’s proposed approach.
If the city’s current practices do differ from Google’s proposed approach, please
explain why and outline ideas to accommodate a large network build with
accelerated timelines.
Upload the City’s existing permit application for our review.
Identify any local, city or state-wide requirements that may impact a network
build by reviewing and responding to Google’s list of Construction Constraints
List (see Google Checklist Appendix 3B).
Upload a final Network Hut License Agreement, as agreed upon between Google
Fiber and the City. Google provided the City with its preferred form of Network
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Hut License Agreement (see Google Checklist Appendix 3C). The terms of a the
Network Hut License Agreement are currently under negotiation between the
City and Google Fiber, and status of this item is discussed in greater detail
below..
City on Target to Complete its Response by May 1, 2014 Deadline
The City is on target to complete submission of all items requested under the Google
Checklist by the May 1, 2014 deadline with the exception of the hut agreement. The hut
agreement is currently in negotiation with Google and is targeted for a May 5
submission to City Council.
Public Information: The City has submitted all public information Google has
requested in response to Categories 1, 2 and 3 described above. These City
responses to the Google Checklist are available on the City’s website as follows:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2558&TargetID=2
68.
Confidential information. Any confidential or proprietary information requested
by Google will be provided under the terms of a NDA, following the City Council’s
adoption of the resolution prohibiting release of such confidential information, in
order to avoid waiver of such information’s exemptions under the California
Public Records Act.
Status Update: Network Hut License Agreement Negotiations
Google’s fiber network design requires the placement an estimated one to two “network
hut” structures at various locations throughout the City. Google has expressed a desire
to locate its Network Huts on City-owned property. Google’s Network Huts are a 12'
(wide) x 28' (length) x 10' (high) prefabricated concrete building that will contain the
electronic equipment that provides Internet and cable TV services for customers. They
must be located on sites that have at least 1400 square feet in area, which is an area
required for vehicle access. Each fiber hut will have two air-conditioning units mounted
to the side of the building, a back-up diesel generator and fiber-optic cable vaults.
Google needs access to its Network Huts 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Photos
and site drawings of Google’s proposed huts are attached to this Staff Report as Exhibit
C and ExhibitD.
As part of the Google Checklist process, Google asked the City to (1) consider locating
Google’s network huts on City-owned property; and (2) agree to Google’s preferred
Network Hut License Agreement between the City and Google Fiber Company by the
May 1, 2014 deadline. The Network Hut License Agreement is structured such that
specific city-owned locations for Network Hut(s) will be determined later, along with
applicable site specific terms and conditions.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The City is currently engaged with Google in the negotiation of a Network Hut License
Agreement for Council consideration. Google’s preferred form Network Hut License
Agreement (see Google Checklist Appendix 3C) lacks many of the standard terms,
conditions and protections the City typically insists upon in its other contracts to best
protect the City’s interests. Google has also requested that Cities provide it with a
specific price and 20-year license term prior to City and Google’s potential agreement
on a specific Network Hut site, which Google proposes that the parties determine later.
The City has held discussions with Google staff concerning the Network Hut License
Agreement and staff has proposed changes to Google’s form Network Hut License
Agreement in an attempt to harmonize it with those terms and conditions the City
typically insists on to best protect City interests. At present, staff’s hope and intention
is to receive feedback from Google and return to Council with a Network Hut License
Agreement for Council consideration at the May 5, 2014 City Council meeting.
Prohibition Against Disclosure of Non-Public Utilities Information
The Google Checklist requests from the City a wide variety of non-public and
proprietary City and utilities-related infrastructure information that the City considers
protected against disclosure pursuant to exemptions to the California Public Records Act
(California Government Code sections 6254 and 6255). Pursuant to section 6254.5 of
the California Government Code, City disclosure of exempt information to one member
of the public, even under a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”), can result in waiver of
the applicable Public Records Act exemption and require disclosure of that same
information to any other person who requests a copy.
To avoid waiver of the California Public Records Act exemptions applicable to the non-
public and proprietary City and utilities-related infrastructure data Google has requested
under the terms of an NDA, section 6254.5 requires that the disclosure of such
information: (1) not be required by law; and (2) that the disclosure be prohibited by
formal action of an elected legislative body of the local agency which retains the
writings.
Disclosure of the non-public City and utilities-related infrastructure information is not
required by law, and staff recommends that the Council approve a resolution prohibiting
disclosure of the following categories of information, except in accordance with the
terms of the attached resolution, in order to avoid waiver of California Public Records
Act exemptions when such information is provided to a member of the public under a
NDA:
- Location of Utility Poles
- Location of Streetlights
City of Palo Alto Page 6
- Detail of Utility Pole Wiring
- Underground Utility Routes
- Location of Sewer Manholes
- Location of Water Manholes
- Location of Utility Manholes
- Location of existing spare conduit for lease
- Location of existing dark fiber for lease
- Infrastructure Maintenance Plan
- Listing and locations of City-owned property for potential Network Hut sites
Consistent with and contingent upon the Council’s adoption of the attached resolution
prohibiting disclosure of confidential and proprietary City and utilities-related
infrastructure information, such information will only be available to Google in response
to the Google Checklist under the auspices of a NDA.
Timeline
Google has requested that the City provide its complete response to the Google
Checklist. From May 1, 2014, through the end of 2014, Google will review all city
submissions and endeavor to determine which cities will be considered for deployment.
Resource Impact
None in conjunction with the approval of the agreement.
Policy Implications
Relationship between Google Checklist Effort and other City Fiber Initiatives
The City’s submission of a response to the Google Checklist does not represent a
commitment, promise or guarantee with respect to the design or construction of a fiber
network by Google or any other provider. Indeed, the City of Palo Alto continues to
explore the possibility of extending its existing 41-mile fiber ring to include homes and
to evaluate beneficial wireless options for the city.2 As part of that evaluation, City staff
has appointed a Citizen’s Advisory Committee to assist with the evaluation of the
feasibility of building a city-wide, high-speed broadband fiber-to-the premises network
in Palo Alto. This effort is wholly unrelated to the City’s response to the Google
Checklist. The CAC’s work has proceeded separately, and in parallel with staff’s
activities related to completion of the City’s Google Checklist submission.
2 For a more detailed description of the City’s fiber initiatives, unrelated to the Google Checklist Effort, see, e.g.
Council Staff Report ID # 3914 (June 24, 2013); Staff Report ID # 4080 (September 17, 2013); Staff Report ID # 4203
(October 28, 2013); and Finance Committee Staff Report ID # 2097 (November 15, 2011).
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Network Hut License Agreement as Potential Template for other Providers
As noted above, staff is continuing to negotiate with Google regarding the Network Hut
License Agreement. If the City and Google reach agreement and Council approves a
Network Hut Agreement, other providers could insist that the City offer them similar or
identical provisions for their projects. Following San Antonio’s approval of a network hut
license with Google, AT&T secured a similar agreement with San Antonio in under a
month.3 AT&T just announced its intent to expand its own gigabit product in the Bay
Area, though the current expansion does not appear to include Palo Alto at this time.4
Scope of Google Fiber Service
In 2000, the City’s Utilities Department (CPAU) began to license “dark fiber” for
commercial purposes. CPAU’s fiber system has high market share and brand awareness
among commercial enterprises and other organizations that need the quantity and
quality of bandwidth provided by direct fiber optic connections. CPAU currently licenses
dark fiber service connections to approximately ninety (90) commercial customers.
Google has represented that its primary focus in connection with the Google Checklist is
the expansion of fiber to residential customers. Additional details concerning whether
Google has plans to expand beyond residential to commercial customers such as those
currently served by CPAU’s fiber system will likely emerge in more detail if Google elects
to proceed with an effort to bring fiber to Palo Alto.
Environmental Review
Provision of data in response to the Google checklist, and adoption of a resolution
prohibiting disclosure of non-public utilities-related data do not meet the California
Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a “project” under California Public
Resources Code §21065, thus no environmental review is required
Negotiations between the City and Google of a Network Hut License Agreement is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Title 14 of the
California Code of Registration Section 15061 (b)(3) because it simply establishes
boilerplate license terms. Once a particular site or sites are identified, staff will do
additional analysis to determine whether further environmental review is required.
EXHIBIT A: Resolution Prohibiting Disclosure of Proprietary and Confidential City and
Utilities-Related Information
EXHIBITB: Google Checklist
3 http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/2014/04/san-antonio-approves-lease-deal-with-at-t-
similar.html?page=all
4 http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25608603/at-t-plans-expand-gigabit-internet-service-bay
City of Palo Alto Page 8
EXHIBIT C: Photos of Google Network Hut
EXHIBITD: Drawings of Google Network Hut
Attachments:
Exhibit C - Drawings of Google Network Hut (DOCX)
Exhibit D - Photos of Google Network Hut (DOCX)
Exhibit B - Google Fiber Checklist v2 (PDF)
Resolution Prohibiting Disclosure of Proprietary and Confidential City and Utilities-
Related Information (DOCX)
1
10486.docx
Form Subject to Updates and Changes Prior to Signature
EXHIBIT C
NETWORK HUT SPECIFICATIONS
Exhibit D
Google anticipates leasing city property to install one to two Network Huts to house its equipment. The
huts are 9’ H x 28’ W x 12’ D and need to allow 24/7 access by Google. Including access around the hut,
the footprint for each hut and enclosure is approximately 1,400 square feet. An example from Kansas
City can be seen below. The City can require screening.
Fiber Network Hut
There are two sizes of fiber cabinets, depending on the number of homes served. The small (288 port)
cabinet pictured below is 32” H x 16” W x 16” D and the large (567 port) cabinet is 32” H x 33” W x 16”
D. The cabinets would be placed in the public right of way near the residences being served. The
cabinets do not contain fans or motors and are therefore quiet. Google has indicated that the cabinets
can be painted different colors if desired.
Small Fiber Cabinet
Not Yet Approved
1
140424 dm 0180040
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Prohibiting
Disclosure of Certain Confidential and Proprietary City and Utilities-Related
Information and Data
R E C I T A L S
A. The City is the only municipally-owned utility in California that operates its own
utilities including electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water and wastewater service.
B. The City also provides other important public services, including administration
and operation of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and construction and maintenance
of public facilities, streets, sidewalks and storm drains.
C. The City, in providing vital utility and other important City services, has the need
to acquire, compile and maintain confidential and proprietary information in various electronic
and paper formats, which include, but are not limited to the following types of information
(collectively, the “Confidential Information”):
1. Location of Utility Poles
2. Location of Streetlights
3. Detail of Utility Pole Wiring
4. Underground Utility Routes
5. Location of Sewer Manholes
6. Location of Water Manholes
7. Location of Utility Manholes
8. Location of existing spare conduit for lease
9. Location of existing dark fiber for lease
10. Infrastructure Maintenance Plans
11. Utility Customer Data
12. Listings and locations of certain City-owned property
D. The City has received requests from the public for Confidential Information.
E. The California Public Records Act (Cal. Govt. Code § 6250, et seq.) declares that
access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and
necessary right of every person in the state.
F. Notwithstanding the intent of the California Public Records Act, the Act also
exempts numerous types of information from public disclosure, including utility customer data
(Cal. Govt. Code § 6254.16) and any information where, based on the particular facts of the
case, the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public
interest served by disclosure of the record (Cal. Govt. Code § 6255).
Not Yet Approved
2
140424 dm 0180040
G. Disclosure of certain specific Confidential Information related to utilities could
create a risk of harm to utility facilities, City employees and the public, without providing
significant additional insight into the operations of the City, and therefore should be avoided.
H. Certain Confidential Information is of a commercial sensitive nature, which, if
revealed, could place the City at an unfair disadvantage.
I. Such Confidential Information is not general public knowledge and is proprietary
and/or confidential.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Disclosure of Confidential Information is not required by law, and
disclosure of such Confidential Information retained by the City is prohibited.
SECTION 2. Disclosure of Confidential Information may only be made by the City on
the condition that a Receiving Party demonstrate a legitimate business or research purpose and
agree in writing to protect the confidentiality of the Confidential Information.
SECTION 3. This prohibition applies to all Confidential Information currently in the
possession of the City or that the City acquires in the future.
SECTION 4. If any of provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be effective retroactive to the date the City first
acquired the item of Confidential Information to which it is applicable.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Not Yet Approved
3
140424 dm 0180040
SECTION 6. Adoption of a resolution prohibiting disclosure of Confidential
Information does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a
“project” under California Public Resources Code §21065, thus no environmental review is
required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4686)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Golf Course - Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount
of $250,000 expenses and $140,000 revenue
Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of
$250,000 in Expenses and $140,000 in Revenue to Operate the Palo Alto
Municipal Golf Course Through May and June of Fiscal Year 2014
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the net
amount of $100,000 that is funded through a decrease in the Budget Stabilization Reserve to
operate the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course through May and June 2014.
Background
In accordance with prior Council direction, staff has continued to pursue the implementation of
the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project (Project), which includes a full
renovation of the Golf Course as well as the set-aside of 10.5 acres to be carved from the Golf
Course footprint for future recreation uses. Golf Course Architect Forrest Richardson completed
the Project construction plans and specifications in late 2013. During December 2013, staff
conducted a pre-qualification process for potential bidders in order to ensure that the
construction contract for the Project will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder and a
qualified golf course builder. As a result of this screening process, staff approved four qualified
contractors to submit bids for construction of the Project. Staff submitted regulatory permit
applications to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) and the US Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) for the Project on December 23, 2013. On February 3, 2014, Council
approved the Site and Design Review application and a Park Improvement Ordinance for the
Project and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the combined Palo Alto
Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration and Baylands Athletic Center Expansion Project.
Staff is in the process of retaining a golf course builder to construct the Golf Course
improvements. An invitation for bids was issued on February 24th, soliciting construction bids
from the four pre-qualified contractors. Bids were received on April 15th, and staff is in the
process of reviewing the bids. The last remaining hurdle to starting construction of the Project
City of Palo Alto Page 2
is the approval of permits from the Water Board and the Corps. Staff will not request that
Council award a construction contract until the two regulatory permits have been issued. The
uncertainty surrounding the timing of the permit issuances has in turn made it difficult for staff
to predict when the Golf Course will be closed to permit the commencement of construction of
the Project. The City Manager is working directly with the Executive Officer of the Water Board
in an attempt to expedite the issuance of the Water Board’s permit. Staff has also been
coordinating with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s Executive Director, the
Project environmental consultant, and outside legal counsel to convincingly persuade the
Water Board to issue a permit to the City. Once the regulatory permits have been secured,
staff will request Council’s approval of a construction contract and will work with the selected
golf course builder to develop a progress schedule for implementation of the Project.
Discussion
Operating the Golf Course during fiscal year 2014 has been challenging for the City and Golf
Course tenants due to pre-construction work, which involves the importation and stockpiling of
soil needed for both the levee and golf course renovation. Importation of soil in advance of the
Project’s starting was initiated in order to produce a stockpile of certified soil to enable the
flood control project and golf course renovation to get underway promptly in May 2014. To
accommodate the soil stockpile area, several holes on the Golf Course were shortened,
reducing the par score of the entire course from 72 to 67. The course is still an 18-hole golf
course and continues to remain open for public use.
Starting in the first quarter of FY2014, after stockpiling began, the Golf Course has experienced
a significant reduction in golf rounds played. On November 4, staff received Council’s authority
for greater flexibility in discounting golf fees in order to further promote play at the Golf Course
during the pre-construction period. The Golf Course Management Team, which is made up of
City staff, contracted Golf Professional Brad Lozares, Valley Crest Maintenance staff, Bay Café
staff, Golf Course Architect Forrest Richardson, and members of the Golf Advisory Committee,
have continued to promote and market the Golf Course to encourage maximum golf play
during the pre-construction period. The flexibility in discounting golf gees, including limited
very low to no-cost golf fees during slow times of the day has helped increase visitation and
revenue.
With increased marketing and promotion the Golf Course is recovering more costs today than
was recovered early in the fiscal year, yet it is still operating at a loss. On average, the Golf
Course is losing $50,000 to $60,000 per month during the current pre-construction period. If
the Course remains open May and June 2014, staff projects a need for additional budget
appropriations of $240,000, offset by $140,000 in additional revenue. The additional budget
appropriation is needed for Golf Course maintenance, operations, and water to keep the Golf
Course open to the public. If the regulatory permits are approved before the end of fiscal year
2014, staff will move expeditiously to begin construction as soon as possible thereafter.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Staff evaluated the option of closing the Golf Course in advance of being ready to start
construction. However, the City’s contracts with Valley Crest Maintenance and Golf
Professional Brad Lozares permit a reduction in the City’s compensation to the parties only
when construction begins. Therefore, it would not be financially advantageous to close the Golf
Course in advance of construction. Staff recommends the Golf Course will be allowed to remain
open until construction is ready to begin in order to maximize revenue and help cover
operating costs.
Resource Impact
The Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Budget assumed that the golf course will close effective May 1,
2014. Due to lower revenues as of February 2014, the FY 2014 Midyear Budget Review, as
approved by the Finance Committee on March 18, 2014 included a recommendation to
decrease golf course estimated revenues by $200,000. Assuming that the golf course will be
open until June 2014, staff will remove the revenue decrease recommendation when the FY
2014 Midyear Budget Review will be presented to the City Council on May 5, 2014.
As outlined above, the contractual requirements with the concessionaires at the Golf Course
require that the Golf Course remain open until construction commences. Therefore, it is
recommended to keep the Golf Course open for the remainder of the fiscal year unless the City
receives permit approvals from the Water Board. The attached Budget Amendment Ordinance
includes a recommendation to increase golf course revenues by $140,000 and increase the golf
course related expenditure budget by $240,000. The net increase in expenditures of $100,000
is recommended to be offset with a reduction in the Budget Stabilization Reserve.
Attachments:
BAO xxxx - Golf Course BAO (DOC)
ORDINANCE NO. xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $100,000 IN THE GENERAL
FUND FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
GOLF COURSE.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2014; and
B. As part of the approval of the FY 2014 Adopted Capital
Budget, the City Council approved the Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project; and
C. The Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Operating Budget assumed
the closure of the Golf Course effective May 2014; and
D. In anticipation of the Golf Course Reconfiguration
Project, the City applied for permits from the State Water
Board; and
E. Due to delays in receiving permit approval which has
delayed construction as well as contractual obligations with
the City’s concessionaires at the Golf Course, staff
recommends keeping the Golf Course for the remainder of the
Fiscal Year or until the State Water Board approves regulatory
permits, whichever is sooner.
SECTION 2. The revenue estimate for Charges for Services in
the General Fund is increased by One Hundred and Forty Thousand
Dollars ($140,000) for Golf Course related activities.
SECTION 3. The expenditures budget for Golf Course related
activities is increased by Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars
($240,000) with a net expenditure increase of One Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($100,000).
SECTION 4. The Budget Stabilization Reserve is reduced by One
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to Thirty Four Million Seven
Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand.
SECTION 5. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
SECTION 7. The actions taken in this ordinance do not
constitute a project requiring environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
City Attorney Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4610)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Second Contract Amendment with Riezbos Holzbaur Group
LLC for Design Services
Title: Approval of Second Contract Amendment With the Riezbos Holzbaur
Group LLC to Increase the Total Compensation by $30,000 from $121,212 to
$151,212 for Design Work for the Administrative Services Department
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the Second Amendment to the Contract with Riezbos
Holzbaur Group LLC to increase the total compensation by $30,000 from $121,212 to $151,212
for design work for the Administrative Services Department.
Executive Summary
This second contract amendment will ensure that documents published by the Office of
Management and Budget such as the annual budget documents will have a consistent design
within the next 1 ½ years.
Background
On December 17, 2012, the City Council approved Amendment One to the contract by adding
$37,212 to the original contract amount of $84,000, increasing total compensation to $121,122,
for design work for the Administrative Services Department (ASD) and the Library Department
(Library). ASD requested a contractual increase in the amount of $12,912 for a redesign of the
FY 2013-2023 Long Range Financial Forecast, the FY 2014 Budget document cover, and the FY
2015-2024 Long Range Financial Forecast. The Library requested contractual increase in the
amount of $24,300 for brand development including a style guide.
Discussion
On December 16, the City Council approved a contract with Finite Matters to compile and
publish the City’s budget documents. In the first phase of transitioning to the new budget
publication software, staff redesigned the operating budget document as part of the FY 2015
budget process. In the second phase of implementing the new publication software, staff will
publish the FY 2016 Capital Budget during the FY 2016 budget process. Further, staff intends to
City of Palo Alto Page 2
publish as part of the release of the FY 2015 and FY 2016 Adopted Budget documents, a short
and succinct Budget in Brief document, which include infographics.
To ensure consistency in design within the next 1 ½ years between the FY 2015-2024 Long
Range Financial Forecast, the FY 2016 Operating Budget document, the FY 2016 Capital Budget
document, as well as related budget in briefs, staff requests to amend the contract with
Riezebos Holzbaur Group LLC. For design work for the FY 2017 budget documents, if needed,
staff intends to issue a Request for Proposals. The amendment also includes approximately 40
hours of as-needed design and production services at a billable rate of $100 per hour.
Resource Impact
The recommended increase in total compensation amounts to $30,000. Funds for this contract
amendment in the amount of $10,000 are available in the FY 2014 Administrative Services
Department budget. Funds for FY 2015 in the amount of $20,000 are subject to the
appropriation of funds as part of the approval of the FY 2015 Budget.
Environmental Review
The approval of this contract is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: S12144615 Riezbos Holzbaur Group Amendment 2 (PDF)
1
140421 sm 010
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. S12144615
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
RIEZBOS HOLZBAUR GROUP
This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. S12144615
(“Contract”) is entered into April 30, by and between the CITY OF
PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State
of California (“CITY”), and RIEZBOS HOLZBAUR GROUP, a California
Corporation, located at 847 Sansome Street, 3rd Floor, San
Francisco, California (“CONTRACTOR”).
R E C I T A L S:
WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the
parties for the provision of Pollution Prevention Public Outreach
and Graphic Design Support; and
WHEREAS, the Contract was amended on December 10, 2012
for the provision of Library Branding and Design Support for the
Long Range Financial Forecast Document and Fiscal Year 2012-2013
Budget Book Cover;
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract to add
additional services and compensation and to extend the term;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms,
conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 3 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“The term of this agreement is from June 01, 2012 to
August 31, 2015 inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections Q
and V of the General Terms and Conditions.”
SECTION 2. Section 5 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not to exceed compensation for the full performance
of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any:
The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ ); OR
The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of
dollars ($ ); OR
A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth
in Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation
amount of One Hundred Fifty One Thousand, Two Hundred
Eleven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($151,211.50).”
Attachment A
2
140421 sm 010
SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract
is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to
this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference:
a. Exhibit “A” entitled “Scope of Services” shall also
include A1.
b. Exhibit “C” entitled “Compensation” shall also
include C1.
SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other
provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent
amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly
authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date
first above written.
APPROVED:
__________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
RIEZBOS HOLZBAUR GROUP
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A1": SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT "C1": COMPENSATION
Attachment A
3
140421 sm 010
EXHIBIT A1
AMENDMENT 2 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
Administrative Services Project – Various FY 2015 and FY 2016 Office of Management and Budget
documents
RIEZBOS HOLZBAUR GROUP will provide to the City of Palo Alto, Office of Management and
Budget with creative services for their Long Range Financial Forecast, Operating Budget, Capital
Budget, and Budget in Brief documents. Includes creative direction, graphic design, and final deliverables
(creative assets). Tandem Creative will be available for additional ‘as-needed’ creative services.
Task and Work Plan for each design item as outlined in Exhibit C
PHASE I. DESIGN
PRESENTATION 1. We will present distinctive and creative concepts to the City of Palo Alto Budget
team for review. This stage also provides staff with an opportunity to provide feedback. The layouts will
include representative elements that appear in the various documents. The creative layouts will include a
text design, tables, graphs, charts, photo treatment, and icons as needed. In addition, Tandem will provide
cover design layouts for selection.
IMPLEMENTATION. The Tandem Creative team will incorporate changes to the creative concept based
on staff feedback.
PRESENTATION 2. Tandem will provide revised layouts to the City of Palo Alto Budget team for a
second review.
POLISH. Based on the second round of feedback, our Creative Director and creative team will edit and
fine-tune the design for presentation.
FINAL PRESENTATION. Tandem will provide revised layouts to the City of Palo Alto Budget team for
final review and sign-off.
PHASE II. DELIVERY
Upon signoff of the design layouts, Tandem will prepare the design files for handover to the City and/or
Finite Matters to facilitate their composition of the interior pages of the documents. Deliverables:
Indesign files of cover and interior pages, idml files, fonts, a pdf, and any necessary links.
Tandem will be available for as-needed graphic services during the composition of the documents.
Attachment A
4
140421 sm 010
EXHIBIT C 1
AMENDMENT 2 - SCHEDULES OF FEES
Administrative Services Project – Various FY 2015 and FY 2016 Office of Management and Budget
documents
The City may choose Option 1 or Option 2 for the Budget in Brief Documents as part of the
Design phase.
Attachment A
5
140421 sm 010
Total Compensation for this Section (includes $5,090 for as needed graphic design services at
$100 per hour: $30,000
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4709)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Cubberley Artist Studios Program
Title: Approval of the Updated Guidelines, Procedures and Selection
Processes for the City of Palo Alto Cubberley Artists Studio Program (CASP,
Formerly the Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program) in Preparation for the
Spring Release of a new Application and Selection Process
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the updated guidelines, procedures and selection
processes for the City of Palo Alto Cubberley Artists Studio Program (CASP, formerly the
Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program) in preparation for the spring release of a new
application and selection process. These materials were approved unanimously by Policy and
Services at its March 25, 2014 meeting, with one change to a provision for incumbent artists,
identified later in this report.
These updated guidelines are the result of a larger, 9-month, strategic planning effort that
include best practices research on artists’ studio and residence programs, sustained community
feedback, and extensive staff discussion. Staff is confident that the re-envisioned Cubberley
Artists Studio Program will be instrumental in sustaining and strengthening the arts landscape
in Palo Alto and the surrounding community.
Background
The Cubberley Artists Studio Program (CASP) supports the vitality of the arts in Palo Alto by
providing subsidized studio space for artists, building creative community and fostering public
engagement with the arts and artists. The Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program was initiated
in 1989 in response to survey results collected from the then Division Director of Arts and
Culture, indicating that a lack of studio space for artists was presenting challenges for local
artists and arts organizations. While many cities support artist through a variety of programs,
including grants, CASP is one of the few civically sponsored artist studio programs in the United
States.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
In embarking on this project, staff conducted extensive research and determined a strong need
for artist studio spaces in the community. Staff also balanced the significant value of the
program for participating artists with community feedback about the perception of the
program’s lack of diversity, and inaccessibility for new (non-incumbent) artists. Staff also
engaged the community in extensive feedback, through a variety of tools including meetings
and surveys as part of this initiative.
The initiative has resulted in a new mission, vision, and set of program goals for the CASP
program that is response to the needs and interests of both the community and participating
artists:
Updated Mission:
The Cubberley Artists Studio Program (CASP) supports the vitality of the arts in Palo Alto by
providing City-sponsored, affordable studio space for artists, building the creative community
and fostering public engagement with the arts and artists.
Updated Vision and Program Goals:
Create a community for artists that fosters diverse and numerous opportunities for growth and
collaboration in the creation of new work.
Ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in terms of artistic disciplines, artistic
development, as well as cultural and aesthetic approaches.
Create a dynamic and accessible cultural destination for the community, with economic value
for the resident artists.
Foster active engagement and visibility with the community.
Continue to increase the reputation of the program as prestigious and competitive.
Ensure that the program is accessible, open, inclusive and equitable, and responsive to the
community need for studio space.
As a result of this initiative, key changes to the program include: term limits for artists (artist
may serve up to two four-year terms, but must wait two terms before reapplying); volunteer
service (artists must serve four hours a month or the equivalent with a primary focus on
building a more dynamic and active CASP), diversity (an expansion of interest in new artistic
disciplines that include a visual component, openness to artists of all ages and all career stages
and cultural approaches), lab studios (using larger studios as shared, collaborative spaces for
multiple artists), a Cultural Café (that will offer refreshments, dynamic programming, exhibition
and sales opportunity for participating artists, and programming space), and a revised
Application and Guideline Process. Elements of the program that have been preserved include
the donation of one work of art per residency for each participating artist, participation in Open
Studios, and contract compliance requirements.
The new CASP Guidelines and Application were discussed in The Policy and Services Committee
in two meetings on February 18, 2014 (Attachment C) and March 25, 2014 (Attachment B-
Minutes). At the February 18th meeting, Policy and Services requested clarification on a few
points, including the value of the annual subsidy (approximately $10,300 per artist; $235,900
City of Palo Alto Page 3
annually for the program), whether artists pay insurance and taxes (yes). In addition, the Policy
and Services Committee requested details on the marketing and outreach plan to attract new
artists to the program and how the planned Cultural Café will engage the community. Details
on the percentage of incumbents rejected and selected from past rounds were also requested,
as was expansion on the selection process and the role of the jury. Policy and Services
Committee members expressed an interest in maintaining continuity in the phasing out of
incumbent artists, as well as the engagement of more emerging artist in the community. Based
on feedback from the Committee, the Guidelines and Application were updated.
At the March 25, 2014 Policy and Services Committee, staff presented the updated Guidelines
and Application (Attachment A) for discussion. Committee members engaged with staff in
further discussion about the value of the program, the selection and jury process, and the role,
operation, and programming of the Cultural Café. During the meeting, one key change was
requested to the selection process for incumbent artists. Incumbent artists with ten or more
years in residence would be eligible for a two-year term (previously artists with 15-24 years in
residency would be eligible for a one-year term, with incumbent artists with 10-15 years in
residence eligible for a two-year term). Also at the March 25 meeting, staff provided additional
details on the marketing effort to promote the program, an initiative that includes outreach to
more than 250 organizations and more than 50,000 individuals.
Adjusted Timeline:
Staff looks forward to launching the CASP program with the following timeline:
Spring—Studio inspections, minor facilities repairs
May 1-July 1—Open Application Period
July—intake and initial staff review for eligibility
August—Selection Panel meets
September 5—Notification
September 5-October 31—Move out, contract execution, insurance requirements
October 1-November 1—Contracts begin
Resource Impact
There is no significant resource impact to the changes in the guidelines for the Cubberley Artists
Studio Program, as we are looking to reassign responsibilities from within CSD to ensure
adequate staff support for CASP.
Policy Implications
The proposed CASP program furthers policy goal C-23: Explore ways to expand the space
available in the community for art exhibits, classes, and other cultural activities.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Guidelines and Application (PDF)
Attachment B - Minutes from P&S 3-25-14 (DOC)
Attachment C - CMRs 3-25-14 and 2-18-14 and Background (PDF)
1
Cubberley Artist Studio Program
Guidelines and Application
Mission
The Cubberley Artist Studio Program (CASP) supports the vitality of the arts in Palo Alto by
providing City-sponsored, affordable studio space for artists, building creative community and
fostering public engagement with the arts and artists.
Background
CASP is located at the Cubberley Community Center (“Cubberley”), a former high school site,
which the Palo Alto Unified School District leases to the City of Palo Alto (“City”). In addition to
the artist spaces, Cubberley serves as an auxiliary campus for Foothill College, a home to day
care providers, private schools, performing arts organizations, youth sports programs and other
community service programs.
Vision and Program Goals
Create a community for artists that fosters diverse and numerous opportunities for
growth and collaboration in the creation of new work.
Ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in terms of artistic disciplines,
artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic approaches.
Create a dynamic and accessible cultural destination for the community, with economic
value for the resident artists.
Foster active engagement and visibility with the community.
Continue to increase the reputation of the program as prestigious and competitive.
Ensure that the program is accessible, open, inclusive and equitable, and responsive to
the community need for studio space.
Program Overview
After a selection process, successful artist applicants are awarded a studio space for one
four-year term, and may reapply for a second term.
Artists may apply as individuals or in teams of two or more artists.
Staff may match up individual artists in a shared studio space.
23 single, shared or lab studios are available.
Studio sizes range from 360 to 1100 square feet.
Cultural Café- one dedicated space (formerly the Art Center’s Jewelry Studio) will be
transformed into a major gathering place for the community, for programming and
exhibition opportunities included but not limited to artist lectures, workshops,
performances, pop-up shops and a café.
2
Utilities are provided and paid for by the City (gas, electricity, wi-fi access, water, sewer
and refuse collection services) in connection with the rentals. Participating artists will
provide and pay for any and all telephone service at the leased premises.
Rent is subsidized by the City of Palo Alto (with commercial rate approximately $2.00-
$3.50/square foot). Rent is $0.82/square foot for Palo Alto residents, and $0.91/square
foot for non-residents.
Rental rates are subject to change in accordance with the Municipal Fee Schedule.
For artist teams, rent will be allocated amongst the team members in a process
determined by City staff. If there are multiple tenants, all names of the individuals shall
appear on the lease as tenants.
All artists must meet the City’s insurance requirements. Each artist must obtain and
maintain proof of liability insurance and taxes. (An option exists where artists can be
cove red under the City’s insurance policy for a fee.)
Artists selected to the program are expected to (please see CASP Responsibilities and
Requirements Section):
o Participate in a community of mutually supportive and respectful artists
o Regularly use the studio space. Artists agree to maximize the frequency of their
use of the studio.
o Complete four hours of service per month, or the equivalent on a quarterly or
annual basis. Service is focused on supporting the vitality of CASP.
o Donate one artwork in their first term (to the City’s Public Art Program.
o Participate in the Open Studio events, each year as well as any other open
community events.
o Provide written annual plans and annual reviews.
Eligibility
CASP seeks applications from artists at any stages in their careers, for which studio residency
would make a significant impact on their artistic development. Any artist residing in the
greater Bay Area is eligible to apply, although artists residing in Palo Alto will have preference.
CASP recognizes the increasing fluidity in contemporary artists’ working practices between and
across disciplines. As a result, the program is open to artists, working in traditional visual media
such as printmaking, painting, sculpture, mixed-media, and photography, as well as artists with
relatively newer genres including but not limited to new media and digital art, installation art,
public art, and social practices.
We encourage artists of any discipline to apply for consideration. For example, literary artists
and performance artists whose work contains a demonstrative visual element may be
considered. Creative entrepreneurs such as artisans or designers who create original products
may also be considered.
High school and university undergraduate students are not eligible to apply. Students in
graduate programs are eligible to apply, if studio spaces are not provided by their respective
universities.
3
Limitations of the Cubberley facility and infrastructure may prevent artists, who work in some
media, from participating in the program. These applications will be considered on a case-by-
case basis by staff.
Artists are eligible to apply for one four-year term, and then re-apply for the following
consecutive four-year term. After the two four-year terms have expired, artists must wait two
terms (eight years) before reapplying.
Selection Criteria
Creative excellence or the potential for creative excellence of the artist
The artist’s s strong exhibition history, reviews and/or record of accomplishments
demonstrated in resume or CV.
The artist’s demonstrated need for the program and the anticipated significant impact
to their artwork and/or careers.
The contribution that the artist intends to make in meeting the mission, vision and
goals of the program.
The artist’s intention to comply with the requirements of the program as outlined in
relevant documents including the guidelines, application, contract and specifically, the
Artists’ Requirements section below.
Residency in Palo Alto (preferred, but it is not required).
Selection Process
Artists must apply online in the CaFE system.
An applicant may not make contact, directly or indirectly, with the panelists before or during
the selection process, which spans from May 1 through September 5th, 2014. A violation of this
policy could result in the City’s determination of the applicant’s ineligibility.
Staff will do an initial review of all applications to ensure eligibility.
A panel of art professionals will evaluate and rank the applications according to the above
Selection Criteria in Phase 1.
In Phase 2, a team of at least 3 staff members, will place the highest ranking applicants
according to the program’s vision and goals. Staff may elect to include a panelist from Phase 1
in this process.
If the application process identifies the need, short term rental of a studio may be offered.
Staff may match up individual artists in a shared studio space.
Comment [RH1]: Expand when final info is available
4
For the upcoming 2014 round, incumbent artists who are in residence or who have been in
residence at Cubberley within the last four years are invited to apply and can expect that if they
are selected, they will be entitled to serve one partial term.
Should incumbent artists advance to Phase 2, they will be eligible for the following lengths of
time:
Up to and including 5 years in current residence: 1 full 4-year term
More than 5 and less than 10 years : 3-year term
10 years through 24 years: 2-year term
In addition to those artists selected for studio residency, a number of artists will be selected as
alternates. Should a studio become available prior to the next selection process, staff will select
from the alternate list, based on rank, media compatibility, and diversity for the available space.
The selected artist would complete the remainder of the term and then may reapply in the next
selection process.
All decisions are final and are not subject to a grieving process.
5
Cubberley Artist Studio Program
Application Form
Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Website:
Application type:
_____Individual
_____Group (2 or more applicants wishing to share a lab studio)**
**Artists applying as a group should apply together by submitting ONE application per group,
specifying number of individuals on the application form, but indicate a lead applicant who will
serve as a contact person. In your Artist Statement (question #2), tell us how lab studio
residency will support your individual and collaborative work. Also explain the relationship
between the applicants and their prior collaborations together, as well as how you envision
sharing the studio time and space.
1. Briefly describe the primary media in which you work, including specialized equipment,
materials and supplies you typically use: (character limit)
2. If selected, please describe your physical space needs, requirements and/or preferences
(character limit).
Comment [AE2]: This will be input into an online form using CaFE
6
3. If selected, please estimate the amount of time you would use your studio per week
/month. Do you have a regular studio schedule? If yes, please specify. (character limit)
4. Artist Statement: State your need for the studio program and the anticipated impact to
your work and career. (character limit)
5. One of CASP’s stated goals is to ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in
terms of artistic disciplines, artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic
approaches. Please outline what you would contribute to the program for the benefit
of the community, and your ability to fulfill and reinforce the (draft) mission, vision and
goals. (character limit)
6. Residency at CASP requires a commitment of four hours of service per month, or the
equivalent, as well as a donation of artwork, and opening your studio twice a year for
Open Studios. Are you prepared and able to make these commitments? What skills or
experience do you have that may be used in fulfillment of your service? (i.e., teaching,
carpentry, webmaster, publicity, exhibition coordinator, archivist, event planning?
(character limit)
7. Residency at CASP includes expectations and requirements, listed in the CASP
Responsibilities and Requirements Section of this document. Please review them and
check here that you read them and understand these expectations and requirements,
and will comply with them if selected for the program. (check yes or no)
7
Cubberley Artist Studio Program Compliance Form
Upon signing this application, I, the Applicant, understand my responsibilities in supporting
CASP as a community context in which I can pursue creative work and share collegial
interaction with a small community of artists. In the spirit of the program, if selected, I intend to
commit myself to using the studio as intended by CASP and depart according to the terms of my
agreement with the City of Palo Alto. I further agree to abide by the Program’s guidelines and
policies.
Non-Discrimination: CASP encourages and welcomes the participation of artists from all
backgrounds and does not discriminate with regard to race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial
status, weight or height in its admission policies.
The Applicant has carefully read and fully understands these Guidelines and
Application.
The Applicant warrants that she/he/they has/have the capacity to successfully
undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations of the CASP Artist.
This Application may be withdrawn at any time.
The Applicant has fully completed the Application and provided the appropriate and
requested supplemental material.
All of the information provided with this Application is true and correct to the best
of the Applicant’s knowledge.
The City in the exercise of its discretion reserves the right to accept and reject any
and all Applications.
By submission of this Application, the Applicant grants consent to the City to verify
and substantiate or supplement information contained in this Application. The
Applicant hereby authorizes any third party to release to the City any and all
information concerning the Applicant which the third party possesses.
Name: ________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________________
Incomplete applications may be eliminated.
Make sure you have completed all the requested data and have included all required
materials. Please refer to the attached checklist before final submission.
8
Application Checklist
All application materials are to be submitted online through CaFE. We cannot accept
applications by hardcopy or email.
1. Completed application form
2. Documentation of recent work (see CaFE guidelines for uploading images).
o Please provide up to 6 representative images of your work.
Or
For artists who create performance, video, or time-based media, please provide a
link to video documentation of work online; up to 2 minutes will be screened.
And
o A URL to your website will be accepted either in lieu of or in addition to the
above; up to 2 minutes will be spent viewing your site.
3. Resume or curriculum vitae, including exhibition and publication history
4. Signed Compliance Form
Application Deadline: July 1, 2014
Receipt of your application will be acknowledged by email. Applicants will be notified of
selection results by no later than September 1, 2014. Move-in date will be scheduled for no
sooner than October 1 and no later than November 1, 2014.
Submit Application Materials to:
CaFE –
For questions: Contact Nadya Chuprina at nadya.chuprina@cityofpaloalto.org, or call
650.329.2227.
Comment [RH3]: Will insert URL link
9
If an Applicant is accepted into CASP and joins the Program, the Applicant will comply with
the following requirements:
CASP Artist’s Responsibilities:
Regular use of studio space. Artist agrees to maximize the frequency of use of the
studio.
Service. Each artist is required to complete four hours of service per month, or the
equivalent on a quarterly or annual basis. Service is focused on supporting the vitality of
CASP. Each artist will make an annual proposal to meet the service requirement and
report progress quarterly.
Open Studios. Participation in Open Studio events and other open events each year
Artwork Donation. Donation of one artwork per residency term to the Public Art
Program of the City of Palo Alto is required. The donation is subject to the approval of
the Public Art Commission and will be deemed a gift made under terms and conditions
established by the City. CASP artists shall propose to donate to the City by no later than
during the last year of their lease. The process for accepting donations will involve the
Public Art Commission’s approval.
General Participation. CASP Artists are expected to participate in artists community
meetings.
Be a good neighbor. CASP artists shall act as good neighbors with their fellow artists, the
community, and the City. This shall include respectful communication, being responsive
to the needs of the diverse Cubberley community of artists and other groups, and the
City’s and the CSD’s staff.
Annual Review. Participation in an annual review process conducted by City staff. This
annual review will include a written statement from each CASP artist annually, on or
before a date identified by City staff, that outlines their productivity, plans for the next
lease term year, documentation of community service, exhibition activity and program
participation. This written statement will be reviewed at least once each year by CSD
staff. Failure to submit by stated deadline may prohibit contract renewal.
CASP Artist Requirements
Studio Space:
An artist must maintain liability insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 (Insurance
Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage with Comprehensive General,
Fire/Legal Liability coverage of at least $1,000,000 per person and per occurrence). This
insurance can be purchased from the City of Palo Alto.
An artist is required to pay annual tax assessments, including, but not limited to, the
possessory interest tax that may be attributable to the artist-tenant’s occupancy of the
Cubberley studio space.
The Cubberley studio must be the sole studio space for the artists and used for the
primary purpose of creating art. PROHIBITED USES: Any participating artist, who
maintains or intends to maintain a second studio, including a home studio, regardless of
10
the purpose of its use, will be disqualified from consideration as an artist-tenant at
Cubberley. Storage and live/work uses of the studio space are also not allowed. A CASP
artist may not use the studio for any unauthorized purpose or to engage in, or permit,
any other business activity within or from the studio.
An artist may use the studio secondarily for selling his/her artwork and for fee-based
teaching opportunities.
Regular use of studio space. An artist shall maximize the frequency of use of the studio.
Lease. The City leases space to artists-tenants on an annual basis; the term is a one-year
period. Once an artist is selected, he/she will not be re-evaluated during the balance of
the four–year term, but the City reserves the right to modify this policy upon notice. The
artist will be required to demonstrate annually, that he/she is meeting the requirements
of the program, complying with the terms and conditions of the lease, and otherwise
maintaining the eligibility standards for continued occupancy.
Terms. At the end of the fourth year of occupancy, the artist-tenant may be required to
resign the space, as the lease term expires at such time. The artist may submit another
CASP application and apply for consideration in a new round for another selection
process. After the two four-year terms have expired, artists must wait two terms (eight
years) before reapplying.
Leave Provision: Whenever an artist will be continuously absent from Cubberley for
over a one–month period, the artist-tenant shall notify the City, in writing by email and
in advance, of the proposed absence. Notwithstanding the leave of absence, the artist-
tenant’s obligation to make the rental payments will continue in accordance with the
lease agreement . Further clarification and requirements may apply depending on the
situation, to be determined by City staff.
Policy and Services Committee
MINUTES
1
Special Meeting
March 25, 2014
Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 6:06 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Klein, Price (Chair), Schmid
Absent: Scharff
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
AGENDA ITEMS
MOTION: Chair Price moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to defer
Item Number 1 to the meeting of April 8, 2014.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Scharff absent
1. Discussion and Recommendation to Council to: (1) Terminate the
Lease Between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University and the
Sublease Between City and Valley Transit Authority (VTA) for the
Southern Pacific University Avenue Depot Transit Center; (2) Authorize
the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of
Understanding with VTA and Stanford Regarding Potential City Use of
the Depot Transit Center for Expanded Palo Alto Shuttle Services.
2. Recommendation from the Human Relations Commission in response
to City Council request to Consider Moving Avenidas and Palo Alto
Community Child Care (PACCC) Out of the Human Services Resource
Allocation Process.
Minka Van der Zwaag, Community Services Manager of Senior Programs,
reviewed the Finance Committee's recommendation for the Policy and
Services Committee (Committee) to consider removing Avenidas and Palo
Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) from the Human Services Resource
Allocation Process (HSRAP). She provided a brief history of HSRAP. In 1993
the Human Relations Commission (HRC) recommended PACCC and Avenidas
not be removed from HSRAP and the Council concurred. In 2007, Project
Sentinel was removed from HSRAP because Project Sentinel provided
2 March 25, 2014
services in relation to a City Ordinance. If PACCC and Avenidas were
removed from HSRAP, they could respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP)
for child care and senior services subsidy administration.
Jill O’Nan, Chairperson for the Human Relations Commission, heard from
representatives of PACCC and Avenidas regarding their wish to be removed
from HSRAP. Representatives were concerned that funding would be
cannibalized by smaller agencies. The HRC wished to preserve the
relationship of PACCC and Avenidas with HSRAP in order to maintain a
robust program, to simply the RFP process, and to retain HSRAP visibility.
The HRC unanimously passed a Resolution guaranteeing that PACCC and
Avenidas funding would remain intact. However, the HRC would have
discretion to recommend a reallocation of incremental funding. The HRC
recommended PACCC and Avenidas remain a part of HSRAP. The HRC felt
agency competition for funding resulted from chronic underfunding.
Chair Price requested Staff restate the RFP process should PACCC and
Avenidas separate from HSRAP. She inquired whether the timeframe for
allocations would remain the same in a new RFP process.
Ms. Van der Zwaag indicated a new RFP process would be substantially
similar to the current RFP process with only minor changes. The terms could
be the same as those utilized now. There would not be an opportunity for
public discussion prior to recommendations being made to the Council.
Respondents to the RFP would negotiate contract terms with Staff.
Council Member Schmid felt human services was not the main function of
local governments. There was an advantage to having a human services
budget to focus Council discussion. To have a clear-cut goal for human
services as a percentage of the budget was important. Senior and youth
services were critical to a healthy community. He preferred PACCC and
Avenidas remain within HSRAP. He did not favor the HRC's
recommendation.
Council Member Klein did not believe the existing process was logical for
PACCC and Avenidas because they operated as City functions. The HRC's
recommendation, though well intentioned, would be useful only if the City
Council did not allocate funding to specific programs. The Council would be
inclined to allocate more funding to the smaller agencies, if it was aware of
the small amount of total funds available to allocate to HSRAP agencies.
Separating PACCC and Avenidas from HSRAP would benefit those agencies
as well as the smaller agencies.
Chair Price concurred with Council Member Klein. Separating Avenidas and
PACCC from HSRAP was logical and would provide funding predictability for
Avenidas and PACCC.
3 March 25, 2014
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Chair Price that the
Policy and Services Committee recommend the City Council direct Staff to
prepare the necessary paperwork to separate Avenidas and PACCC from the
HSRAP process.
Ms. O’Nan noted Palo Alto was unusual in the large disparity between
wealthy and not wealthy residents. Nonprofit agencies were denied funding
from many sources because of the high standard of living in Palo Alto. The
HRC was committed to providing snapshots of the total health of the
community. If the Committee recommended the Council remove PACCC and
Avenidas from HSRAP, she hoped the Council would support continued
funding of the smaller agencies.
Council Member Schmid remarked the Council contributed land or space for
nonprofit agencies' use as well as funding.
MOTION PASSED: 2-1 Schmid no, Scharff absent
Council Member Klein inquired whether the Committee's recommendation
would be presented to the Council in April 2014.
Ms. Van der Zwaag noted the Committee’s recommendation would be
presented to Council; although, she had not yet set a date.
Council Member Klein was unsure whether the Council could act on the item
prior to the upcoming Budget hearings.
Ms. Van der Zwaag clarified that separating PACCC and Avenidas from
HSRAP would not affect the Budget.
3. Recommendation that the Policy & Services Committee Approve the
Updated Guidelines, Procedures, and Selection Processes for the City
of Palo Alto’s Cubberley Artists Studio Program.
Rhyena Halpern, Assistant Director of Community Services, reported Staff
compiled a list of 235 contacts for marketing and outreach purposes. The
criteria and process for selecting artists in residence were retooled slightly.
In phase 2 of the selection process, Staff would utilize artists' scores from
phase 1 to make final placements, ensuring that missions, visions, and goals
of the Program were met. Specific attention would be given to diversity of
art disciplines and to artists' ages, cultural approaches, and points in their
career. Staff devised a simple plan to ensure a transition period for
incumbent artists. Incumbent artists with up to five years of residence
would be eligible for a full four-year term; 5-10 years, a three-year term;
10-15 years, a two-year term; and more than 15 years, a one-year term.
Artists could submit applications to the Program between May 1 and July 1,
4 March 25, 2014
2014. During July 2014 Staff would review applications for eligibility. In
August the art panel would make its decisions. Staff would announce
selections by September 5, 2014, such that artists could move-in between
October 1 and November 1.
Council Member Schmid noted the subsidy amount was revised to $10,300
and inquired about the calculations used to reach that amount.
Ms. Halpern utilized a $2 factor and calculated the amount by square
footage.
Council Member Schmid asked if the artists' rents were $5,000 per year.
Ms. Halpern indicated the City received approximately $100,000 in rent
annually from 23 single artist studios.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether artists were paying approximately
one-third of the market rate.
Ms. Halpern remarked that the rate depended on square footage. Studio
square footage ranged from 360 feet to more than 1,000 square feet.
Artists paid $500 and higher in rent. Most artist studio programs used a
subsidized rate.
Council Member Schmid inquired about plans for the Cultural Café.
Ms. Halpern reported the concept was to create a dynamic space to exhibit
Cubberley artists' work and to engage the community. There would be
space to sell artisanal products and to hold poetry readings, workshops,
classes, and hands-on activities. The Cultural Café would be open limited
hours initially.
Council Member Schmid asked about the amount of space for the Café.
Ms. Halpern replied 1,000-1,100 square feet.
Council Member Schmid inquired about the number of people that would fit
comfortably into the space.
Ms. Halpern noted the space was originally classrooms which would
accommodate 30-35 children.
Council Member Schmid was interested in having the Program interconnect
with the community. The Café could become a magnet for visitors and
residents. He inquired whether Staff had considered a computer app for
artists to post pictures of their work.
5 March 25, 2014
Ms. Halpern agreed an online component was needed. The Cubberley artists
created a wonderful website that showcased their work and contained links
to individual artist websites. Staff had submitted grant proposals totaling
$250,000; the proposals contained funding for the Café and a manager.
Council Member Schmid asked about hours the Café would be open initially.
Ms. Halpern indicated the Cultural Café would be open initially during
monthly art calls and then move to once a week and during special events.
Council Member Schmid asked if the Café would be a special space.
Ms. Halpern stated it would have special hours until it could sustain itself.
Council Member Schmid felt the jury panel should be qualified to make
judgments on artists who would flourish in the environment. He inquired
whether no Staff and no members of the Public Art Commission would be
members of the panel.
Ms. Halpern reported the panel would include accomplished executive
directors of nonprofit arts organizations, professors and arts educators,
directors of respected commercial art galleries, and established artists. An
Arts Commissioner who fit one of those categories and did not have a
conflict of interest would be acceptable.
Council Member Schmid felt it was critical for the panel to be credible and
independent. He asked about the importance of the selection criteria of
residency in Palo Alto.
Ms. Halpern indicated it had minor importance. If an artist lived in Palo Alto
and applied, he/she should receive some consideration for that.
Approximately half of artists were residents of Palo Alto.
Council Member Schmid asked if a selection criteria of sales in the
community would be appropriate.
Ms. Halpern explained the point of the Program was to support artists at
different stages in their careers. For some artists, selling their work was not
an important part of their artistic life. Economic outcomes were not always
good criteria.
Council Member Schmid was searching for ways to measure the Program's
impact on the community. He noted an artist could apply for an additional
term after an initial four-year term and asked if artists were limited to eight
years.
6 March 25, 2014
Ms. Halpern reported artists could be selected for two consecutive four-year
terms and then reapply after an eight-year wait. If an incumbent artist was
selected for a portion of a term, he/she would have to wait eight years
before reapplying.
Council Member Schmid remarked that an incumbent of five years could
reapply for a three-year term, resulting in a maximum of 11 years.
Ms. Halpern explained that artists would apply for one four-year term, and
then apply again for another four-year term, totaling eight years.
Council Member Schmid reiterated that the new cap would be eight years.
Ms. Halpern noted that incumbents could apply again and be placed for one
to four years.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether artists were agreeable to term
limits.
Ms. Halpern reported artist feedback indicated term limits were not
necessary.
Council Member Schmid noted at least half the current artists in residence
had been there more than eight years.
Ms. Halpern clarified most had been there more than 12 years.
Council Member Schmid believed they would be affected dramatically.
Council Member Klein asked where term limits were stated in the Staff
Report.
Ms. Halpern was unsure whether term limits were restated in the Staff
Report; however, they were contained in the Guidelines.
Council Member Klein felt the phase-out of incumbent artists was logical and
elegant.
Ms. Halpern stated page 7 of the Guidelines outlined term limits.
Chair Price added term limits were not stated within the body of the Staff
Report.
Council Member Klein remarked the phase-out process could result in Staff
having to conduct jury panels every year for a few years.
Ms. Halpern reported Staff would utilize a list of alternates to fill vacancies
that occurred through term limits or attrition.
7 March 25, 2014
Council Member Klein asked how often Staff would convene a panel of
judges.
Ms. Halpern answered every four years.
Council Member Klein was pleased with Staff's efforts and changes.
Chair Price inquired about the number of current artists who had been in the
Program more than ten years.
Ms. Halpern indicated 11 had been in the Program more than ten years;
however, in the last month, six artists provided notices that they would
vacate their studios by April.
Chair Price expressed concern about the phase-out process. Artists with the
most experience and wisdom would have a narrow window to leave the
Program. She inquired whether the categories of 10-15 years and 15 or
more years could be replaced with one category of 10 or more years and a
two-year term.
Ms. Halpern would accept that change if the Policy and Services Committee
(Committee) directed it.
Chair Price felt artists in those categories brought a depth and breadth of
experience that would be useful during a period of transition. That
modification would allow the Program to meet many of its goals.
Council Member Klein requested information regarding the six people who
tendered resignations.
Ms. Halpern reported one decided to move permanently to Vermont, and the
remaining five were accepted into a new artist studio in Redwood City.
Mary Holzer hoped to apply and be selected as an artist in residence. She
felt term limits were good.
Lessa Bouchard stated market rate rents were mentioned a great deal;
however, the City was restricted to leasing the space to serve the
community. She suggested a program whereby incumbent artists would
introduce new artists to the Program and help them with applications.
Ann McMillen felt emphasis should be placed on artists' professional skills,
not their volunteer skills. She felt the program for sharing studio space
needed clarification. Artists should be evaluated based on their
accomplishments rather than their sales.
8 March 25, 2014
Marguerite Fletcher believed longevity was a major component of the power
and prestige of the Program. She knew of several artists who would not
participate in the jurying process, which would leave more than half the
studios available. The phase-out process was laborious and unnecessary.
Sharon Chinen Ingle spent 24 years as an artist in residence. Affordable
studio spaces were great programs for artists and the community. Term
limits focused on time served rather than on the quality of work.
Council Member Schmid posed a hypothetical scenario of incumbents scoring
much higher than new artists in the jury process. He inquired whether the
Program would still be obligated to select new artists in that scenario.
Ms. Halpern suggested those types of questions could be presented to the
jury, who was frequently helpful in providing solutions.
Council Member Schmid noted the City was negotiating the future of
Cubberley and asked if the City had legal obligations to provide space to
artists once they were selected for the Program.
James Keene, City Manager, believed it was unlikely the situation with
Cubberley would change in the next four-year period. The City had an
ongoing obligation to ensure everyone was informed of the situation.
Council Member Klein remarked the public comment regarding market rates
was true; however, the City was not legally required to lease the space for
community service. The City could receive higher rents as there was a great
demand for space.
Ms. Halpern recalled the Program began at Jordan Middle School. At that
time, the policy was to charge artists for utilities and maintenance only. In
Fiscal Year 2013, the cost for maintenance alone was $1.97 per square foot.
Council Member Klein commented that most everyone mentioned the effect
of term limits on current artists in residence. Incoming artists would also be
subject to term limits. It was important for everyone to understand the
process and the terms of the Program.
MOTION: Chair Price moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid that the
Policy & Services Committee recommend the City Council approve the
updated guidelines procedures and selection processes for the City of Palo
Alto’s Cubberley Artists Studio Program (formerly the Cubberley Visual
Artists Studio Program), offered at the Cubberley Community Center, with
one modification: under the incumbent artists with 10 or more years in
residence would be eligible for two years of the new four-year term and the
category of 15 to 24 years would be deleted.
9 March 25, 2014
Chair Price indicated the Motion considered the experience and contributions
of artists and an approach to involve upcoming artists. The Cubberley
Artists Studio Program was vital to the community.
Council Member Schmid asked if the Committee was approving the Program
or recommending it to the Council.
Chair Price responded recommending it to the Council.
Council Member Schmid supported Staff's proposal. Staff would be sensitive
to jury feedback and report to Council any needed modifications. He
assumed Staff would remain active in identifying new and different ways to
reach out to the community.
Council Member Klein asked if the item would be presented to the Council on
the Consent Calendar. The vote was unanimous; however, one Committee
Member was absent.
Mr. Keene interpreted the vote as unanimous, but would confirm the proper
process.
Council Member Klein asked if Committee Members wanted the item
presented to the Council on the Consent Calendar.
Chair Price agreed.
Council Member Schmid agreed and suggested Chair Price informally confer
with Council Member Scharff to obtain his opinion.
Chair Price agreed to do so. The item would be presented to the Council on
the Consent Calendar as soon as feasible.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Scharff absent
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS:
Chair Price announced the next meeting was scheduled for April 8, 2014, at
7:00 P.M. The Agenda Item regarding the federal lobbyist was deferred.
James Keene, City Manager, reported Staff planned to have the federal
lobbyist present for an update; however, the lobbyist's schedule indicated
May would be a better time.
Chair Price noted Agenda Item Number 1 was deferred to April 8, 2014.
Mr. Keene informed Stanford University that the date for Agenda Item
Number 1 would be April 8.
10 March 25, 2014
Council Member Klein inquired about a discussion of the state lobbyist
program.
Mr. Keene noted that topic was on the list to be scheduled.
Council Member Klein asked if it could be scheduled soon.
Chair Price suggested April 2014.
Mr. Keene would review it.
Council Member Schmid believed the discussion with the state lobbyist
should be held prior to the Legislature planning its agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:46 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4586)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 3/25/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Cubberley Artists Studio Program Recommenation
Title: Recommendation that the Policy & Services Committee Approve the
Updated Guidelines, Procedures, and Selection Processes for the City of Palo
Alto’s Cubberley Artists Studio Program
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee approve the updated guidelines
(Attachment C), procedures, and selection processes for the City of Palo Alto’s Cubberley Artists
Studio Program (formerly the Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program), offered at the
Cubberley Community Center, in preparation for the Spring 2014 release of a new application
and selection process.
Executive Summary
At its February 18, 2014 meeting, the Policy and Services Committee members reviewed the
staff report (Attachment A), and requested further information before voting on the
recommendation (Policy and Services Committee minutes- Attachment B). This staff report and
the revised guidelines (Attachment C) and application address inquiries and issues identified
during that meeting, and provide the requested follow-up information.
Background
Updated Mission
The Cubberley Artist Studio Program (CASP) supports the vitality of the arts in Palo Alto by
providing City-sponsored, affordable studio space for artists, building creative community and
fostering public engagement with the arts and artists.
Updated Vision and Program Goals
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Create a community for artists that fosters diverse and numerous opportunities for
growth and collaboration in the creation of new work.
Ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in terms of artistic disciplines,
artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic approaches.
Create a dynamic and accessible cultural destination for the community, with economic
value for the resident artists.
Foster active engagement and visibility with the community.
Continue to increase the reputation of the program as prestigious and competitive.
Ensure that the program is accessible, open, inclusive and equitable, and responsive to
the community need for studio space.
Discussion
The Policy and Services Committee requested more information as detailed below:
1. What is the value of the annual subsidy including maintenance and utilities?
Total average value of the annual subsidy per artist based on 23 single occupancy studios:
approximately $10,300
Total value of subsidy: approximately $236,900
The February 18, 2014, staff report estimated the rental subsidy to the artist at
approximately $5,000 annually, with the cumulative annual subsidy for the entire program at
$169,365.
The $5,000 estimation above is for a small, 360-square foot studio. The studios range in
square footage from 360, 480, 520, 600, 720 to 3 large studios of approximately 1,000 sf.
The total cost for maintenance and utilities for the three artist studios blocks is roughly
estimated at $30,000 annually.
Based on an average square footage and an average square footage cost, and based on 23
single occupant studios, the annual market rate subsidy is approximately $9,000 per studio,
plus an estimated $1,300 for utilities and maintenance costs, bringing the total to an
estimated subsidy of $10,300 per studio per year.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Staff will work with Budget and Real Estate offices to track this information, as well as staff
time allocated to the program, beginning in the next round of CASP. Since a larger number
of artists are expected to be served per term under the proposed new guidelines, the
subsidy value will change accordingly.
2. Clarify if the artists pay insurance and taxes:
Yes, the artists pay insurance and taxes.
From Guidelines:
“… each artist must obtain and maintain proof of liability insurance and taxes.”
“An artist is required to pay annual tax assessments, including, but not limited to, the
possessory interest tax that may be attributable to the artist-tenant’s occupancy of the
Cubberley studio space.”
3. Expand on the Marketing and Outreach Plan to attract new artists:
Goals of Marketing Efforts:
To increase the number of annual applications per round for CASP from 20-40 range to
60-90 range.
To increase the number of applications from different types of artists and artistic
disciplines, including those outside of the traditionally visual arts spectrum.
To increase the number of applications from artist teams and/or collaboratives who
seek to work in a shared laboratory space.
To increase the number of applicants from diverse stages in their careers, especially
emerging and less-established artists.
To increase the number of applicants from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
To increase outreach to potential applicants graduating from local colleges and
universities, including junior colleges.
To enhance outreach to potential applicants residing in Palo Alto.
Marketing Initiative to launch this Spring, with the help of a contractor who will:
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Develop a comprehensive list of approximately 75- 100 targeted venues and artists that
includes artist electronic listserves, galleries, colleges and universities, arts
organizations, arts centers, artist residency programs, etc. This research will be
conducted in April.
Develop a Communications Kit, with press releases, flyers, and Facebook
advertisements. This will be developed in April.
Conduct Community Outreach. This will be conducted in May and June.
Staff envisions that effective outreach would result in an exciting group of artists. The new
round could have 4-6 studios shared by multiple artists; 4-6 new disciplines represented; at
least 4 young or emerging artists; and at least 4 artists of diverse cultural approaches.
4. How will the Cultural Café engage the Community?
The transformation of the former Jewelry Studio (an Palo Alto Art Center program space at
Cubberley) into a community gathering place that is welcoming, inviting, and energized by
artists, art and community members, is essential to reaching the goal of community
engagement. This gathering place will draw people in by offering food, drink and high-caliber
programming. This model works in other artist residency and studio programs.
With the requirement of four hours of community service per month, Cubberley artists will
specifically support the Cubberley Cultural Café by supporting its operations with their
volunteer time through tasks such as facility maintenance, organizing and producing
programming from artist lectures to poetry readings, selling of art and creative products, set-up
and tear-down, as well as light cleaning duties, pre-and post-events.
The Café is the first step toward the important transition of Cubberely becoming a dynamic
cultural destination for the entire community. Eventually, staff envisions Cubberley will be
energized with murals and innovative wayfinding throughout the campus, monthly art crawls,
concerts and films on the greens, temporary public art installations, collaborative programming
between visual and performing artists and arts education programs. Cubberley can also
become a place of economic impact for the creative sector with even more tickets being sold
for performances at the Cubberley Theatre and increased sales of art and original, creative
products exhibited within the artists studios as well as in the Cultural Café.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
5. Identify percentages of incumbents rejected and selected in past rounds
Internal information exists for the periods of time from 1990-1995 and then again from 2003-
2009. Data on the intervening years has been pieced together and is our best estimate:
Number of Studios
1990 17 studios total
1992-2013 23 studios total
Attrition
1990-2002 37 artists selected; 14 artists left voluntarily
2003-2009 12 artists left voluntarily
2009-2013 2 artists left voluntarily
Incumbents
2003-2009 31 artists selected:
20 new artists and 11 incumbents,
11 artists juried out
Incumbent artists were not required to reapply until 2003.
The average number of years in residence of the current artists is 11;
The average number of years in residence of all artists from 1990-2013 is approximately 8.5.
Total Served
1990-2013 Total of 61 artists served
(includes 57 artists who were selected through application
process and 4 who were on wait lists)
City of Palo Alto Page 6
6. Expand on the Selection Process and Role of Jury:
Artist selection process:
After an initial review to ensure eligibility of the applicants, staff will compose a panel of at
least five respected arts professionals. The panel will include accomplished executive
directors of nonprofit arts organizations, professors and arts educators, directors of
respected commercial art galleries, and established artists.
The panel will be charged with reviewing, evaluating and ranking the applications according
to this Selection Criteria:
Creative excellence or the potential for creative excellence of the artist (or artistic
team)
The artist’s exhibition history, reviews and/or record of accomplishments
demonstrated in resume or curriculum vitae The artist’s need for the program and the
anticipated significant impact to their artwork and/or careers
The contribution that the artist intends to make in meeting the mission, vision and
goals of the program
The artist’s intention to comply with the requirements of the program as outlined in
relevant documents including the guidelines, application, contract and specifically, the
Artists’ Requirements section below
Residency in Palo Alto
In Phase 2, staff will use the rankings to award residences to artists, while ensuring the program
achieves its mission, vision and goals. (Staff may choose to include a member of the selection
panel from Phase 1).
In addition to those artists selected for studio residency, a number of artists will be selected as
alternates. Should a studio become available prior to the next jury process, staff will select from
the alternate list, based on rank, media compatibility for the available space and contribution to
the diversity of the program. This artist will complete the remainder of the term and then may
reapply in the next selection process.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
In prior years, residency periods were staggered to ensure that all of the incumbent artists were
not being re-juried at the same time. This proved challenging for the limited staff to manage
and therefore the updated guidelines involve all the residencies commencing concurrently.
However, staff does recommend a process for phasing out the residencies of incumbent artists
within the next two four-year terms, which will result in a form of staggering. See Section 7
below. Program evaluation in the second four-year term will make recommendations on
staggering for the future.
7. Ensuring continuity and phasing out of incumbent artists:
In order to address concerns about the negative effect of a complete turnover of incumbent
artists at one time as well as the phasing out of the terms of artists who have been in residence
at Cubberley for long terms, staff recommends an option that gives maximum consideration to
the incumbent artists or artists who have been in residence at Cubberley in the past four years:
Incumbent artists, from 1-24 years in residence, may re-apply for up to one more term and will
be evaluated and scored like any other applicant in Phase 1.
Should incumbent artists advance to Phase 2, they will be eligible for the following lengths of
time:
Up to and including 5 years in current residence: 1 full 4-year term
More than 5 and less than 10: 3-year term
10 years up to 15: 2-year term
More than 15 years through 24: 1-year term
8. How do we ensure Integrity of donation system?
The donation of artwork from the Cubberley artists to the City of Palo Alto is a requirement of
the artist’s term. The selection usually takes place in the third year of their residency, and even
with newer artists, staff has a good sense of each artist’s work by that time. To minimize the
disruption to the working studios, staff tries to schedule the donation selection process close to
the open studio dates, when any hazardous working materials are put away for visitors and the
art can be viewed in a more formal setting.
Staff arranges to visit the studio at an appointed time with a subcommittee of Public Art
Commissioners. The artists generally speak about their work for several minutes, highlight
City of Palo Alto Page 8
what the focus of their work has been while at Cubberley, and offer several options of artworks
for donation.
It has been staff’s experience that the artists are generous with what they offer, and the
Commission often has a difficult task of deciding what to accept into the collection. In the last
round of donations, Marianne Lettieri and Michal Gavish each offered four or more excellent
examples of their work to the City.
Staff and the Commission consider whether the work is representative of that artist’s time at
Cubberley, the ability of the City to properly care for the piece, whether the piece is of a scale
that the City will be able to properly exhibit and protect, and of course if the content is suitable
for public display.
The
9. Revised Guidelines and Application have changed to reflect the above changes (See
Attachment C).
The revised Guidelines and Application includes the program’s Mission, Vision and Program
Goals, Program Overview, Artist Eligibility, Selection Criteria, Selection Process, Application form
with questions, compliance form and checklist, and an outline of the artists’ responsibilities and
requirements should they be accepted into the program. All relevant policies outlined in this
report are reflected in Attachment C including the Artist Selection Process.
10. Adjusted Timeline
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Staff expects to conduct inspection of the studios this spring and summer to ensure that
electrical and other minor facility repairs will be made. Staff plans to open the new round this
Spring, with a Summer panel, and fall notification followed by move-in and move-out.
May 1 through July 1- Open Application Period
July- Intake and initial staff review for eligibility
August- Selection Panel meets
September 5- Notification
September 5-October 31- Move out, contract execution, insurance requirements
October 1- November- 1 Contracts begin
Resource Impact
There is no significant resource impact to the changes in the guidelines for the Cubberley
Artists’ Studio Program, as we are looking to reassign responsibilities within CSD to ensure
adequate staff support for CASP.
Policy Implications
The proposed program change furthers policy goal C-23: Explore ways to expand the space
available in the community for art exhibits, classes and other cultural activities.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Staff Report to P&S Committee 2/18/2014 (PDF)
Attachment B - 02-18-14 Policy & Services Committee Minutes (DOCX)
Attachment C - Revised Guidelines and Application (DOCX)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4476)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 2/18/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Update to Cubberley Artists Studio Program
Title: Approval of Updated Guidelines, Procedures, and Selection Processes
for the City of Palo Alto’s Cubberley Artists Studio Program (CASP, Formerly
the Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program), in Preparation for the Spring
Release of a New Application and Selection Process
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee review and approve the updated
guidelines, procedures, and selection processes for the City of Palo Alto’s Cubberley Artists
Studio Program (formerly the Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program), offered at the
Cubberley Community Center, in preparation for the Spring 2014 release of a new application
and selection process.
Executive Summary
These updated guidelines are the result of a larger strategic planning effort that includes
extensive best practices research on artist studio and residence programs, sustained
community feedback, and extensive staff discussion. Staff is confident that the re-envisioned
Cubberley Artists Studio Program will be instrumental in sustaining and strengthening the arts
landscape in Palo Alto and the surrounding community.
Background
The Cubberley Artist Studio Program (CASP) supports the vitality of the arts in Palo Alto by
providing subsidized studio space for artists, building creative community and fostering public
engagement with the arts and artists.
The Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program (Program) was initiated in 1989 in response to
survey results collected from then Division Director of Arts and Culture, indicating that a lack of
City of Palo Alto Page 2
studio space for artists was presenting challenges for local artists and arts organizations. While
many cities support artists through a variety of programs, including grants, CASP is one of the
few civically sponsored artist studio programs in the United States.
The need for artist studios in Palo Alto was the catalyst for this program and that need
continues today. A survey of local artists conducted by staff in 2013 indicated that 38.5% (or 37
out of 97 respondents) were currently looking for studio space. There is only one other artist
studio complex in Palo Alto—Palo Alto Studios on Transport Street—which maintains an
ongoing waiting list for interested tenants. CASP meets the need for studio space by providing
17 classrooms at the Cubberley Community Center (Cubberley), totaling 23 shared or single
studios. Studios range in size from between 360 and 1,000 square feet. According to the most
recent guidelines from 2009, artist residents must use the studio only for the production and
display of work, and for no other purpose without the City’s prior written consent. Participating
artists must use their studios as their sole art-making space and not maintain another studio.
There are currently 22 artists in residence at Cubberley, 11 of who are Palo Alto residents.
CASP provides subsidized studio space to artists who successfully demonstrate their artistic
excellence and space needs. The average monthly rent for the Studio Program, adjusted during
the FY2013 budget cycle, is currently $.82 per square foot for Palo Alto residents and $.91 per
square foot for non-residents. Market rate for commercial rentals in Palo Alto is between $2-
$3.50 per square foot, based upon estimates provided by the City’s Real Estate Division. The
value of the rental subsidy provided to each resident artist could be estimated as approximately
$5,000 annually, with the cumulative annual subsidy for the entire program at $169,365.
Rental rates are subject to change in accordance with the Municipal Fee Schedule. The City
provides and pays for utility services in conjunction with each rental and each artist must obtain
and maintain proof of liability insurance. These efforts are coordinated by the City’s Real Estate
Division.
Each current Cubberley artist residency term is five years, with the possibility of renewal (based
upon whether the artist chooses to reapply through the City’s selection process and the results
of that process). The residency selection process for artists currently involves an artistic review
conducted by a panel of visual arts professionals.
In exchange for the subsidized rent, artist responsibilities include service—volunteering in the
Palo Alto community is a condition of the lease. Current artists have provided service to the
community through a variety of efforts, including organizing public programs about their work,
volunteering at the Palo Alto Art Center (Art Center) and the Public Art Program (Art Program).
This service is self-monitored and has never been tracked or monitored by staff.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
In addition, artist tenants must contribute to the City without charge at least one artwork
during each five-year term. This artwork is subject to the approval of the Palo Alto Public Art
Commission (Commission) and becomes part of the City’s Art in Public Places collection—which
includes over two hundred paintings, sculptures, prints, and textiles exhibited throughout City
facilities. In 2012, 15 artworks valued at more than $25,000 were provided to the City as part of
this process.
Each artist is also required to participate in Cubberley’s Open Studio Program (Studio Program)
and to provide an annual written review that includes documentation of their productivity
throughout the year. The value of the Studio Program for participating artists and the
surrounding community is significant. Current and past Cubberley artists have frequently
acknowledged the importance of the Studio Program for their individual artistic careers,
providing them with facilities and space for their artistic production. As one current artist
shared in our recent survey of artists, “…Having a place to go has enabled me to focus on
sustained practice and work production. It enables me to grow as an artist and apply to
galleries and sell work.” In addition, current and past artists involved in the Studio Program
emphasize the value of the community and camaraderie established through a cohort of
practicing artists at one site. Cubberley artists have also shared the feedback they have
received from community members attending open studios about the value of the program for
the community. The 2013 artist survey included a resident who shared, “It’s important to me to
live in a town with an artists’ community.”
At the same time, staff has also heard feedback from community members that CASP suffers
from a lack of diversity in terms of age, ethnicity and artistic disciplines represented; that the
program is not truly accessible to new artists, a perception that may be reinforced due to the
fact that many of the artists have been in residence for several terms. Staff has also received
feedback from their colleagues that the Studio Program has limited visibility and that Cubberley
visitors are frequently unable to find, identify, or experience the benefit of the Studio Program
without attending a semi-annual Open Studio event. With 200-400 estimated attendants at
each Open Studio, staff would like to see that number grow substantially.
The most recent residency selection process was conducted in August 2009. In that process, 20
artists applied, ten were selected for the program, one alternate was identified and one
incumbent artist was denied re-selection. Subsequent residency selection processes were put
on hold due to the Art Center’s renovation—it was hoped that any vacated studios could be
used as facilities for the Art Center’s revenue-generating class programs—and due to the
current Cubberley strategic planning effort and lease negotiations with the Palo Alto Unified
School District. As a result, many incumbent artists had their residencies extended.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Modifications to the Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program Guidelines (Guidelines) were
made in 2009 (Attachment B) at the staff level in response to concerns expressed by Cubberley
artists about the residency selection process. Staff conducted several meetings with artists to
hear their concerns, which included the lack of transparency of the process and the challenge of
determining artistic merit and financial need/service. In response, staff updated the Guidelines,
so that the next round would reflect a two-part residency selection process (one part, which
includes a panel of visual arts professionals, would determine artistic quality and excellence of
each applicant, while another part would be staff-driven and focused on need and potential for
service). Note that due to the jury process delays mentioned previously, a jury process has not
taken place since the new guidelines were implemented.
I n addition, based upon staff concerns regarding accountability, the guidelines were updated to
include an annual meeting with staff and each resident artist to discuss each artist’s annual
report. This has been minimally successful due to lack of staff workload capacity. Opportunities
for service for artists were expanded to include volunteering for other City programs, Art
Center and Art Program programs, and teaching for City programs.
Additional changes that impacted the program occurred in 2010. At that time, several
Cubberley artists refused to make their required gift of artwork to the City because of concerns
about the lack of retention of copyright in the City’s Deed of Gift form. Staff met with the
concerned artists to hear their concerns, and then worked with the City Attorney’s Office to
develop a form that would meet the needs of both the City and the Cubberley artists. This form
is currently in use and has resulted in all of the current artists being in compliance with their
artwork donation requirement.
The Program was most recently discussed by City Council in the context of Cubberley
Community Advisory Committee’s work in 2012 and 2013, as well as the changes in studio
rental rates approved by the Finance Committee during the FY 2013 budget process. Changes in
the policies of the program were discussed at the Policy and Services Committee’s meeting in
1995 (CMR: 173:95) in response to discussions about rental rates and subleases at the
Cubberley site (CMR: 285:94). In the 1995 meeting, staff presented updated guidelines,
including broadening selection criteria to include creative excellence, demonstrated artistic
skills, demonstrated service, and Palo Alto residence. These updated Guidelines were approved
unanimously in the meeting. In addition, staff had recommended a ten-year cap on subsidized
leases for the Program, after which the rates would convert to market rates. This
recommendation was not approved because attrition was seen as adequate for turnover,
subject to further review. Discussions and public comments in the meeting included the need
for subsidized artists’ studios, turnover rates, and term limits for artists, but it appears that
policy was never finalized.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Discussion
In 2013, when staff began to prepare for a new application round, it became clear that CASP
could benefit from changes to support its vitality and sustainability for the future, as well as
increase its accessibility and diversity. Due to lack of staff capacity, a consultant was identified
to support the effort, and was largely responsible for conducting extensive research on best
practices in artist studio and artist residency programs (Attachment D). Major trends in artist
studio programs include:
Studio size ranges widely by program. Average size is about 300-500 square feet. Some
facilities have smaller or much larger spaces.
Shared space is common.
Many facilities have gallery spaces on site, which serve to widen the audience for the
organization.
Many facilities have shared tools and equipment for studio artists.
Some facilities function as community maker spaces, with fully equipped shared studios
rented by the day or month.
Service hours or public open studios are required and can serve as a component of
rental fee.
Studios are valued as a place for community building for artists and as a means to
outreach to the community at large through open studios and other events.
Most programs have some form of community engagement; educational programming;
exhibitions artist lectures professional development for artists and monthly open studio
events or annual open studios.
Artist work and live/work studios are often one component of creative place making,
particularly in cities working on neighborhood revitalization and economic development
through arts districts.
Municipalities partnering with non-profit developers like ArtSpace to create affordable
housing, workspace and multi-disciplinary arts venues for artists and the public.
Also, a survey of 120 local artists was conducted, to ascertain their studio needs (Attachment
E). Survey results indicate an ongoing need for artist studio space, an interest in shared tools
and workspaces, the value of peer support for artistic growth and artists’ desire to engage with
the broader community. Additionally, community meetings are being conducted: a meeting
with the Cubberley artists was held on October 11, 2013, that focused on the value to the
artists of the program. Two open community meetings were hosted on November 19, 2013
(Attachment F) where artists and interested community members brainstormed and gave input
on considerations on process for a new program round, eligibility for Palo Alto vs non-Palo Alto
residents, the community service requirement, programming, publicity, the program’s value to
artists, the larger community and, the importance of the community the artists have created.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
On January 8, 2014 (Attachment G), the artists gave input on staff suggestions for the program.
Many of staff’s recommendations regarding shared space, animating the space, raising
economic activity levels and impact, quantifying community service with a focus on the site,
etc., met with participants’ approval. The issue with the most controversy was on term limits.
Staff recommended one term being 3 years with artists being allowed to serve two terms and
then having to sit out for two terms. About half of the group agreed with 3 year terms and
about half wanted 4 year terms; staff is recommending 4 year terms. Several current artists
voiced concern about having term limits at all, while others recognized value of term limits.
Staff recommended artists who have been in residence for more than 5 years would not be
eligible to re-apply; artists suggested that they should be eligible with some consideration for
their years in the program; staff accepted that recommendation at the time of the meeting,
acknowledging its merit. Staff recommended having an artist emeritus; participants were not
interested in that idea and staff dropped it. Staff proposed the community service be done on
site and adjusted that recommendation based on input, to give the site first priority for service
but allowing artists to help elsewhere in Arts & Sciences Division as needed.
A meeting for February 13th is planned followed by review at the Policy and Services
Committee meeting. Community input and feedback has shaped staff recommendations.
One critical component of the new strategic plan is the creation of a relevant Mission and
Vision for CASP, reflecting the voices of community members, staff, and participating artists and
encapsulates the potential of CASP to make a greater impact for all constituents. Staff envisions
the following:
Draft Vision and Program Goals
Create a community for artists that fosters diverse and numerous opportunities for growth
and collaboration in the creation of new work.
Ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in terms of artistic disciplines,
artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic approaches.
Create a dynamic, economically valuable, and accessible cultural destination.
Foster active engagement and visibility with the community.
Develop a prestigious and competitive program with a large number of strong
applicants.
Program Updates: As articulated in this report, the Cubberley Visual Artists Studio maintains
significant value, notably the camaraderie established and maintained by current artists, and
the resulting increases in their creative output. Changes to the guidelines and residency
City of Palo Alto Page 7
selection process for the program have been thoughtfully considered to promote the Vision and
enhance the impact of the program for the community.
The first change is a new name for the artists residency program—from the Cubberley Visual
Artists Studio Program to the Cubberley Artists Studio Program. This shift reflects a more
expansive vision for the artists residency program, with artists working in a wide range of
disciplines. This transition reflects an increased fluidity in contemporary artists’ working
practices between and across disciplines. The program will continue to include visual artists and
traditional visual media such as printmaking, painting, sculpture, mixed-media, and
photography. The program will expand to include relatively new genres, including but not
limited to installation art, public art, new media/digital art, and social practicesi. Literary artists
and performance artists and other artists whose work contains a demonstrative visual element
may also be considered. Limitations of the Cubberley infrastructure and facility may prevent
some artists who work in some media from participating in the program.
Term limits have been a contentious subject with many incumbent Cubberley artists, but are
necessary to promote turnover, diversity, accessibility and vibrancy in the program. Currently,
there are five artists who have been in residence at Cubberley for 15-24 years, six artists who
have been in residence for 10-14 years, and ten artists who have been in residence for 4-9
years. Since 2009, only two artists have voluntarily left the artists residency program, so
attrition has been minimal. Staff seeks to address the issues of accessibility by adopting the
policy of most other like programs by implementing term limits, modifying residency terms, and
by significantly increasing publicity and outreach about the next residency selection processes
in order to ensure a large number of qualified applicants.
Staff proposes modifying the residency terms for artists from five years to four years per term.
Staff also proposes limiting terms to up to two consecutive terms. Artists must take a break for
two terms—or eight years—before reapplying to the program. (Staff had recommended 3 year
terms but increased to 4 years based on input from the artists.)
These modifications reflect best practices in the field of artists’ studio and residency programs.
Staff research reveals that there are two distinct types of programs—rental programs for which
there is no application or jury process, and juried residency programs (of which there are
approximately 500 throughout the United States). Rental programs generally have unlimited
lease renewals with very little turnover. Residency programs, in contrast, have an average
length of stay of eight weeks (according to the Alliance of Artists Communities). CASP—because
it features both rentals and a jury process—is a hybrid of both models. Residency programs that
are most equivalent to CASP, because they offer subsidies, require service or have public
program components, include Root Division in San Francisco, Headlands Center for the Arts in
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Sausalito, Redline in Denver, and 18th Street Art Center in Santa Monica, which have term limits
of one year, one year, two-three years, and three years, respectively.
Service has been a longstanding requirement of the Program. However, there has never been a
strong system in place for quantifying, tracking, and providing opportunities for service. Staff
seeks to rectify this by providing greater clarity on the service requirement and by requiring
service to be a focus of CASP. Rather than providing service to other City programs, or to
volunteer efforts outside the City, participating artists would focus their community service
efforts on strengthening and supporting CASP—tasks include staffing a possible public display
gallery, pop-up shop and artist performance space, updating the program’s website, creating
marketing materials, conducting community outreach, tracking community service for their
cohorts, serving as a liaison for meetings with City staff, facility coordination with City staff,
organizing free community lectures, exhibits, classes and workshops, and more. Participating
artists would now be required to perform four hours of service per month (or its equivalent on
a quarterly or annual basis). If there are more hours than there is work to be done, the artists
will be able to meet their community service requirement through other projects with the Arts
& Science Division.
Focusing service efforts on the Cubberley program has two other important impacts: 1) it will
help to engage participating artists to support much-needed administrative and programming
efforts, supplanting our limited City staff resources; and 2) it will help strengthen the creative
sector in our city. Due to the high cost of living in Palo Alto, many artists and arts organizations
struggle and/or relocate. Staff seeks to increase the economic value and impact of CASP and
the other cultural institutions that reside or use Cubberley. We are working to turn the Art
Center’s former jewelry studio into a cultural café, including gallery and exhibition functions,
pop up stores, and a small performance space for poetry readings or performance art. CASP
artists can contribute positively to this effort, as well as hopefully increase the sales of their
own work.
Staff also intends to create a very dynamic and animated space at CASP, reflective of trends in
how artists create, by implementing shared studio labs. The largest studio spaces will be
modified as shared lab spaces—in which multiple artists may use the same space for shared
media (i.e., a printmaking studio; a photography darkroom; digital media studio; a literary
artists’ lab; a lab for large scale art for painters, installation artists and public artists; etc.). These
shared collaborative laboratories will allow CASP to serve more artists (from the current 22 to
more than 30 at a given time). Participating artists will provide their own equipment and
materials and will submit written informal agreements between the artists who share the same
space for the City’s records. These shared studio spaces will provide important access points to
CASP for lower-income artists, who would not traditionally be able to afford a single or
traditionally shared studio spaces. If we can identify the need through the application process,
short term rental of a studio may be offered.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Artist selection process:
A panel of art professionals will evaluate the applications according to the Selection Criteria,
using a points system. Points will be added or subtracted accordingly. Artistic excellence,
demonstrated need, ability to contribute, and residency in Palo Alto would garner points. Points
would be deducted for incumbent artists based upon their number of years in residence.
In addition to those artists selected for studio residency, a number of artists will be selected as
alternates. Should a studio become available prior to the next jury process, staff will select from
the waiting list, based on rank, media compatibility for the available space and contribution to
the diversity of the program. This artist will complete the remainder of the term and then may
reapply in the next selection process.
In prior years, residency periods were staggered to ensure that all of the incumbent artists were
not being re-juried at the same time. This proved challenging for the limited staff to manage
and therefore our updated guidelines involve all the residencies commencing concurrently.
Since its origin, the program has been under the Division of Arts and Culture (now Division of
Arts and Sciences). The Assistant Director, Arts and Sciences, is working to create a
collaborative team of City staff to ensure a smooth transition. The team includes staff from
Cubberley, the Art Center, the Art Program, and the Real Estate Division. Staff expects to
conduct inspection of the studios this spring to ensure that electrical and other minor facility
repairs will be made. Staff plans to open the new round this spring, with a summer panel, and
fall notification followed by move-in and move-out.
Staff is mindful that the success of the new guidelines and processes is predicated upon
increased marketing to enhance the visibility of the next residency selection process to expand
the applicant pool. Historically, the number of applicants for the residency selection process has
been minimal, due in large part to limited outreach. In order to address this, staff plan to
leverage the 100 respondents to the 2013 survey- of which a third responded that they were in
need of studio space, social media, local arts agencies such as SV Creates and SFAC, the
extensive networks of the Commission and the Art Center, as well as local arts nonprofits
(Pacific Art League), civic programs (Little House in Menlo Park), and commercial ventures (art
supply stores) for promotion opportunities.
Resource Impact
There is no significant resource impact to the changes in the guidelines for the Cubberley
Artists’ Studio Program, as we are looking to reassign responsibilities within CSD to ensure
adequate staff support for CASP.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Policy Implications
The proposed program change furthers policy goal C-23: Explore ways to expand the space
available in the community for art exhibits, classes and other cultural activities.
Attachments:
Att A 2014 Proposed Guidelines and Application (DOCX)
Attachment B-2009 CVASP Fact Sheet (PDF)
Attachment C-Minutes June 1995 P&SC Meeting (PDF)
Attachment D-Research Summary (PDF)
Attachment E-Results from 2013 Artists Survey (PDF)
Attachment F-Minutes 11.19.2013 Community Meeting (PDF)
Attachment G-Minutes 1.8.2014 Community Meeting (PDF)
Att A 2014 Proposed Guidelines and Application (PDF)
i Social practice art is an emerging trend throughout the country that blurs media boundaries and engages artists
outside traditional arts venues. According to the The New York Times, “Known primarily as social practice, its
practitioners freely blur the lines among object making, performance, political activism, community organizing,
environmentalism and investigative journalism, creating a deeply participatory art that often flourishes outside the
gallery and museum system. And in so doing, they push an old question — “Why is it art?” — as close to the
breaking point as contemporary art ever has.” MFA programs in social practice art are emerging, including a local
one at the California College of the Arts (CCA) in Oakland and San Francisco.
DRAFT
1
Cubberley Artist Studio Program
Guidelines and Application
Draft Mission
The Cubberley Artist Studio Program (CASP) supports the vitality of the arts in Palo Alto by
providing subsidized studio space for artists, building creative community and fostering public
engagement with the arts and artists.
CASP is located at the Cubberley Community Center (“Cubberley”), a former high school site,
which the Palo Alto Unified School District leases to the City of Palo Alto (“City”). In addition to
the artist spaces, Cubberley serves as an auxiliary campus for Foothill College, a home to day
care providers, private schools, performing arts organizations, youth sports programs and other
community service programs.
Draft Vision and Program Goals
Create a community for artists that fosters diverse and numerous opportunities for
growth and collaboration in the creation of new work.
Ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in terms of artistic disciplines,
artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic approaches.
Create a dynamic, economically valuable, and accessible cultural destination.
Foster active engagement and visibility with the community.
Develop a prestigious and competitive program with a large number of strong applicants.
Program Overview
After a selection process, successful artist applicants are awarded a studio space for one
four-year term, and may reapply for a second term.
Artists may apply as individuals or in teams of two or more artists.
23 single, shared or lab studios are available.
Studio sizes range from 360 to 1000 square feet.
One dedicated space (formerly the Art Center’s Jewelry Studio) for programming and
exhibition opportunities: artist lectures, workshops, performances, pop-up shops and
possibly a café.
Utilities are provided and paid for by the City (gas, electricity, wi-fi access, water, sewer
and refuse collection services) in connection with the rentals. Participating artists will
provide and pay for any and all telephone service at the leased premises.
Rent subsidized by the City of Palo Alto (with commercial rate approximately $2.00-
$3.50/square foot). Rent is $0.82/square foot for Palo Alto residents, and $0.91/square
foot for non-residents. This rate is subject to change in accordance with the Municipal
Fee Schedule. For artist teams, rent will be allocated amongst the team members in a
Comment [RH1]: Pending artists’ input
DRAFT
2
process determined by City staff in conjunction with participating artists. If there are
multiple tenants, all names of the individuals shall appear on the lease as tenants and all
artists must meet the City’s insurance requirements.
Artists selected to the program are expected to:
o Participate in a community of mutually supportive and respectful artists
o Regularly use studio space. Artists agree to maximize the frequency of their use
of the studio.
o Complete four hours of service per month, or the equivalent on a quarterly or
annual basis. Service is focused on supporting the vitality of CASP.
o Donation of one artwork per residency term to the City’s Public Art Program.
o Participation in the Open Studio events, each year as well as any other open
community events
o Provide annual plans and reviews.
Eligibility
CASP seeks applications from artists at any stages in their careers, for which studio residency
would make a significant impact on their artistic development. Any artist residing in the
greater Bay Area is eligible to apply, although artists residing in Palo Alto will have preference.
CASP recognizes the increasing fluidity in contemporary artists’ working practices between and
across disciplines. As a result, the program is open to artists, working in traditional visual media
such as printmaking, painting, sculpture, mixed-media, and photography, as well as artists with
relatively newer genres such as new media and digital art, installation art, public art, and social
practices.
We encourage artists of any discipline to apply for consideration. For example, literary artists
and performance artists whose work contains a demonstrative visual element may be
considered. Creative entrepreneurs such as artisans or designers who create original products
may also be considered.
High school and university undergraduate students are not eligible to apply. Students in
graduate programs are eligible to apply, if studio spaces are not provided by their respective
universities.
Limitations of the Cubberley facility and infrastructure may prevent artists, who work in some
media, from participating in the program. These applications will be considered on a case-by-
case basis by staff.
Artists are eligible to apply for one four-year term, and then re-apply for the following
consecutive four-year term. After the two four-year terms have expired, artists must wait two
terms (eight years) before reapplying.
DRAFT
3
Selection Criteria
Creative excellence or the potential for creative excellence of the artist
The artist’s s strong exhibition history, reviews and/or record of accomplishments
demonstrated in resume or CV.
The artist’s demonstrated need for the program (based upon the application materials)
and the potential impact to their artwork and/or careers.
Contribution that the artist would anticipate to make in meeting the (draft) mission,
vision and goals of the program.
Intention to comply with the requirements of the program as outlined in relevant
documents including the guidelines, application, contract and specifically, the Artists’
Requirements section below.
Residency in Palo Alto (preferred, but it is not required).
Selection Process
Artists must apply online in the CaFE system.
A panel of art professionals will evaluate the applications according to the Selection Criteria,
using a points system. Points will be added or subtracted accordingly. For example, artistic
excellence, demonstrated need, ability to contribute to the program, and residency in Palo Alto
would garner points. Points would be deducted for incumbent artists (based upon number of
years in the program).
In addition to those artists selected for studio residency, a number of artists will be selected as
alternates. Should a studio become available prior to the next selection process, staff will select
from the waiting list, based on rank, media compatibility, and diversity for the available space.
The selected artist would complete the remainder of the term and then may reapply in the next
selection process.
An applicant may not make contact, directly or indirectly, with the panelists. A violation of this
policy could result in the City’s determination of the applicant’s ineligibility.
Comment [RH2]: Expand when final info is
available
Comment [RH3]: Pending input from artists on Feb. 13
DRAFT
4
Artist’s Responsibilities:
Regular use of studio space. Artist agrees to maximize the frequency of use of the
studio.
Service. Each artist is required to complete four hours of service per month, or the
equivalent on a quarterly or annual basis. Service is focused on supporting the vitality of
CASP. Each artist will make an annual proposal to meet the service requirement and
report progress quarterly.
Open Studios. Participation in Open Studio events and other open events each year
Artwork Donation. Donation of one artwork per residency term to the Public Art
Program of the City of Palo Alto is required. The donation is subject to the approval of
the Public Art Commission and will be deemed a gift made under terms and conditions
established by the City. CASP artists shall propose to donate to the City by no later than
during the last year of their lease. The process for accepting donations will involve the
Public Art Commission’s approval.
General Participation. CASP Artists are expected to participate in artists community
meetings.
Be a good neighbor. CASP artists shall act as good neighbors with their fellow artists, the
community, and the City. This shall include respectful communication, being responsive
to the needs of the diverse Cubberley community of artists and other groups, and the
City’s and the CSD’s staff.
Annual Review. Participation in an annual review process conducted by City staff. This
annual review will include a written statement from each CASP artist annually, on or
before a date identified by City staff, that outlines their productivity, plans for the next
lease term year, documentation of community service, exhibition activity and program
participation. This written statement will be reviewed at least once each year by CSD
staff. Failure to submit by stated deadline may prohibit contract renewal.
DRAFT
5
Cubberley Artist Studio Program
Application Form
Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Website:
Application type:
_____Individual
_____Group (2 or more applicants wishing to share a lab studio)**
**Artists applying as a group should apply together by submitting ONE application per group,
specifying number of individuals on the application form, but indicate a lead applicant who will
serve as a contact person. In your Artist Statement (question #2), tell us how lab studio
residency will support your individual and collaborative work. Also explain the relationship
between the applicants and their prior collaborations together, as well as how you envision
sharing the studio time and space.
1. Briefly describe the primary media in which you work: (character limit)
2. If selected, please estimate the amount of time you would use your studio per week
/month. Do you have a regular studio schedule? If yes, please specify. (character limit)
3. Artist Statement: discuss your need for the studio program and the anticipated impact
to your work and career. (character limit)
Comment [AE4]: This will all be used for an online form using CaFE
DRAFT
6
4. One of CASP’s stated goals is to ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in
terms of artistic disciplines, artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic
approaches. Please outline what you bring to the program for the benefit of the
community, and your ability to fulfill and reinforce the (draft) mission, vision and goals.
(character limit)
5. Residency at CASP requires a commitment of four hours of service per month, or the
equivalent. Are you prepared and able to make that commitment? What skills or
experience do you have that may be used in fulfillment of your service? (i.e., teaching,
carpentry, webmaster, publicity, exhibition coordinator, archivist, event planning?
(character limit)
Cubberley Artist Studio Program Compliance Form
Upon signing this application, I, the Applicant, understand my responsibilities in supporting
CASP as a community context in which I can pursue creative work and share collegial
interaction with a small community of artists. In the spirit of the program, if selected, I intend to
commit myself to using the studio as intended by CASP and depart according to the terms of my
agreement with the City of Palo Alto. I further agree to abide by the Program’s guidelines and
policies.
Non-Discrimination: CASP encourages and welcomes the participation of artists from all
backgrounds and does not discriminate with regard to race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial
status, weight or height in its admission policies.
The Applicant has carefully read and fully understands these Guidelines and
Application.
The Applicant warrants that she/he/they has/have the capacity to successfully
undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations of the CASP Artist.
This Application may be withdrawn at any time.
The Applicant has fully completed the Application and provided the appropriate and
requested supplemental material.
All of the information provided with this Application is true and correct to the best
of the Applicant’s knowledge.
The City in the exercise of its discretion reserves the right to accept and reject any
and all Applications.
By submission of this Application, the Applicant grants consent to the City to verify
and substantiate or supplement information contained in this Application. The
DRAFT
7
Applicant hereby authorizes any third party to release to the City any and all
information concerning the Applicant which the third party possesses.
Name: ________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________________
Incomplete applications may be eliminated.
Make sure you have completed all the requested data and have included all required
materials. Please refer to the attached checklist before final submission.
Application Checklist
All application materials are to be submitted online through CaFE. We cannot accept
applications by hardcopy or email.
1. Completed application form
2. Documentation of recent work (see CaFE guidelines for uploading images).
o Please provide up to six representative images of your work.
Or
For artists who create performance, video, or time-based media, please provide a
link to video documentation of work online; up to 2 minutes will be screened.
And
o A URL to your website will be accepted either in lieu of or in addition to the
above.
3. Resume or curriculum vitae, including exhibition and publication history
4. Signed Compliance Form
Application Deadline: June 1, 2014
Receipt of your application will be acknowledged by email. Applicants will be notified of
selection results by no later than September 1, 2014. Move-in date will be scheduled forno
later than November 1, 2014.
Submit Application Materials to:
CaFE –
For questions: Contact Nadya Chuprina at nadya.chuprina@cityofpaloalto.org, or call
650.329.2227.
Comment [RH5]: need URL link
DRAFT
8
If an Applicant is accepted into CASP, the Applicant will comply with the following
requirements:
Complete CASP Artist Requirements
Studio Space:
An artist must maintain liability insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 (Insurance
Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage with Comprehensive General,
Fire/Legal Liability coverage of at least $1,000,000 per person and per occurrence). This
insurance can be purchased from the City of Palo Alto.
An artist is required to pay annual tax assessments, including, but not limited to, the
possessory interest tax that may be attributable to the artist-tenant’s occupancy of the
Cubberley studio space. The Cubberley studio must be the sole studio space for the artists and used for the
primary purpose of creating art. PROHIBITED USES: Any participating artist, who
maintains or intends to maintain a second studio, including a home studio, regardless of the purpose of its use, will be disqualified from consideration as an artist-tenant at
Cubberley. Storage and live/work uses of the studio space are also not allowed. ACASP
artist may not use the studio for any unauthorized purpose or to engage in, or permit,
any other business activity within or from the studio.
An artist may use the studios for selling his/her artwork and for fee-based teaching
opportunities.
Regular use of studio space. An artist shall maximize the frequency of use of the studio.
.
Lease. The City leases space to artists-tenants on an annual basis; the term is a one-year
period. Once an artist is selected, he/she will not be re-evaluated during the balance of
the four–year term, but the City reserves the right to modify this policy upon notice. The
artist will be required to demonstrate annually, that he/she is meeting the requirements
of the program, complying with the terms and conditions of the lease, and otherwise
maintaining the eligibility standards for continued occupancy.
Terms. At the end of the fourth year of occupancy, the artist-tenant may be required to
resign the space, as the lease term expires at such time. The artist may submit another
CASP application and apply for consideration in a new round for another selection
process. After the two four-year terms have expired, artists must wait two terms (eight
years) before reapplying.
Leave Provision: Whenever an artist will be continuously absent from Cubberley for
over a one–month period, the artist-tenant shall notify the City, in writing by email and
in advance, of the proposed absence. Notwithstanding the leave of absence, the artist-
tenant’s obligation to make the rental payments will continue in accordance with the
lease agreement . Further clarification and requirements may apply depending on the
situation, to be determined by City staff.
DRAFT
9
00710148A
Page 1
ATTACHMENT
B
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Staff
Report
2009
Cubberley
Visual
Artist
Studio
Fact
Sheet
DESCRIPTION
OF
SPACE:
The
Cubberley
Community
Center
(“Cubberley”)
is
a
former
high
school
site,
located
at
4000
Middlefield
Road,
between
Charleston
and
San
Antonio
Roads
in
Palo
Alto.
It
is
leased
by
the
Palo
Alto
Unified
School
District
to
the
City
of
Palo
Alto
(the
“City”).
In
addition
to
the
artist
spaces,
Cubberley
serves
as
an
auxiliary
campus
for
Foothill
College.
It
also
serves
as
a
home
to
day
care
providers,
private
schools,
dance
organizations,
and
other
community
service
programs.
There
is
ample
parking,
and
the
site
is
accessible
to
disabled
persons.
There
are
eleven
(11)
reduced
rent
single
studios
and
six
(6)
reduced
rent
shared
studios
at
Cubberley.
When
single
studios
become
vacant
and
available
for
lease,
artists-‐tenants
who
currently
share
space
will
be
given
first
priority,
based
upon
seniority
in
terms
of
presence
at
Cubberley.
Shared
studios,
ranging
between
360
-‐
500
square
feet,
are
allocated
for
each
artist.
Single
studios,
ranging
between
700
and
1,000
square
feet,
are
allocated
for
eleven
(11)
artists
each.
Some
studios
include
closet/storage
areas.
MISSION
AND
PURPOSE:
Cubberley’s
Visual
Artists
Studio
program
(the
“Program”)
supports
the
mission
of
the
Community
Services
Department
of
the
City
(the
“CSD”),
which
is
to
engage
individuals
and
families
to
create
a
strong
and
healthy
community,
through
the
parks,
open
space,
recreation,
social
services,
arts
and
sciences
opportunities.
The
Program
was
initiated
in
1989
after
the
then
Division
of
Arts
and
Culture
(now
the
Division
of
Arts
and
Sciences)
committee
conducted
a
survey,
which
revealed
that
a
lack
of
affordable
studio
space
for
artists
was
providing
challenges
for
local
arts
organizations.
By
maintaining
the
Program,
the
City
intends
to
promote
the
artistic
growth
of
local
artists
and
provide
opportunities
for
excellence
in
the
visual
arts
field
by
offering
affordable
studio
space
to
highly
motivated
fine
arts
artists.
The
Program
is
intended
to
establish
a
community
center
for
visual
artists
who
support,
collaborate,
and
exchange
ideas
with
one
another.
The
Program
is
intended
to
enrich
the
Palo
Alto
community
through:
The
opportunity
to
engage
and
interact
with
participating
artists;
The
services
rendered
and
the
teaching
provided
by
participating
artists;
and
The
donation
of
art
work
contributed
by
participating
local
artists
to
the
City’s
Art
in
Public
Places
collection
for
the
education
and
enjoyment
of
all
citizens.
High
school
and
university
undergraduate
students
are
not
eligible
for
consideration
as
artist-‐tenants,
but
candidates
for
advanced
degrees
may
be
considered
based
upon
qualifications
as
may
be
determined
by
the
CSD
staff.
PERMITTED
USES:
Seventeen
(17)
classrooms
are
available
for
use
by
artist-‐tenants
in
the
form
of
shared
studios
or
single
studios.
An
artist
must
use
the
studio
only
for
producing
and
displaying
artwork,
and
for
no
other
use
without
the
City’s
prior
written
consent.
The
prior
written
consent
shall
be
obtained
by
means
of
a
written
statement
that
is
sent
to
the
CSD’s
Division
Manager,
Arts
and
Sciences
00710148A
Page 2
ATTACHMENT
B
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Staff
Report
2009
Cubberley
Visual
Artist
Studio
Fact
Sheet
Division,
with
a
copy
sent
to
the
City’s
Administrative
Services
Department’s
Real
Property
Division
Analyst,
declaring
the
purpose
or
activity
of
the
studio
that
is
at
variance
with
the
production
and
display
of
the
artist’s
work.
The
teaching
and
mentoring
of
other
artists
by
Cubberley’s
artist-‐tenants
are
encouraged.
If
teaching
or
mentoring
is
provided
for
the
benefit
of
the
City,
even
if
such
actions
are
paid,
such
teaching
or
mentoring
can
be
considered
volunteer
service,
as
required
in
the
Lease
Agreement.
If
Cubberley’s
artist-‐tenants
provide
teaching
or
mentoring
services
at
their
studio
spaces
independently
(outside
of
the
City
of
Palo
Alto),
each
of
these
artists-‐tenants
must
include
a
summary
statement
of
fees
received
for
those
services
in
their
annual
written
statement
that
is
required
to
be
sent
to
the
City.
As
noted
above,
any
Cubberley
artist-‐tenant
who
is
interested
in
using
the
studio
space
for
teaching
or
mentoring
activities
must
seek
the
prior
written
consent
of
CSD’s
Division
Manager,
Arts
and
Sciences
Division.
PROHIBITED
USES:
Any
artist-‐tenant,
who
maintains
or
intends
to
maintain
a
second
studio,
including
a
home
studio,
regardless
of
the
purpose
of
use,
will
be
disqualified
from
consideration
as
an
artist-‐tenant
at
Cubberley.
Storage
and
live/work
uses
of
the
studio
space
are
also
not
allowed.
The
artist-‐tenant
cannot
use
the
studio
for
any
other
purpose
or
to
engage
in,
or
permit,
any
other
business
activity
within
or
from
the
studio.
MAILING
LIST:
An
artist,
who
wishes
to
be
placed
on
an
email
mailing
list
for
notification
purposes
whenever
the
Program
is
accepting
applications,
may
do
so
by
sending
a
request
for
inclusion
in
the
Cubberley
email
mailing
list
to:
If
by
email:
darlene.katsanes@cityofpaloalto.org
If
by
letter:
City
of
Palo
Alto
Division
of
Arts
and
Sciences
Attn:
Cubberley
Mailing
List
1313
Newell
Road
Palo
Alto,
CA
94303
Include
the
following
contact
information
along
with
your
letter:
name,
address,
email
address,
and
phone
number.
The
City
maintains
a
mailing
list
of
people
who
have
expressed
an
interest
in
receiving
an
application
for
space
lease.
NOTE:
Placement
on
the
mailing
list
does
NOT
guarantee
a
tenancy
placement.
It
only
assures
you
that
you
will
be
notified
when
the
next
application
period
opens.
APPLICATION
PROCESS:
When
space
becomes
available,
a
Request
for
Proposals
will
be
sent
to
artists
on
the
mailing
list.
The
City
also
advertises
the
availability
of
studio
space
in
the
local
newspaper.
Applications
must
be
submitted
on
the
City’s
Request
for
Proposal
forms.
During
the
application
periods,
proposal
forms
can
be
downloaded
on
the
following
website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd/news/
details.asp?NewsID=130&TargetID=28
00710148A
Page 3
ATTACHMENT
B
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Staff
Report
2009
Cubberley
Visual
Artist
Studio
Fact
Sheet
OR
contact
by
email,
letter
or
telephone:
Darlene
Katsanes
City
of
Palo
Alto
Division
of
Arts
and
Sciences
1313
Newell
Road
Palo
Alto,
CA
94303
Phone:
(650)
329-‐2227
Email:
darlene.katsanes@cityofpaloalto.org
All
proposals
received
are
date-‐
and
time-‐
stamped
upon
receipt
by
the
City.
SELECTION
PROCESS:
The
selection
process
for
Cubberley’s
artists,
who
are
eligible
to
lease
space,
involves
a
two–step
process.
At
step
one,
the
artists’
images
and
applications
will
be
initially
reviewed
by
a
panel
of
local
artists
and
visual
arts
professionals,
who
are
appointed
by
the
City
to
conduct
the
review
and
evaluation.
This
panel
will
include
a
member
of
the
City’s
Public
Art
Commission
(the
“Commission”).
Appointments
may
be
made
by
the
CSD’s
staff
for
the
panel
of
visual
arts
professionals
to
visit
the
artist-‐applicant
in
his/her
home/studio
to
evaluate
the
caliber
of
current
work
as
well
as
to
interview
the
artist-‐
applicant
with
respect
to
his/her
career
and
artistic
direction.
By
using
a
point
system
for
ranking
the
application,
the
panel
will
use
the
following
weighted
criteria
to
evaluate
each
of
the
received
requests:
◻ Creative
excellence
or
the
potential
for
creative
excellence;
and
◻ Role
that
the
artist
would
play
in
maintaining
a
diversity
of
media,
style,
and
artistic
content
within
the
larger
Cubberley’s
artists
studios
complex.
As
a
result
of
the
first
step,
the
panel
will
provide
its
recommendations
for
selections.
At
step
two,
the
City’s
staff
will
review
the
panel’s
selections
and
will
make
the
final
decisions,
using
a
point
system
to
review
and
evaluate
the
artists
based
upon
their:
◻ Past
demonstrated
service
and
willingness
to
volunteer
their
services
to
the
Palo
Alto
Arts
community;
◻ Residency
in
Palo
Alto
(preferred,
but
it
is
not
required);
and
◻ Need
for
studio
spaces
and
the
potential
impact
it
would
provide
to
their
careers.
As
a
result
of
the
second
step,
the
CSD’s
staff
will
develop
a
list
of
selected
artists,
who
are
ranked
according
to
the
points
accrued
through
both
steps
of
the
process.
If
there
is
a
tie,
then
a
Palo
Alto
resident
will
be
given
first
preference.
The
top
five
ranked
non-‐selected
artist-‐
applicants
will
be
informed
that
they
are
placed
on
a
priority-‐ranked
“wait
list.”
An
application
and
selection
process
will
be
conducted
approximately
every
two
years
in
June,
at
which
time
up
to
approximately
one-‐
half
of
the
available
studio
spaces
will
be
made
available.
Current
artist-‐tenants,
who
commenced
leases
of
their
studios
before
June
1,
2010,
will
be
permitted
to
complete
the
current
terms
of
their
leases,
provided
they
otherwise
conform
to
the
requirements
of
these
guidelines.
For
all
other
artists-‐tenants,
who
occupy
their
premises
on
or
after
June
1,
2010,
five
consecutive
years
is
the
term
limit
established
under
Palo
Alto
Municipal
Code
section
2.30.210(h);
they
are
eligible
to
reapply
00710148A
Page 4
ATTACHMENT
B
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Staff
Report
2009
Cubberley
Visual
Artist
Studio
Fact
Sheet
and
will
be
permitted
to
compete
with
all
other
artist-‐applicants
on
equal
terms
and
conditions.
Should
a
studio
become
available
prior
to
the
affected
artist-‐tenant’s
completion
of
occupancy
for
the
term
limit,
the
City
will
inform
the
highest
ranked,
non-‐selected
artist-‐applicant
drawn
from
the
most
recently
conducted
selection
process
“wait
list”
of
the
availability
to
complete
the
unfilled
vacancy.
With
respect
to
shared
space,
the
CSD’s
staff
will
make
a
determination
based
on
compatibility
with
incumbent
artists,
media
used,
and
studio
usage
patterns.
If,
for
any
reason,
an
artist-‐applicant
elects
not
to
take
the
space
that
is
offered,
the
next
name
on
the
“wait
list”
of
priority-‐ranked
applicants
will
be
given
the
opportunity
to
view
and
lease
the
space.
TERMS
OF
TENANCY:
Lease:
The
City
leases
space
to
artists-‐tenants
on
an
annual
basis;
the
term
is
a
one-‐year
period.
Once
an
artist-‐tenant
is
selected,
he/she
will
not
be
re-‐evaluated
during
the
balance
of
the
five–year
term,
but
the
City
reserves
the
right
to
modify
this
policy
upon
notice.
The
artist-‐tenant
will
be
required
to
demonstrate,
annually,
that
he/she
is
meeting
the
requirements
and
otherwise
maintaining
the
eligibility
standards
for
continued
occupancy
as
set
forth
in
the
criteria
for
selection.
At
the
end
of
the
fifth
year
of
occupancy,
the
artist-‐tenant
may
be
required
to
resign
the
space,
as
the
lease
term
expires
at
such
time.
The
artist-‐
tenant
may
submit
another
lease
space
application
and
apply
for
consideration
by
a
new
selection
panel.
Rate:
The
average
rental
rate
at
Cubberley
is
currently
$0.80
per
square
foot
per
month
for
Palo
Alto
residents
and
currently
$0.88
per
square
foot
per
month
for
non-‐Palo
Alto
residents.
This
rate
is
subject
to
change
in
accordance
with
the
Municipal
Fee
Schedule.
Utilities:
The
City
provides
and
pays
for
utility
services
(gas,
electricity,
water,
and
sewer
and
refuse
collection
services)
in
connection
with
such
rental.
The
artist-‐tenant
will
provide
and
pay
for
any
and
all
telephone
service
at
the
leased
premises.
Taxes/Assessments:
The
artist-‐tenant
is
responsible
for
paying
any
and
all
taxes
and
assessments,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
the
possessory
interest
tax
that
may
be
attributable
to
the
artist-‐tenant’s
occupancy
of
the
Cubberley
studio
space.
Insurance:
The
artist-‐tenant
must
obtain
and
maintain
and
provide
to
the
City
proof
of
insurance
coverage
(Insurance
Services
Office
Commercial
General
Liability
coverage
with
Comprehensive
General,
Fire/Legal
Liability
coverage
of
at
least
$1,000,000
per
person
and
per
occurrence).
Nondiscrimination:
Artists-‐tenants
are
selected
without
regard
to
their
race,
skin
color,
gender,
age,
religion,
disability,
national
origin,
ancestry,
sexual
orientation,
housing
status,
marital
status,
familial
status,
weight
or
height.
Artists-‐
tenants
shall
occupy
their
spaces
in
accordance
with
this
non-‐discrimination
provision.
ANNUAL
REVIEW:
In
accordance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
lease
agreement,
the
continuation
of
the
lease
agreement
will
require
00710148A
Page 5
ATTACHMENT
B
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Staff
Report
2009
Cubberley
Visual
Artist
Studio
Fact
Sheet
an
annual
review
of
each
artist-‐tenant
as
a
condition
precedent
to
extending
the
lease.
The
evaluation,
conducted
by
the
City’s
staff,
will
consider
among
other
factors
the
artist-‐tenant’s
productivity
as
well
as
his/her
stated
plans
for
the
next
lease
term
year.
If
the
artist-‐tenant
demonstrates
productivity,
then
he/she
will
be
offered
a
lease
extension
for
the
following
12
months.
The
evaluation
will
require
that
each
artist-‐tenant
must
submit
a
written
statement
that
includes
the
following
information:
Documentation
of
the
artist-‐tenant’s
productivity
during
the
past
year,
including
a
mention
of
artworks
produced,
artistic
activity,
exhibition
or
program
participation,
along
with
plans
for
the
coming
year.
The
artist-‐tenant’s
experience
with
the
leased
studio
space,
including
any
specific
facility
needs.
Public
outreach/community
service
efforts,
as
practicable.
This
written
statement
will
be
reviewed
once
each
year
in
the
artist-‐tenant’s
presence
by
the
CSD’s
staff.
These
meetings
will
occur
every
May.
ARTIST-‐TENANT’S
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Studio
space
shall
be
used
on
a
regular
basis,
except
as
such
regular
use
may
be
temporarily
waived,
in
writing,
by
the
City.
The
studio
shall
serve
as
the
sole
studio
space
used
by
the
artist-‐
tenant.
The
artist-‐tenant
must
be
available
to
volunteer
his/her
services
to
the
Palo
Alto
Arts
Community
as
a
term
and
condition
of
the
lease.
Service
may
include,
but
is
not
limited
to,
volunteering
for
the
benefit
of
the
City,
including
performing
volunteer
work
for
the
Palo
Alto
Art
Center,
upon
request,
and
volunteering
as
a
member
of
the
Commission,
upon
request.
Teaching
classes
at
or
for
the
Palo
Alto
Art
Center
or
the
Palo
Alto
Junior
Museum
and
Zoo
may
be
considered
by
the
City
as
a
form
of
volunteer
service.
Artists-‐
tenants
are
strongly
encouraged
to
participate
in
at
least
two
service
projects
a
year,
depending
on
time
availability
and
commitment.
Each
artist-‐tenant
must
contribute
to
the
City
without
charge
to
the
City
at
least
one
artwork
during
each
five
-‐year
term.
The
donation
is
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
Commission
and
will
be
deemed
a
gift
made
under
terms
and
conditions
established
by
the
City.
Incumbent
artists-‐tenants
shall
propose
to
donate
to
the
City
by
no
later
than
during
the
third
year
of
their
five-‐year
lease.
The
process
for
accepting
donations
will
first
involve
a
visit
by
one
or
more
members
of
the
Commission
to
the
artist-‐
tenant’s
studio
before
a
Commission
meeting
to
review
the
proposed
donation
of
an
artwork
is
scheduled
for
consideration.
The
timing
of
these
meetings
will
be
arranged
in
proximity
to
Cubberley’s
Open
Studios
to
ensure
that
the
studios
are
set
up
for
the
viewing
of
the
artworks.
Each
artist-‐tenant
will
be
required
to
provide
a
list
of
two
or
three
of
his/her
artworks
from
which
the
Commission
may
propose
to
select
as
a
donation
by
the
artist-‐tenant
in
fulfillment
of
applicable
terms
and
conditions
of
Cubberley
occupancy.
Each
artist-‐tenant
will
be
required
to
actively
participate
in
Cubberley’s
Open
Studio
program,
unless
and
until
a
waiver
of
this
requirement
is
00710148A
Page 6
ATTACHMENT
B
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Staff
Report
2009
Cubberley
Visual
Artist
Studio
Fact
Sheet
granted,
in
writing,
by
the
Division
Manager,
Arts
and
Sciences
Division.
Artist-‐tenants
shall
act
as
good
neighbors
with
their
fellow
artists,
the
community,
and
the
City.
This
shall
include
respectful
communication,
being
responsive
to
the
needs
of
the
diverse
Cubberley
community
of
artists
and
other
groups,
and
the
City’s
and
the
CSD’s
staff.
Artists-‐tenants
are
expected
to
participate
in
artists-‐tenants’
community
meetings.
LEAVE
PROVISION:
Whenever
an
artist-‐tenant
will
be
continuously
absent
from
Cubberley
for
over
a
one–month
period,
the
artist-‐tenant
shall
notify
the
City,
in
writing
and
in
advance,
of
the
proposed
absence.
Notwithstanding
the
leave
of
absence,
the
artist-‐tenant’s
obligation
to
make
the
rental
payments
will
continue
in
accordance
with
the
lease
agreement.
Under
two
months’
leave
of
absence:
An
artist-‐
tenant
may
be
absent
from
the
Cubberley
studio
for
up
to
two
months
without
consequence;
provided,
however,
the
terms
of
the
lease
shall
apply
to
the
artist-‐tenant
without
regard
to
any
provision
herein
and,
in
the
event
of
a
conflict
between
the
lease
and
these
guidelines,
the
terms
of
the
lease
shall
prevail.
Three
to
six
months’
leave
of
absence:
The
artist-‐tenant
must
locate
a
suitable
artist,
whose
interim
occupancy
will
be
subject
to
the
City’s
and
the
CSD’s
staff’s
approval,
to
sublet
and
otherwise
occupy
the
studio
space
during
the
artist-‐tenant’s
prolonged
absence.
The
artist-‐
tenant
will
be
responsible
for
any
and
all
actions
of
the
artist-‐subtenant,
who
shall
be
subject
to
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
lease
agreement.
Over
six
months’
leave
of
absence:
Except
as
otherwise
provided,
the
terms
of
the
lease
with
the
artist-‐tenant
shall
prevail
in
the
event
of
a
conflict
with
these
guidelines.
The
requirements
relating
to
leaves
of
absence
up
to
six
months,
as
set
forth
in
the
two
immediately
preceding
paragraphs
above,
also
shall
apply
to
the
artist-‐
tenant.
Under
the
lease,
the
City
may
declare
an
abandonment
of
the
lease
and/or
give
notice
of
early
termination
of
the
lease
to
the
artist-‐
tenant.
For
more
information
contact
the
City
of
Palo
Alto,
Division
of
Arts
and
Sciences
(650)
329-‐
2227.
ATTACHMENT
C
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program
Staff
Report
Minutes,
June
1995
P&SC
Meeting
ATTACHMENT
D
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program
Staff
Report
National
Trends
in
Artist
Studio
Rentals
and
Residency
Programs
Research
Summary
This
report
is
a
summary
of
research
into
trends
and
best
practices
in
artist
studio
programs.
Research
was
conducted
in
the
fall
of
2013
and
explored
artist
studio
programs
nationally.
Several
online
resources
provided
valuable
background
and
research
on
the
history
and
development
of
Artist
Studio
Programs
as
well
as
leads
to
highly
regarded
programs
with
a
strong
history
of
serving
artists:
• Alliance
of
Artist
Communities,
a
national
organization
supporting
the
field
of
artist
residency
programs
• Leveraging
Investments
in
Creativity
(LINC),
a
ten-‐year
national
initiative
to
improve
the
conditions
for
artists
working
in
all
disciplines.
• Artspace,
a
national
leader
in
the
development
of
arts
facilities.
Programs
were
sought
across
the
country,
primarily
in
urban
areas
with
active
arts
communities.
Out
of
more
than
fifty
programs
uncovered,
forty
artist
studio
programs
were
selected
for
closer
examination.
These
programs
represent
a
range
of
studio
models,
distributed
in
a
variety
of
communities,
from
San
Francisco
to
Austin,
Texas
to
Alexandria,
Virginia.
Data
was
primarily
gathered
through
websites
and
those
resources
listed
above.
In
addition,
eleven
program
administrators
selected
from
the
forty
programs,
were
interviewed
in
detail.
Placing
the
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program
in
a
National
Context
It
is
difficult
to
find
programs
directly
analogous
to
the
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program.
Research
reveals
that
there
are
two
distinct
types
of
programs—rental
programs
for
which
there
is
no
application
or
jury
process
(1000’s
across
the
country
in
both
urban
and
rural
communities,
exact
numbers
are
not
available),
and
juried
residency
programs
(of
which
there
are
approximately
500
throughout
the
United
States).
Rental
programs
generally
have
unlimited
lease
renewals
with
very
little
turnover.
Residency
programs,
in
contrast,
have
an
average
length
of
stay
of
eight
weeks
(according
to
the
Alliance
of
Artists
Communities).
The
Cubberley
Artists’
Studio
Program—because
it
features
both
rentals
and
a
jury
process—is
a
hybrid
of
both
models.
Additionally,
while
many
municipalities
support
artists
through
grants,
professional
development,
and
planning
support
for
artist
studio
developments,
very
few
provide
ongoing
financial
subsidies
for
artist
studio
rentals.
Of
the
programs
reviewed,
two—
Torpedo
Factory
(Alexandria,
VA)
and
The
Spanish
Village
at
Balboa
Park
(San
Diego)—
are
city-‐owned
facilities.
Both
are
part
of
large
cultural
and
commercial
destinations
and
are
managed
by
non-‐profit
governing
bodies.
These
programs,
along
with
a
third
(Tannery
Art
Center
in
Santa
Cruz),
are
one
component
of
a
municipal
arts
master
plan.
The
Tannery
property
is
leased
by
the
City
of
Santa
Cruz
to
Artspace,
which
manages
the
studio
rentals.
The
Tannery
was
established
in
an
effort
to
keep
artists
in
Santa
Cruz
and
support
the
creative
economy.
Tannery
Art
Center
includes
subsidized
live/work
housing,
rental
studios
and
a
performing
arts
center.
The
rental
studios
are
not
subsidized.
However,
the
live/work
housing
is
structured
as
low-‐income
house
for
artists
and
has
strict
income
requirements
for
participation.
Big
Picture
Trends
For
the
forty
programs
profiled,
these
overarching
trends
emerged.
• Studio
size
ranges
widely
by
program.
Average
size
is
about
300-‐500
square
feet.
Some
facilities
have
smaller
or
much
larger
spaces.
• Shared
space
is
common.
• Many
facilities
have
gallery
spaces
on
site,
which
serve
to
widen
the
audience
for
the
organization.
• Many
facilities
have
shared
tools
and
equipment
for
studio
artists.
• Some
facilities
function
as
community
maker
spaces,
with
fully
equipped
shared
studios
rented
by
the
day
or
month.
• Service
hours
or
public
open
studios
are
required
and
can
serve
as
a
component
of
rental
fee.
• Studios
are
valued
as
a
place
for
community
building
for
artists
and
as
a
means
to
outreach
to
the
community
at
large
through
open
studios
and
other
events.
• Most
programs
have
some
form
of
community
engagement,
through
educational
programming,
exhibitions,
artist
lectures,
professional
development
for
artists,
monthly
open
studio
events
or
annual
open
studios.
• Artist
work
and
live/work
studios
are
often
one
component
of
creative
place
making,
particularly
in
cities
working
on
neighborhood
revitalization
and
economic
development
through
arts
districts.
• Municipalities
partnering
with
non-‐profit
developers
like
ArtSpace
to
create
affordable
housing,
workspace
and
multi-‐disciplinary
arts
venues
for
artists
and
the
public.
Key
Program
Components
As
part
of
the
strategic
planning
process
for
the
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program,
as
outlined
in
the
Staff
Report
to
the
Policies
and
Services
Committee,
staff
identified
four
studio
program
components
for
detailed
review:
A. Rental
Subsidies
B. Residency
terms
C. Service
Requirement
D. Shared
workspace/resources
Of
the
forty
programs
profiled,
eleven
programs
have
been
selected
which
share
a
variety
of
similarities
with
the
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program
and
provide
perspective
on
these
program
components.
many
provide
some
kind
of
rental
subsidy
many
require
a
service
component
three
have
some
sort
of
direct
municipal
relationship
many
have
hybrid
or
tiered
programs
to
serve
a
variety
of
artists
most
have
galleries/program
spaces
some
have
shared
workspaces/tools
Municipally
supported
programs:
Torpedo
Factory,
Alexandria
Virginia
Balboa
Park,
Spanish
Artist
Village,
San
Diego
Tannery
Art
Center,
Santa
Cruz
(in
development
phase
only)
Artist
Residency
Programs
(non-‐profit):
Many
of
these
hybrid
programs
with
tiered
lease
programs
Root
Division,
San
Francisco
Headlands
Affiliate
Program,
Headlands
Center
for
the
Arts,
Marin
County
Redline,
Denver
18th
St
Arts
Center,
San
Diego
Studio
Rental
Programs:
Space
4
Art,
San
Diego
555
Center
for
Public
Arts,
Detroit
Blackbird
Artist
Studios,
Pittsburgh
Pratt
Fine
Arts
Center,
Seattle
A. RENTAL
SUBSIDY
Current
Value
of
Subsidy
for
Cubberley
Artist
Studios
Based
on
the
research
presented
by
Hamid
Ghaemmaghami
in
Real
Estate,
the
market
rate
for
commercial
space
comparable
to
Cubberley
is
$2.00-‐3.50
per
square
foot.
However,
Hamid
notes
that
“even
within
the
Cubberley
Complex,
rates
can
vary
depending
on
the
location
and
condition
of
the
suites.”
The
highest
rate
charged
at
Cubberley
in
FY
2013
was
$1.84/sq.
ft.
Artist
Studios
FY
2013
rates:
$.82/sq.
ft.
for
residents
$.91/sq.
ft.
for
non-‐residents
Estimated
value
of
subsidy
for
small
studio,
resident
rate:
$.82
vs
$2.00
per
sq
ft
$1.18/sq
ft
for
360
sq
ft
=
$5,097
subsidy
Estimated
total
annual
value
of
subsidy:
market
rate
of
$2.00/sq
ft
-‐
average
rate
of
$.865/sq
ft
(resident
&
non-‐resident)
=
$1.135/sq
ft
subsidy
x
12,435
total
sq
ft
x
12
months
=
$169,365
For
comparison,
in
Palo
Alto,
the
only
other
studio
facility
the
Palo
Alto
Studios
in
a
converted
warehouse
on
Transport
Ave.
Current
rate
is
$1.00
per
sq
foot.
There
is
a
lengthy
waiting
list,
with
low
turnover.
National
Research
Market
rate
can
be
difficult
to
determine,
as
many
facilities
are
less
built-‐out
than
typical
commercial
rentals.
However,
some
subsidies
are
an
estimated
50%
or
more
of
market
rate.
Four
out
of
the
eleven
programs
highlighted
here
offer
subsidies,
at
an
average
of
50%
of
market
value.
Subsidies
are
granted
by
both
non-‐profit
and
municipally
supported
programs.
• Municipal
programs
provide
subsidies,
in
exchange
for
significant
commitment
by
artists
as
part
of
a
cultural
and/or
commercial
destination.
Subsidy
is
funded
by
the
municipality.
o Balboa
Park,
Spanish
Artist
Village
Center,
San
Diego:
50-‐75%
of
market
rate
o Torpedo
Factory,
Alexandria,
VA:
50%
of
market
rate
• Non-‐profit
programs
are
mission
driven
to
support
artists.
Subsidy
is
funded
by
the
non-‐profit.
o Root
Division,
San
Francisco:
50-‐75%
of
market
rate
o Headlands
Center
for
the
Arts
Affliate
Program,
Marin
County:
50%
of
market
value
B. RESIDENCY
TERMS
Cubberley
Artist
Studios
Current
residency
term:
5
years,
with
opportunity
to
reapply
National
Research:
Rental
programs
generally
have
unlimited
lease
renewals,
with
very
little
turnover.
Residency
programs
are
typically
intended
as
short-‐term
opportunities
for
artists
to
have
focused
time
for
art
making,
collaboration
with
other
artists.
There
are
an
estimated
500
residency
programs
in
North
America.
The
average
length
of
stay
is
8
weeks.
(Alliance
of
Artist
Communities)
Some
residencies
do
have
longer
terms.
The
terms
for
the
residency
programs
highlighted
in
this
report
range
from
3
months
to
3
years.
Root
Division
(San
Francisco):
1
year,
with
up
to
1
year
renewal.
The
program
is
intended
as
a
launching
point
for
artists,
not
long
term
studio
rental.
Headlands
Affiliate
Program
(Marin
County):
1
year,
with
a
1
year
renewal.
Redline
(Denver):
2-‐3
year
residency
for
local
artists
18th
St
Art
Center
(Santa
Monica):
long-‐term
residencies
(with
no
term
limit)
for
mentoring
artists
and
‘anchor’
organizations,
who
have
helped
to
define
the
character
and
scope
of
the
organization;
mid-‐term
residencies
of
3
years
to
advance
California
artists’
careers;
and
short-‐term
residencies,
for
national
and
international
visiting
artists
and
curators
who
live
at
18th
Street
for
1-‐3
months.
Artists
with
long-‐term
residencies
are
Southern
California
residents
with
international
reputations.
C. SERVICE
Cubberley
Artist
Studios
Community
Service
to
the
City
of
Palo
Alto
is
currently
required,
but
not
quantified
or
recorded.
Artists
have
provided
service
in
a
number
of
ways:
teaching
in
Art
Center
educational
programs;
providing
other
volunteer
services
to
the
Art
Center,
organizing
a
lecture
series,
providing
two
Open
Studio
events
per
year,
organizing
community
arts
projects
National
Research
Of
the
programs
profiled
here,
service
requirements
are
common.
Particularly
for
programs
which
offer
rental
subsidies.
Service
requirements
range
from
two
hours
per
week,
eight-‐twelve
hours
per
month,
to
as
much
as
20
hours
per
week
or
more
for
artists
who
are
required
to
provide
regular
open
studios
in
a
commercial
and/or
cultural
venue
Several
non-‐profits
require
work
hours
to
supplement
the
monthly
rent
and
the
sustainability
of
the
program
as
a
whole:
Root
Division
(San
Francisco),
12
hours
per
month
Space
4
Art
(San
Diego),
6
hours
per
month
555
(Detroit),
2
hours
per
week/8
hours
per
month
Redline
(Denver),
2
hours
per
week/8
hours
per
month
In
the
case
of
Root
Division,
which
functions
as
both
artist
incubator
and
residency
program,
this
service
also
constitutes
professional
and
skill
development
for
artists.
D. SHARED
SPACE/RESOURCES
Most
of
these
programs
offer
individual
studios
and
some
shared
space.
Galleries
and
educational
programming
space
is
common.
Programs
outreach
to
other
artists
and
the
public
at
large
through
exhibitions,
lectures,
workshops,
performances,
and
open
studios.
Others
also
have
shared
workshops,
tools
and
other
facilities
like
computers,
kitchens,
etc.
• Root
Division
(San
Francisco):
two
artists
may
apply
together
for
space.
• Tannery
Art
Center
(Santa
Cruz):
many
of
their
studios
are
shared
by
artist
cooperatives.
• Pratt
Fine
Art
Center
(Seattle):
all
of
the
studios
are
communal
with
shared
tools
and
facilities.
Rentals
are
hourly,
weekly
and
monthly
and
are
available
to
artists
at
all
skill
and
experience
levels.
ATTACHMENT
E
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program
Staff
Report
Results
from
2013
Artists
Survey
Response
Percent Response Count
4.2%5
8.5%10
16.1%19
28.0%33
28.0%33
13.6%16
1.7%2
118
2
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
40-49
answered question
Answer Options
60-69
30-39
80+
Your age.
50-59
skipped question
20-29
70-79
Your age.
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80+
Response
Percent Response Count
26.4%29
44.5%49
15.5%17
43.6%48
18.2%20
18.2%20
10.9%12
15.5%17
16.4%18
10.0%11
5.5%6
27
110
10skipped question
fiber
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
social practice
printmaking
installation
Answer Options
answered question
sculpture
digital media
painting
clay
What is your primary art medium? Check all that apply.
Other (please specify)
mixed media
photography
drawing
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
What is your primary art medium? Check all that apply.
Response
Percent Response Count
47.3%52
24.5%27
32.7%36
30.0%33
19
110
10skipped question
Post secondary arts education. Check all that apply.
MA/MFA
self taught/classes in the community
answered question
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
BA/BFA
Answer Options
Other (please specify)
community college
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
self taught/classes in
the community
community college BA/BFA MA/MFA
Post secondary arts education. Check all that apply.
Response
Percent Response Count
13.7%16
15.4%18
14.5%17
17.9%21
38.5%45
117
3skipped question
Number of years as a practicing artist.
15-20
0-4
answered question
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
10-14
Answer Options
20+
5-9
Number of years as a practicing artist.
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-20
20+
Response Count
118
118
2
Campbell 2
Cupertino 1
East Palo Alto 3
Fremont 3
Hillsborough 1
Los Altos 6
Menlo Park 10
Mountain View 11
oakland 2
Palo Alto 55
Portola Valley 3
Redwood City 2
San Bruno 1
San Francisco 1
San Jose 8
Santa Clara 2
Saratoga 1
South San Francisco 1
Stanford campus housing 1
Sunnyvale 1
Woodside 1
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
City of residence.
Answer Options
answered question
skipped question
Response
Percent Response Count
32.7%32
29.6%29
5.1%5
11.2%11
21.4%21
98
22skipped question
What is your current art studio arrangement?
rental studio: shared
home: within living space
answered question
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
rental studio: private
Answer Options
Other (please specify)
home: dedicated space
What is your current art studio arrangement?
home: within living space
home: dedicated space
rental studio: private
rental studio: shared
Other (please specify)
Response Count
27
27
93
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
If you are renting studio space, what is the approximate size and cost of that
space?
Answer Options
answered question
skipped question
Response
Percent Response Count
38.5%37
61.5%59
96
24
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
skipped question
Are you currently looking for studio space?
Answer Options
yes
no
answered question
Are you currently looking for studio space?
yes
no
Response
Percent Response Count
5.5%5
94.5%86
12
91
29skipped question
no
Are you currently on a waiting list for studio space?
answered question
yes
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
please comment
Answer Options
Are you currently on a waiting list for studio space?
yes
no
Response
Percent Response Count
21.6%21
16.5%16
28.9%28
33.0%32
97
23
Number of hours dedicated to studio practice per week.
20+ hours
0-4 hours
skipped question
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
10-20 hours
Answer Options
answered question
5-9 hours
Number of hours dedicated to studio practice per week.
0-4 hours
5-9 hours
10-20 hours
20+ hours
1 2 3 4 5 6 Rating
Average
Response
Count
61 12 8 8 2 4 1.84 95
14 36 19 15 9 2 2.74 95
1 9 21 23 25 16 4.16 95
0 11 12 20 24 29 4.50 96
14 24 24 12 16 5 3.07 95
5 3 12 17 19 39 4.67 95
96
24
professional development in the business of art
dedicated studio space
collaborative partners
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
portfolio review/critique opportunities with art professionals
skipped question
Answer Options
exhibition opportunities
regular support and engagement with peers
answered question
Which of the following has the greatest impact on your art practice? (please rank, with 1 being the highest impact, 6 being the lowest impact)
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
dedicated studio space
regular support and engagement with peers
portfolio review/critique opportunities with art
professionals
professional development in the business of art
exhibition opportunities
collaborative partners
Which of the following has the greatest impact on your art practice? (please rank, with 1 being
the highest impact, 6 being the lowest impact)
Response
Percent Response Count
24.2%23
32.6%31
16.8%16
26.3%25
23
95
25skipped question
Please rate your need for access to shared tools or work spaces for artists?
None: no need for shared tools or work space
High: would access 2-3 times per week
answered question
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
Low: would access 2-3 times per year
Answer Options
please comment
Moderate: would access 2-3 times per month
Question 12, Please rate your need for access to shared tools or work spaces for artists?
need rehearsal space
A wood shop or media center on campus or studio shared area.
especially work spaces for artists
Need large wood working tools esp, a band saw with a large 'throat" Apeture
Depends on what is available
I couldn't make #11 work at all. Numbers wouldn't change.
I am looking for a used press for my use.
I like taking a class or two.
I could not make question #11 work, so the answers are inacurate
shared welding space
Not sure how to answer this. Being in a space with separate but linked smaller spaces might inspire my work
to move in different directions
My press is used by other artists at Cubberley
Tech Shop meets my needs for tools I don't have. I could use shared cheap storage space for completed
work.
would be great to have a shared framing shop so I could devote more of my studio space to painting.
High - for filmmaking/video space
Low - for fine art studio access
Having access to table saws or jig saws, etc., would be helpful. As a mixed media artist, I would use these
tools only intermittently, therefore sharing, rather than owning is more reasonable.
This would be a wonderful concept if maintained
I would love a shared print studio for Monotypes.
I could share a studio but not the tools.
I have more gear than I know what to do with but would happily share a space
Workspace only. I don't need shared tools
I provide workspace for 6 artists in my studio.
Weekly assessments aren't useful- many of our projects call for periods of intense usage of one sort or
another that are critical when they occur, yet often sporadic.
Response
Percent Response Count
40.0%24
16.7%10
23.3%14
18.3%11
55.0%33
33
60
60
photography
printmaking
Other (please specify)
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
digital media
skipped question
Answer Options
shop tools
ceramics
answered question
What tools or work spaces do you need most? Check all that apply.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
printmaking ceramics digital media photography shop tools
What tools or work spaces do you need most? Check all that apply.
Question 13: What tools or work spaces do you need most?
Glass related - kilns, mold making, cold working equipment
wet area for silk painting. 6 burner gas stove for vat dyeing. sink. dry area for sewing. tables, place for machines, storage of
equipment/materials
Mostly need comaraderie with peers re jewelry fabrication.
framing tools
painting space with good tables & easels & good light.
Large work table and good lighting
Painting & mixed media space also.
Easels
dye area, large area for a design wall, secure office space, good lighting.
need large wall spaces for work in progress
Matting and framing and documenting equipment, assistance. Marketing assitance.
Space for figure drawing sessions
A Fiber Arts 'Kitchen' for dying cloth and fiber with large sinks, work tables, washing machine, sewing machines. It would be nice if it was
adjacent to a wood shop/sculpture studio.
space for painting larger pieces than I can accommodate at my home studio
I just need exhibition space
textiles
allow avoidance of distraction feel serious, focus, higher productivity
crediblility to have subjects to work with and generate capital in addition on side jobs
Letterpress
jewelry
Press
ventilated space, encaustic tools and materials
tables
Framing tools
A larger space for models and big wall space for larger paintings.
Sharing a studio with a dedicated desk
storage of the detritus and ephemera I work with so it is there for inspiration; table surfaces for working; book shelves; place to work
uinterrupted
metal arts
Painting and mixed media such as broken glass, wood and found materials
Large tables in a collaborative space.
area with good ventilation
What I need most is a big, empty space to take photographs in or make very loud music in
glass cuting, cement mixing
Response Count
74
74
46
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
How does your studio arrangement impact your art practice?
Answer Options
answered question
skipped question
Question 14, How does your studio arrangement impact your practice?
a much coveted space to create, available to me 7x24 and inspiring to be in a dedicated space.
Very much - having space where I can have multiple work surfaces and walls to hang my work and step back from it make a big difference
what i have works for my needs
Since I have young children my home studio allows me to work around their schedules. The committee is great, but I am limited as far as size, and really
miss out on being around other artists -it's isolating.
It is absolutely the most vital influence.
As an installation artist, I need a space separate from family life where I can grow projects and accumulate materials for art construction.
N/A
a dedicated time and space to go create every week and a communtiyt to interact with fuels my work
Able to work when I want as it is within walking distance
Access to private studio in my local area makes it possible to have a full and productive practice
It is currently too small and not separate from my home with young children.
My art practice needs enough room to accomodate large works, and have space for small works to lie out and dry; I also need ample surface area to rest
my art supplies.
I put up with my tiny work space in a backyard shed. I'm hoping to work in a larger, more open space someday.
Little
Not enough room to spread out, keep a project out, interferes with other uses of room, stress of art "clutter" in home
Oh wow. I no longer have a real studio, and I have given up my Dark Room.
My studio at home is far too small to accommodate painting and printmaking.
Quite a bit. It also gives me the space to offer workshops.
Can't leave materials out now
It is small, so it limits the size and quantity of art that I can work on.
I cannot work on large pieces in my home
It isn't big enough to do do large-scale work. I don't have an indoor dye area, so I work out side, so weather can effect my ability to stay on schedule.
I work on smaller pieces because I don't have the space to work larger. Would love to work larger!
It impacts it in that I have to live on top of my work, and that requires a good degree of order. Also, I can't have everything out that I'm working on.
It is conducive to doing work. Other artists are around to critique my work and I to do the same with theirs. It is all in an informal interaction
I have access to tools only during the Art Center open studio hours.
I do less art when I have limited access to a studio.
My current arrangement gives me freedom to work when I want.
I couldn't be a professional artist without it! Thankfully, I have space in my home to work. It is small, though.
I work on my dining room table, so I limit myself to digital media, small watercolors and pencil drawings.
It is functional, but size limits the size of the work that I can do.
I work out my house & my backyard
space to do and review
ease of working is important. Interaction with others would be good.
the rate of production and experiment with lighting and set meant for continuous work vs. living space need collapsing and expanding and it ended up not
happening. Plus I can't give workshop, lecture
Without jewelry studio access, I would not be able to practice
Without proper tools or enough space my ideas are obviously limited. Even if I am encouraged to dream big by curators I am limited by physical
Wold like to paint larger but would need a larger space
If I had my own or shared printmaking space, I would be much more productive. I would have more flexibility re when I worked (vs fitting into open hours at
PAL). I would have space to store art materials and keep works-in-progress safely, which I can't do at PAL and do not have adequate space for at home.
One good thing about the shared space at PAL is the ability to work cooperatively with other printmakers. Another not so good things is having to keep
track of my hours in the studio, as I must pay for each session.
I don't have a sink and counter space within my studio, since I use a couple of tables in a room that is really a rarely-used guest room. But the reach-in
closet has only art materials in a custom-designed drawer and shelving system.
Very confined
Greatly
Currently I do not have the tools to make repairs to collages I have framed.
Would need dedicated space
I need to leave the house to focus on the art completely. The studio is extremely important --it is necessary to be able to leave work ( not move it or clean
up after every art painting day) and come back to work on it again and again.
My space is limited in space, size, convenience, ability to leave projects out and ability to work with messy medium and therefore it limits my practice
exponentially
Less space=less production
size of the studio impacts the size of the work
Having a studio in a safe environment in which artists support each other has been crucial to the development of my work.
Profoundly. Having a place to go has enabled me to focus on sustained practice and work production. It enables me to grow as an artist and apply to
galleries and sell work.
It helps to concentrate and dedicate more time to my art.
Having everything in one dedicated space allows me to continue moving forward instead of asking "where was I?"
Pros:Convenience, organized space, access to supplies and tools. Cons: multi use space, cold, isolating
It impacts the size of my work. I like to work large (I.e. 4ft and beyond)
I'm very limited in the size of the work I can produce and the scope of projects that I can plan because of my limited work space and lack of access to many
tools like saws and drills.
Having a dedicated place to go each week stimulates my creativity.
very small; limits size of work and ability to maneuver around supplies.
I have the freedom to work whenever I want
My environmetn greatly effects my productivity and creativity
very flexible and easy to access, but somewhat isolating and lonely
It's pretty important.
My studio is not a open square space, it is two long rooms which hinders my ability to stop to frame work while I have artwork in process. Just too narrow,
not too small.
It is very important
I have to work out of my home, which is challenging because it's so small
It would be nice to be able to streamline the processes
the studio space make it possible to make and to complete projects.
It is very limiting in my current situation. I have less time for art making as time is spent putting away and setting up work areas and projects. I can only
work on small pieces and can not display work for review due to lack of wall space, etc etc
Coouldn't do it without a press.
Private, quiet, good light, pretty much perfect.
I think its very important to have a space to be creative that is free from distractions.
If I could afford to have a studio space outside my home with other artists I would be much more productive as an artisit
My studio makes my art practice possible.
Profoundly, affordable studio space with water access and secure location is vital to my practice. A wood shop is also great to have.
Response Count
73
73
47
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
Describe your dream studio.
Answer Options
answered question
skipped question
Question 15: Describe your dream studio.
industrial space with very high ceilings, natural lighting, non cement flooring, lots of storage space. Part of the space would be convertible into a welcoming
and professional client conversation area, with couch, low table, desk, brick wall, etc.
My current studio is pretty close to that - a space large enough to have multiple work tables, has a sink with running water, has good wall space for
hanging work and displaying it. Even better would be hot water at the sink and better electrical.
if i wanted to add anything, it would be more space for sharing with colleagues
800 square feet or more; clean, well -lit; storage space; 24 hour access; safe; climate controlled; near other artists, perhaps with meeting places, gallery
12 ft by 25 ft minimum, great natural light, 6 burner stove for dyeing, stainless steel sink, big tables, good storage, sewing area. Could give classes there.
My dream studio is a single artist's space, well light and outdoor natural light a plus. It is a big studio at the very least a 1000 square with sealing 15 feet
high. A multi-studio building or campus like setting to create a community of collaborating artists. Heating and cooling available, electricity all included in
the month's rent. Multiple restrooms inside premise. It should not be expensive to rent, (under market value), insurance for art projects housed in studio
and liability. No city-property taxes through the city. And in a safe community where art is supported and welcomed.
N/A
lots of light, community of artist working in different media, no need to pack up and clean everyday. South Bay ( not far from home) upto the mid peninsula
Much larger space
I pretty much have a dream studio with hard working and great caliber artists nearby. Also the studio exists within an active community center which serves
a broad spectrum of people lending an atmosphere which is full of life.
A private studio near my home near other artist studios. Good light, good ventilation, easy parking, white walls.
Large enough for materials and spacious enough for works to fit. Natural lighting AND artificial.
Good light. Open. Clean. Big enough to move around freely and work on large pieces. If shared with others there would be some kind of open dividers for
private work. A space to site down with other artists and share.
20' x 30' warehouse or loft like space
Large work table. Good natural light. Safe for me to be in. Secure to protect supplies and projects. Room for books and tools to be organized well. Possible
space for small machinery, layout/drafting table. Space to create large and small projects, 2-D and 3-D. Wall space for ideas.
Space with a couple of congenial people where I could leave tools neatly at the ready. I miss my drawing board.
A large, quiet, and well-lit studio where I can do both painting and printmaking.
I have it! 25 ft. x 13 ft. w/ windows & skylights. It's newly built & right next to my home in a separate building. I have heat & A.C. & lots of light & privacy.
Great light, ventilation, vertical storage
Large, open, with high ceilings and extensive horizontal works areas in addition to the vertical work areas. Water, sink. Skylights (preferably north facing).
High ceilings, large tables, easel, good light, storage for supplies and canvases.
Second story, overlooking trees/nature. Lots of light. Wall space for a design wall. Lots of storage. Separate areas to work on other projects such as
jewelry, so that the textile area stays serene. Ground floor, indoor, dye area, industrial strength floors and surfaces. An area that could serve as a gallery
for showing work and visiting with collectors/gallerists.
Close to home, lots of wall space, natural light, good ventilation and temp. control. Adequate electrical outlets. Private so I can play my radio or not have to
listen to my neighbors music. Access to a working sink, and bathroom. Shared building with other sculptors, or artist. Reasonable rent with the option of
leasing.
a place where my work is secure, can lock up my materials, but can open door to visitors, students, other artists as I wish for frequent viewings.
At least 1000 square feet with lots of power for machines and built in counter. Hanging pole racks and natural light.
I have it now!
A workbench, good lighting, oxyacetylene torch, buffing wheels, small hand tools, vise, storage, room for machinery.
a private or semi private room in a shared studio environment with tall ceilings for tall sculpture with access to a sink, electrical, lighting. Walls and ceilings
have frequent attachment points for hanging work in progress or erecting temporary structures to use while building projects. North Light would be lovely.
Daylight quality indoor lighting for working at night. It would be fine to have a studio like the petal of a flower where theres a good shop and communal
resources in the center.--smething like an artists version of the Tech Shop or the 'garage', 'backyard' or 'kitchens' where artists work--only not mixed in with
things other than art.
I have it at home.
Large, airy with good light and lots of storage space.
My own dedicated studio close to home and near a cafe.
Warehouse, heat, hot water, bathroom, garage door.
Lots of light & long tables & storage space
natural light
high ceiling 17 feet or 13 ok. has window light. cement, old, rugged ok too, some street life to open to public to share
I already have it
single (not shared) studio big enough to include moderate storage space, at least 2 clean working walls, easy access to water, bathroom, windows that
open for fresh air, in a setting with space for group gatherings. Easy access to tools that are well maintained in a clean environment.
north light, high ceiling, large (30x40 feet and up), mostly bare,with storage for materials and completed paintings. fellow artists as neighbors. Regular
events for artists addressing issues of concern: aesthetic, professional, commercial.
At least one printmakers' press. Good lighting. Big sink. Non-carpeted floor that will forgive occasional splashes. Lockers or cabinets for storing tools and
materials. Some wall space for tacking up proofs. Places to dry and store prints.
(1) Walk-in closet (instead of the reach-in) for more equipment, supplies, and light by which to find what I need; (2) Desk & chair in a window-lighted
corner (need to remove a lousy sofa-bed for space); (3) Sink with counter in the same room (not across a hall) for cleaning and drying painting equipment.
(4) Bookcase IN the studio, not in a hallway. (5) Tray for rubber stamp collection and inkpads; Elements of a dream studio that I already have: (A) Large
bureau with multiple drawers for quilt fabrics organized by color, plus shelves for small projects in-process; (B) high, cork-topped table for pinning textile
projects; (C) 8-drawer cabinet with wide shallow drawers for art papers, scissors, pens, pencils, stickers, etc.
more space to spread out materials
Shared space and tools with a large closet to store my supplies. Amazing natural light. Views into nature.
Multiple studios at one location, sink, a/c, heat in each studio, natural light
An airy, shared office space. Half of it is a messy fine art studio - half of it is a clean space for digital media. I would have a small dedicated space and
there would be closed-off spaces available for occasional editing or writing work that needs quiet/privacy.
My dream studio is larger than 15x19", has high ceilings and I can shut the door to it.
A space which has easy to clean floors, window/natural light, a communal area for gathering, working around others interested and respectful.
Large intaglio press, digital printing equipment, a dedicated area for installation mock ups, place to fabricate various forms and structures.
20ftx20ft with storage space for about 200 paintings, shelves, high tables, great light sink
A safe place where your have your private studio, in a community of other serious practicing artists. A larger studio with more natural light and thicker
walls. Also, access to a common room where interaction w/other artists/people could take place would be stimulating.
I have it now
It would be about 1000 sq feet, have north light windows, high ceilings so that I could put a mount for large canvases. Room for storage and a desk to
meet with clients.
A dedicated space within a community of artists.
A room where I could also give workshops would be great.
Space for books, materials, and working surfaces; heat and light; in a community of working artists.
bright, somewhat social, warm and cozy, organized space, multi-purpose space for simutaneous projects
Open space with great lighting. A sink or access to water. Room to store large paintings and still have space to be able to work on 2-4 paintings at one
Several workbenches where different activities can take place like soldering, drilling or sawing and painting.
Dedicated space where I can leave my stuff out and not have it be disturbed.
windows, ventilation, sink, small bathroom, adequate voltage, cabinets, tables/flat surface, flat drawers
Double the space I now have
Windows to let in plenty of natural light. Lots of can lights or overhead lights as well. industrial flooring, easels covered in colorful paint, and a garden
outside the window.
a small space within a larger community with some shared equipment spaces for larger equipment.
Large (1000ft^2+), adjustable lighting from sunlight to complete black, tables, chairs, closed off (don't want to hear others/impact others with sound from
my work), accessible 24/7, access to shared facilities like a woodshop, metalshop, darkroom/digital printing lab, installation spaces to test large-scale
installs without the studio clutter, loading dock or decent amount of parking, shared public exhibition space, low cost preferably because the Bay Area is
too expensive and not everyone has a trust fund to be able to afford two rents. :)
600 sf open square space with good light and high windows with an overhang to deter too much direct light impact. Running water hot/cold. Access to a
bathroom. Secure. Not shared but with a group.
My dream studio would be close to home (in Palo Alto). Decent amount of space (at least 200 square feet) with some external storage. It would be
industrial style (no worry about getting the floor dirty) with unfinished floors. Really good lighting (lots of natural light). It would be heated and air
conditioned (that's dreaming big!!!). It would be in close proximity to a community of artists - the sharing that occurs is invaluable. It would have a large
gallery space to show regularly. Also, the studios would be frequently open to the public.
Big. High ceilings. Soundproof so I can do music OR photography there.
Private Studio space within an artist collective with a gallery
it will be in the quiet place, the studio on the first floor and my living space on the second floor that i can work any time of the day and night.
400 sq feet or more of ventilated well lit space with place for work stations and walk space for displaying work
mine
I would have maybe four times the space and a larger sink area.
A space with other artist working in a variety of medias, organized bi monthly critiques, other artists looking to collaborate and have shows together. A
place with good light, a kiln, an annealer for fusing glass, plenty of space for working, close to home and a focused gallery space.
A large open space with lots of electrical outlets, room for materials storage (cupboards, closets etc.) at a facility with other artists. A community center is
great because of all the intergenerational and lively usage- very appropriate atmosphere for social engagement.
Big, well lit high ceilings with private bathroom and utility sink. Heated. Private. Free! You said ideal-
Response Count
41
41
79
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
Is there an artists studio facility or community which you think exemplifies best
practices? Please provide the name, location and any additional comments.
Answer Options
answered question
skipped question
Question 16: Is there an artists studio facility or community which you think exemplifies best practices? Please provide the name, location and any
Santa Cruz 's Tannery Art Center
Cubberly has been pretty darn effective !!
Palo Alto Artists' Residency program provides affordable space to artists. I believe this IS Best Practice by a community - to recognize the contribution of
working artists to a vibrant community.
Palo Alto is quite top notch!
Maybe some elements of the Santa Clara Water Color Society space. Sorry I don't know the location.
Cubberley is good but the space is taken and in danger and the large saws I need aren't ther
Sorry, I don't know them.
Cubberley Studios sounds like a great place.
Pacific Art League of Palo Alto is great! & offers lots of classes & exhibition opportunities. I've been a member for many years.
It doesn't need to be all shiny and new. I love Cubberley, I liked 1870 in Belmont.
Not aware of one...
1777 Yosemite Ave, San Francisco
Islais Creek Studios, 1 Rankin St, San Francisco
The woodcutting studio of artist Tom Killian
Apparel Arts School SF.
I think Cubberley fits that criteria.
Jewelry studio at Palo Alto Art Center on Newell has a set of volunteer monitors that keep the open studio hours safe.
I don't know. My closest experience has been at Arts Benicia in Bneicia California. They have seperate living spaces and studio spaces for artists, a
mixed wet media studio for classes, and a gallery space in an old armory. Its a great mix of private studios and community arts with the gallery as a central
hub. I always wanted to stay at artists colonies or to create an urban artist colony--but I had kids and one with special needs which limited my availability
I have visited artist studios but cannot offer an opinion on which use best practices.
Peninsula Art Institute, Citadel, Redwood City Art Center, Transport Artists, Linden Street Warehouse in Redwood City.
Cubberly
i used to rent loft in down town L.A but I ran out of fund moved back and don't know much nor got any support
Palo Alto Fine Arts Program
Headlands Center for the Arts came close. Second best choice was grad school at Mills College. Since then access to big enough space and quality tools
Have not looked into this yet
I haven't seen enough such facilities to make a comparison and provide a fair answer.
Cubberley
The Hub in SF is awesome. I have other friends in SF who share their work spaces, too, in smaller spaces.
I think Cubberly has exemplified the best practices in that it asks the artist to also give back to the community in some way.
Cubberley Studios but it is lacking the common room.
Cubberley Art Studios Palo Alto, CA
Gosh, Cubberley is one of a kind! You just can not beat the space, the community, or the price. Have done Art Residencies elsewhere, and the studio
space is never like Cubberley's.
The Cubberley concept is a good one. Not familiar with a lot of others.
I have heard about cubberley and like the idea of it but need to learn more about the program.
The drop in classes at the Art Center.
Palo Alto Art Center has excellent facilities for making jewelry
Cubberley is the best thing around locally. Hunters Point and other spaces in the East Bay are large and community oriented.
I think the Cubberly community (with improvements) could be close. I would love to have a space there.
I don't know if it is the best but I hear that the FM gallery in Oakland has good reviews
I m not familiar with
Palo Alto Studios, Great space, great landlord, great artists
I think the Cubberley program is a great model
Response
Percent Response Count
16.5%16
45.4%44
38.1%37
54
97
23
Are you familiar with the Cubberley Visual Artist Studios, sponsored by the City of Palo Alto?
Please describe your understanding of the Cubberley Visual Artist Studio
not familiar
skipped question
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
very familiar
Answer Options
answered question
somewhat familiar
Are you familiar with the Cubberley Visual Artist Studios, sponsored by the City of Palo
Alto?
not familiar
somewhat familiar
very familiar
Question 17: Please describe your understanding of the Cubberley Visual Artist Studio program.
Artists rent studio space, and share a former classroom with another artist. Artists participate in the community in a variety of ways, including teaching,
exhibiting, donating art to the city, attending and supporting Palo Alto art community.
The program is intended to establish a community center of affordable studio space for visual artists who support, collaborate, and exchange ideas with
one another. In turn, the artists enrich the Palo Alto community by offering the opportunity to engage and interact with participating artists; community
service & teaching; and the donation of art work to the City’s Art in Public Places collection.
Former classroom spaces rented to artists who are juried in or on a waiting list, although it seems that openings are very rare.
People get on a waiting list, apply, and after some months/years, get a studio. I don't know if artists pay rent or not. Artists work there and participate in
Open Studios.
Current studio in residency.
Are we talking about Cubberley or the new location for the studio? Are you calling the new studio Cubberley? Or are you going back to the actual
Cubberley facility?
i come to your open studios every year
Palo Alto Residency program for artists at Cubberley is where I have my studio. We have just created a document which gives a cogent overview of the
program.
I'd LOVE to know more!
Artists rent spaces to work and display their work two times a year.
Little space for a lucky few.
Studio space available for a variety of arts organizations and artists.
This is the first time I have heard of it.
I have some friends who work there, but have seen one room a few years ago.
Resident artists who interact with Community
Artists are juried in by the city. Rents are more than I can afford at this point.
The CVASP is a juried artist studio space for artists who are active in their fields, and use the facility on a regular if not daily basis to make their art.
Artist must live in Palo Alto, and are juried in. The cost of the studios is subsidized by the city. There is a waiting list to apply. They do some outreach to the
community.
you have to be on a long, long, long waiting list.
It is a facility where one is juried on the quality of one's work and in return for great space we are expected to contribute to the community programs.
Great individual or shared spaces in a community of artists
Artists portfolios are reviewed. Artists are chosen for the studio spaces. Artists pay rent.
I've known some artists who have had studios there. I've visited several times. They seem like wonderful work spaces. I inquired about renting a studio
several times at the Palo Alto Cultural Center before it was the Art Center. I was told I'd be put on a waiting list but never heard back.
Artists are chosen through some highly selective but unknown (i.e., non-transparent) and subjective criteria to be allowed to rent space at a highly
subsidized rate.
I believe it is a 6 yr committment/ open studio
Friends who are artists there.
none
The city provides space to create art in a setting that allows free expression and the opportunity to interact and share ideas with others working in your field
of interest
I am a Cubberley Alumn. I left just over a year ago due to relocation to San Jose. It was a very difficult choice to leave, but the commute was prohibitive.
Palo Alto residents can apply and if juried in, can rent a classroom-sized studio. Must also provide a certain number of hours of community service.
I have visited Cubberley Artists' Open Houses several times in recent years. I attended a panel presentation on inspiration by a group of the artists at
PAAC a while back. I am currently taking a class at CSMA with a Cubberley Artist whom I met through her open house.
I am aware that several local artists have 'permanent' studio spaces of 1 to 2 rooms each, where they can create and store art, and which are their Open
Studio sites every May. I don't know what the regulations and requirements are, nor what the rental fees are.
Apply. Have work approved. Participate in Open Studios.
Former Cubberley artist
A school which has been converted into studio space (perfect!)
residents of Palo Alto are juried for the spaces.
It's a program in which serious and motivated artists are juried in for a 5 year term to promote the artistic growth of local artists. They support, collaborate,
and exchange ideas w/each other.
I am an artist in residence there
I am one of the artists, so it shapes my life every day!
These studios are already full. Impossible to get one.
A long term residency program for juried artists with expectation for support of the local arts programs/facilities.
Mix of artists using city space.
I know Cubberley is a middle school facility which they rent out for multi used purposes.
I understand that artists rent the spaces much like they would an office space.
Some lucky artists rent classrooms as art studios. I think there's a long waiting list.
open to practicing artists, long waiting list, very nice spaces in many studios.
artists are juried in pay rent to the city for space.
Renter, 8 years.
I've walked by them but have never been inside one
this is the first I'm hearing about it.
A limited number of square footage in an elementary school bring used for visual artists. The program has been closed for years to new applicants
Rented studio space that is not permanent
I've taken art lessons there with several artists for 18 years.
I have visted the artists open house multiple years
Response
Percent Response Count
21.1%19
62.2%56
12.2%11
4.4%4
90
30
As a resident of a municipally sponsored studio program, how many hours per month might you be
willing to commit to furthering the development and impact of the studio program, outside of your
regular studio hours?
10+ hours per month
no additional hours
skipped question
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
6-10 hours per month
Answer Options
answered question
1-5 hours per month
As a resident of a municipally sponsored studio program, how many hours per month
might you be willing to commit to furthering the development and impact of the studio
program, outside of your regular studio hours?
no additional hours
1-5 hours per month
6-10 hours per month
10+ hours per month
Response
Percent Response Count
14.3%13
47.3%43
24.2%22
14.3%13
91
29
How satisfied are you with your opportunities to share your artwork with other artists?
very satisfied
dissatisfied
skipped question
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
satisfied
Answer Options
answered question
somewhat satisfied
How satisfied are you with your opportunities to share your artwork with other artists?
dissatisfied
somewhat satisfied
satisfied
very satisfied
Response
Percent Response Count
27.0%24
42.7%38
21.3%19
9.0%8
89
31
How satisfied are you with your opportunities to share your artwork with community members?
very satisfied
dissatisfied
skipped question
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
satisfied
Answer Options
answered question
somewhat satisfied
How satisfied are you with your opportunities to share your artwork with community
members?
dissatisfied
somewhat satisfied
satisfied
very satisfied
Response
Percent Response Count
43.8%35
56.3%45
46
80
40skipped question
no
As a visual artist, do you feel support from the community at large?
answered question
yes
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
please comment
Answer Options
As a visual artist, do you feel support from the community at large?
yes
no
Question 21: As a visual artist, do you feel support from the community at large?
There are excellent opportunities and the community is open and supportive. Even more opportunities and support exist in San Francisco, Berkeley, and
San José.
While I feel support from a segment of the community, I could not describe that as the community at large. The arts take a distant back seat to technology
and the concerns of modern life here in Silicon Valley.
Artists need more opportunities/places to create work and show their work. Once that is in place the community becomes more supportive.
I do not feel the support of the community, in fact I feel that the general population still do not understand what we do and what is the purpose of art. I do
not see a great effort made by the general public to attend artist's receptions and to purchase local art. The majority of the events are attended by the
artists who exhibit and their family members. I am surprised buy how ignorant people are about what art is and how it is made. During open house I'm
always asked how to get into Cubberley Studios, 90% of those who ask are looking to get a space to create greeting cards, crafts, or just to have a space
outside their home for their hobbies!!! They stand inside a space filled with fine art and share those kinds of thoughts! I send them to the City's website
where they can have access to the information for the application process and share about the application specifications; portfolio submission and all other
N/A
San Jose, lacking business skill classes and programs to work with local museums.
I certainly feel the support of the community within my circle of peers and during events that the artists create for the community at large.
I wish there were more opportunities. I wold love for there to be a weekly vevnue for artists- say Cal Ave Farmers Market could have a dedicated side
street for artists tents!!! <3 Library could have fairs to set up art!!
There doesn't seem to be any space that the City markets and makes known to the public. There are classes at the Art Center, but there have never been
in my knowledge any shows of student work, let alone on a regular basis. It is as if the Art Center would rather just have us artists take classes and leave
the space.
Shallow Alto
Since the P.A. Art League fell apart fighting, I backed off and haven't hooked up with any group since. I did
Open Studio for a number of years, but I have stopped.
People expect to see your work hanging for free. But would spent more on coffee in a month than on original art in a year.
No one expects musicians to play for free but everyone expects original art to be hung in public places for free, or worse, the artist pays.
Yes and no. I think some opportunities are there, but they have to be searched out and taken advantage of. I wish there were more opportunities i.e.
galleries to show work in. The situation makes me look outside of the area and be creative in how I show and sell my work.
I am currently in a cooperative gallery but I pay for that.
Arts have become a sub-culture in our community. It is no longer main-stream. We seem to support ourselves and preach to the choir.
I know that there are open studios, but have missed the deadline a number of times.
The awareness that, at my advanced age, I am still practicing my art has been an inspiration to both young and old that creativity has no age limit.
Its so expensive to just live in the Bay Area now. Many artists have left or are fulltime employed at non art jobs. HIgh tech supported families are
continuously moving in and redefining spaces where artists used to have a foothold. Teaching jobs are rare, and designed to suit and recruit those with
disposable income by being structured part time/split day/and low wage. Several county wide agencies provide good support
Silicon Valley Open Studios provides excellent exhibit support, as well as my participation in multiple galleries. However, the Palo Alto Art Center is a real
laggard in providing exhibit opportunities for practicing Palo Alto artists. They offer studio art classes, but no exhibit opportunities in the main gallery. It's
really pathetic.
Yes I do open studio's
But not enough.
discourse with objective metroplis thought is important to advance e.g the Impressionist to Duseldorf Ackademie did not rise alone but in group
O
I appreciate that Palo Alto makes the studio available and is responsive to the needs of artists
where are those collecting locally made art? we have to go to Carmel, LA, Scottsdale, to find galleries, collectors. Public seems uninterested in the visual
Only so far as I've shared my art with others in a gallery or community site.
don't feel the need for support from the community at large
T
Where do you see art by local artists? No where I know of in Menlo Park except the Plantation Coffee house on Alameda. Where in Palo Alto besides
some restaurants and library that the artists hang and take down for free month after month. The PA art center used to have a competition for local artists
but I don't think they've had that for a couple of years. Triton seems to be most interested in showing the local artists now and then and I am grateful for
Unsure
I feel like there is a lot of support for people doing creative things with technology in Palo Alto, but not for artists or independent media makers. A big part of
the problem is $$ - I don't make much $ doing what I do, so there's no financial incentive to support people like me. A municipal support system would be
FANTASTIC.
I feel that room/acknowledgement for artists is increasing, however, there us a lot of room for growth and support.
There are many community members, who delight in visiting during our open studios year after year to follow the growth of our work.
I feel support within our Cubberley community, but not very much from Silicon Valley in general. I feel that the big money needs to be informed about us
through marketing and get a more informed group of people to visit and contribute.
I would like to have opportunities to share my work with the community.
Artists are not always taken seriously or thought to be a valuable asset.
I have not sought out support.
I went to art school in San Francisco and Oakland where I have a great community of artist friends. However on the peninsula I have not met many other
practicing artist in the community.
I would love more local opportunities to show and sell my artwork.
I think conceptual and installation work typically isn't as accessible to a larger demographic. :/
I am disappointed with Palo Alto. I have lived here for nearly 30 years, making art for most of that time. I am on the waitlist at Cubberly for YEARS....
It saddens me how unsupported professional artists are here. I do not feel artists are valued and see a lot of resources going towards other areas. The lack
if exhibit space and work space is disheartening given what is available and the need for visual art in the human experience
would like place to sell/ exhibit work
Having teachers available at Cubberley and the Art Center is very supportive.
Just being at Cubberley has been a privilege. Sometimes the controversy over whether we deserve to be there eyc. can be disheartening, but the general
reaction of community members when they come to our open studios or stumble across us is one of pleasure and support. There are a number of
community members who come out regularly to community mtgs to voice their strong support of our presence.
Some yes.
Response
Percent Response Count
5.8%5
36.0%31
39.5%34
18.6%16
31
86
34skipped question
To what degree do you, or do you wish to, engage your local community through your art making?
the community is essential to my artmaking
not at all
answered question
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
regular interaction
Answer Options
please comment
minimally, for example, through open studios, etc.
To what degree do you, or do you wish to, engage your local community through your
art making?
not at all
minimally, for example, through open
studios, etc.
regular interaction
the community is essential to my
artmaking
Question 22: To what degree do you, or do you wish to, engage your local community through your art making?
Currently I am involved in community video making.
Since my art has an environmental message, having the community experience it is very important to me.
I am looking forward to making collaborative art that engages the community.
Engaging a larger portion of the community is always a challenge (albeit a necessary one!) since the working studio space is dedicated to creating artwork
which tends to be a private, quiet process with doors closed. Having a studio within a studio complex makes the open studios and other public events
much more productive, festive, and rich with the force of diverse art-making.
I wish I could get more art from artists together for fairs and sales! more community! I would be willing to participate in crating a stronger culture of art in
I guess I am blind to opportunity. I am retiring as a Forensic Document Examiner at the end of this year, so I will have more time in the next year.
I enjoy sharing my work through studio visits and tours, articles/reviews, some teaching/lecturing, hands-on demos etc.
I don't know. Have never had that honor. Loved attending the open studios last year. Wish local restaurants would allow work exhibited in their spaces for
instance.
I would be amenable to opening my studio to other printmakers or working with children teaching monopinting. I usually do that at Open Studio.
All of the above are true for me--depending on the project. I find my rhythm as an artist changes throughout the year. I like to do about four dedicated
weeks per year engaged fully in a community project.
Then I like to be alone in the studio for a while. When my practice is full on I like to participate in Open Studios, and I frequently interact with the
community through teaching. When art teaching jobs are unavailable I work as a substitute teacher and integrate art into lessons when i can.
I participate in a coop gallery and also do Open Studios, as well as exhibiting in other Bay Area galleries.
If I were able to be a full time artist, I would engage more with the community as a artist.
I have many lecture to share to professional and also attention to children for global competive talent
I don't enjoy solitary art-making. For me, part of the process is engaging with other artists
community. is a code word around here. Everybody likes to speak of the community, but there really isn't one, just groups of friends and fellow artists. The
Pacific Art League of Palo Alto tries some things and does some good. The Palo Alto Art Center does nothing that I can see for local artists or to build an
audience locally for local art. I don't feel part of any community except that of my fellow artist friends.
At this stage of my [emerging] career, I need to focus more on getting some work ready ...so "minimally" for now, and regular interaction thereafter
I have never participated in Open Studios, but I expect to participate within the next year or two.
occasional demo greater Bay Area -not "local" community art is not a "community" project
I don't need communiity to make my work. Would I support artists helping with Boys and Girls Club? Yes working with school programs? yes
A lot of my filmmaking work is connected to work I'm doing around climate change activism, and a lot of that is community based.
Unsure as I consider myself a fledgling/
Because the Cubberley Studios have been in existence for awhile, we have interactions w/visitors or art groups almost monthly, in addition to two open
studios and other community events.
I work with many art communities nationally and internationally
As I teach for college, I try to be as protective of my studio time as possible. If I didn't have to teach several days a week, I would be happy to donate more
time to the city. There is a frustrating expectation that somehow, artist are supposed to do and give things for free, and we need to make a living as well.
regular feedback and support guide the direction of my work.
I consider my self to be a community artist. A visual artist working in the community to help bridge cross cultural understanding and celebrate diversity.
I have a wonderful group in my drop in class that I interact with.
teaching and demos
I would prefer to pay more rent ( still have it juried) and not have a requirement to the City for time put in. I prefer to engage on my own terms--it feels good
to volunteer and care about my community. It doesn't feel good at all when it feels like homewor and is mandatory.
Being an art therapist, I am convinced of the therapeutic benefits of art making to the artist and to the surrounding community. I would love to be involved
in getting children to create more... I am more than willing to spend time to that end
It's a relationship. Education is important by the community to its members about the value if art and it needs to be woven into the experience if living here
Response
Percent Response Count
90.8%79
9.2%8
45
87
33skipped question
no
Should city government play a role in supporting artists?
answered question
yes
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
please comment
Answer Options
Should city government play a role in supporting artists?
yes
no
Question 23: Should city government play a role in supporting artists?
Our community benefits so much from local art programs which are a tremendous supplement to education and enrichment. A combination of city support,
benefactors, members and grants will create a healthy balance and appreciation by all.
The arts are the foundation of the creativity that drives the technology that has made this area such a success and they can also bring additional economic
vitality to communities and this is the sort of foundation I would think a local government would want to invest in.
having art supported by the city is important to my sense of community
Absolutely. The one thing the former Soviet Union did right was support the arts. The rest, well... :--(((((
The city should be in close connection to artists, to aid collaborations with other art institutions and to help with the engagement of the public in the art
Not sure.
Having classes on business skills.
Without different forms of public support for all the arts, the major supportive structures are commercial ones. Most of the fine arts do not automatically
make money, very few artists earn enough through selling work to live much less afford studios, materials, etc. Cities, counties, states, countries have
thriving cultures which depend upon a mixture of private and public support. This has always been true.
Right brain Left brain balance! Stop cutting out our art programs! Avoid imbalance!
To the extent that other businesses and pass times are supported, for example lawn bowling.
It is helpful to have things like studio space,
I really don't know. Support is always helpful, as long as it doesn't become strangulation.
The arts and artist create vibrant communities that people want to live in. The city government should help foster that environment.
The cities should try purchasing art from many local artists to decorate their buildings, rather than one large sculpture from some distant artist.
Financial assistance of art programs, studios, exhibitions, events, etc., would be very appreciated.
Art only provides benefits to those who practice it and enjoy it. It is a smart choice for a comunity to support the arts, and Palo Alto is remarkable at a level
for what it does have here. I can't afford to live here, however.
Having a less than market rate studio is incredibly helpful to many artists and the artists in turn are contributing their work to enrich the city's art collection.
Art enriches everyday living. Art represents another way of looking at the world. Artists add to the vibrancy of the community and bring beauty to the city.
Yes; providing studio space, exhibition opportunities, art fairs that don't cost $4000 per 100 sq ft space---
In addition to community announcements ( Palo Alto already does this well) Having a community art center is a great way of supporting arts and arts
I'm not sure. But I really do not like the current system where some artists are chosen by subjective criteria to be subsidized at Cubberley. Some of my
artist friends have applied and been rejected for apparently no good (or understandable) reason. It's pure favoritism. One good system would be to give
artists a defined period of time, say three or six months, to have studio space at Cubberley. That way more artists could participate in this heavily
subsidized opportunity. I could paint much larger works if I had space at Cubberley, even for a finite time period.
The arts enrich our communities greatly.
Holland, U.K, France, Hongkong, Singapore are few I knew
I think the city should support more local artists
If not city government, then whom? Step up, Palo Alto! You are a city of innovation and discovery. These endeavors require space, time, and trust.
Sponsoring events designed to bring citizens together around art.
Yes, through a dedicated source that doesn't take funds away from living necessity services. Arts add to the quality of life in a community, but providing for
their support shouldn't deplete funds for the neediest people.
perhaps occasional talks
If Cubberly is such an example then yes, it seems to serve the community well. I think it would be nice to rotate the studio space however so more people
have the opportunity to have their own space.
See above. I think it would also be a great way to encourage artists to stay in this area, rather than siphoning them off to SF or the East Bay!
With more communal art spaces/studios, as there are only two that I know of (Cubberly and Transportation Studios). Wonderful to see support for the arts
by having more public arts
There is a lot of interest and comments from visitors during our open studios, about how much the arts mean to them. It would not be possible for most of
the artists to work in Palo Alto if it were not for these subsidized studios.
I think they should be involved in informing the public about our work as part of their regular community programs.
To have the city's support is essential component to community projects
I don't think it is a requirement but it would be nice, helpful to the welfare of artist and the arts and a way of creating a closer more cohesive community.
It would be lovely to have some money set aside for public art as well as support for artists.
The city should help provide space for artists studios on a low rental basis
if those artists also benefit the city and it's citizens and add value to the community.
Art is where innovation comes from. We're the ones that ask "what if?" and, as Jobs said, think differently. If the City, State, Feds, etc want to increase
innovation then artists and arts education needs to be supported far more than it is right now. Our work and thinking feeds into every industry.
Why not? We support sports, theater, art exhibitions, and other activities outside of schools. Why is this questioned so much in this country when all the
statistics prove this improves a community? Europe so recognizes the value and even indirect impact.
A thriving artist community is a reflection on the city government
Right now all grant funding is for non profit organizations only. There isn't anything that supports individual artists. Why not?
If we don't provide art and this kind if connection to our spirit we become walking heads
Art is an integral part of human culture and having a municipality support the arts by providing working space, exhibit space and access to learning about
art lifts the whole community.
As a Cubberley member I very much appreciate being subsidized.
Every community has a responsibility to maintaining a strong environment for civic engagement and sharing of ideas- a strong artistic community is a
reflection of the engagement and dialogue of the community at large. If you want to find a troubled community- look for the silences.
Artist are vital to the community so the government should provide affordable working spaces in the peninsula. With outrageous rents its very difficult to
sustain an art studio as well as an apartment on a teaching salary. Studio space should cost $200-300 a month over 400 is too much. Spaces should be
500 sq ft or bigger. Tiny cubicles are not really studio spaces.
Response Count
22
22
98
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
Please provide any additional comments or feedback.
Answer Options
answered question
skipped question
Question 24: Please provide any additional comments or feedback.
I am very impressed by the level and commitment of artists at Cubberley. I don't think most people realize how accomplished these artists are, and how
much they contribute to our community.
I wish this survey had also had a track for supports of the arts and arts-lovers to be able to provide input on.
Glad you have initiated this process.
All city officials and city staff should be encouraged to participate in arts related events. When visual artists put out a collaborative call, they should be sent
first, then the public. I often comment on the beautiful art around the different city buildings, to which staff reply, "We don't get it and we do not like it. They
will change it some day for something else."
This is a shame!
I do not sell my jewelry, just make it for myself, but have won prizes at the SM Fair. It would be great if I could actually show several pieces at a facility, but
not need to have a license as I don't sell--like an open house. I do have my own tools and materials in my home, but it isn't a "studio" --just a lot of things
cramped together. The thing I enjoyed about the previous "Cubberley" studio was seeing what others do and getting feedback, although no one was
"teaching" the methods. There were 2 teachers: Tracy Burk (excellent), & Edith Sommer (not a perfectionist!). There should be others who can teach all or
part of the jewelry techniques such as sawing, soldering, hydraulic press, creating bezels, etc. Also, the large hoods were very noisy, and the elevated
tables at Cubberley were awkward. Someone who actually can create a functioning studio should be in charge and he/she should listed to Stephanie
North, Leslie Gordon and those who actually use the studio!!!
I would love to receive more information on how artists can get together and show and sell their work!
This is a complicated subject with emotional overtones that are difficult to deal with in this type of survey. If I wanted to do it I have the means to rent studio
space or I could build it. Others do not. Some residents of PA would think my work is rubbish and they shouldn't have to support it! Art as an avocation will
will find a way to express itself. Art as a business must find a market and I realize that that there is a lot of talent out there and not all of it finds economic
success-it's not "fair" but it's a fact.
I am not clear if only residents of Palo Alto can apply for space.
I think this is a great idea. Let me know how I can help.
Classes at cubberly art studios great
Thanks for providing this survey opportunity. I cannot attend the meeting and appreciated providing some of my ideas and opinions .
With all the new developet happening, what about creating live/work condos for artists. That would be a truly meaningful way to allow artists to be and stay
part of the community.
Thanks for asking. Just keeping the conversation open is a supportive act. If feasible I would like to contribute to the plan. I am also a professional
I was inspred by San Jose's First Friday art walk. Palo Alto should have something like that. Would love to see artist space near California Ave.
If I get help for space I will be likely to be able to pay for it after 2 yrs max while generate local economy and give to communitive services that naturally
prevent youth violence and adults, house wife with meaningful activity with my 30 yrs artistic scholarship
question 11 did an automatic fill was unable to delete
art is the foundation of civilization, we need to understand and foster it
Cubberley has a profound impact on my life and work! Without that support, I would not have returned to my artwork or been able to meet such wonderful
colleagues. I would have been isolated and depressed. With all the money, some of it needs to be set aside for the cultural side of the city.
Where can I find out more info about studio space at Cubberley?
I participate in events at the art center. I meet my neighbors, make friends, get exposure to people, and art. This exposure not only supports art and
artists it supports diversity, community and peace. Here in Palo Alto their are lots of events that bring parents together. I don't find many events that bring
older adults together. Art can be uniting.
I love that the City offers opportunites to volunteer, teach, engage, work in the arts in our community. I do believe all these things should be options, based
on how busy an artist is at any given time. I do not think it would be too much to ask artists to open their studios more frequently and casually. I didn't
clean up at all for a recent tour, and the visitors were more engaged than those who are just looking at art on the wall.
I am going to come to the meeting and I will do what I can to help
Response
Percent Response Count
66.7%56
33.3%28
45
84
36skipped question
no
Are you interested in participating in future community meetings about artist studio space in Palo
Alto?
answered question
yes
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
If yes, please provide email address.
Answer Options
Are you interested in participating in future community meetings about artist studio
space in Palo Alto?
yes
no
Response
Percent Response Count
76.2%64
23.8%20
57
84
36skipped question
no
Would you like to receive a copy of the strategic plan for the Artist Studio Program at Cubberley
Community Center?
answered question
yes
Artist Studio Needs Assessment, Bay Area Mid-Peninsula
If yes, please provide your email address.
Answer Options
Would you like to receive a copy of the strategic plan for the Artist Studio Program at
Cubberley Community Center?
yes
no
ATTACHMENT
F
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program
Staff
Report
Minutes,
November
19,
2013
Community
Meeting
Artist
Studio
Program
at
Cubberley
Community
Center
Public
Meeting
Lucie
Stern
Community
Center
11/19/2013
NOTES
WELCOME
AND
INTRODUCTIONS
The
meeting
was
conducted
jointly
by:
Alyssa
Erickson,
Studio
Program
Consultant
Karen
Kienzle,
Palo
Alto
Art
Center
Director
Rhyena
Halpern,
CSD
Assistant
Director,
Arts
and
Sciences
Division
Director
Other
City
Staff
in
attendance:
Adam
Howard,
Cubberley
Community
Center
Nadya
Chuprina,
Program
Assistant,
Public
Art
POWERPOINT
PRESENTATION
• Summary
of
Artist
Studio
Program
• Artist
survey
results
• National
trends
in
artist
studio
programs
• On
CSD
website,
please
find
o 11/19/13
Meeting
Presentation
PDF
o Complete
artists
survey
PDF
BREAKOUT
SESSION
Following
the
presentation,
attendees
were
asked
to
breakout
into
three
groups
to
discuss
the
following
question:
How
might
we
make
the
Artist
Studio
Program
at
Cubberley
stronger?
Each
group
discussed
the
question
from
the
perspective
of
three
constituencies:
• Stronger
for
the
broader
community
• Stronger
for
artists
• Stronger
for
City,
CSD,
Arts
&
Sciences
Participants
recorded
comments
on
post-‐its
and
posted
them
to
chart
paper.
FEEDBACK
Karen
Kienzle
sorted
through
comments
and
discovered
common
themes
emerging
across
constituencies.
Comments
were
sorted
into
the
following
broad
categories:
• Process
• Facility
• Eligibility
for
Palo
Alto
vs
non-‐Palo
Alto
residents
• Service
Requirement
–
of
resident
artists
to
the
community
• Programming
• Publicity
• General
comments
• Comments
on
the
meeting
itself
Process:
• Clear
info
on
when
space
will
be
available
• Have
artists
do
office
hours/advisory
session
of
new
artists
• Use
one
or
two
spaces
for
short
term
national
acclaimed
artist
residencies
• Quicker
turnover
of
artists
so
new
people
can
get
in?
Or
more
spaces
so
new
artists
can
get
a
spot
• Select
professional
artists
in
a
fair
selection
community
• Stabilize
the
admission
process
over
the
long
term
• Make
the
selection
process
more
transparent
–
publicize
it
more
• A
site
to
share
artists’
contact
information
with
public
• Process
of
Artist’s
selection
should
be
more
transparent
• Annual
review
of
artist’s
process
with
objective
jurors
(art
background)
• Increase
visibility
of
program
rules,
etc.
to
public
• Higher
caliber
of
artists’
residency
leads
to
more
prestige
of
Palo
Alto
City
Facility:
• More
studio
spaces
• Artist
café
• Artist’s
meet-‐up
group
• Artist
lounge
• Gallery
space
at
Cubberley
with
set
hours
• Gallery
room
for
monthly
shows,
open
• Gallery
space
at
site
• Incorporate
the
dance
studios
• Invite
public
to
join
artists
lounge
space
• Shared
workspace
• Shared
tools
Eligibility
for
Palo
Alto
vs
non-‐Palo
Alto
residents
• Allow
more
artists
from
outside
Palo
Alto
to
have
studios
• The
“Broader
Community”
should
not
be
viewed
narrowly
as
just
Palo
Alto.
Palo
Alto
gets
already
tremendous
benefits
from
the
artists
through
their
art
• More
artists
residing
in
Palo
Alto
would
strengthen
the
art
reputation
of
Palo
Alto
• The
city
needs
to
give
more
artists
who
live
in
Palo
Alto
studios.
Also
there
should
be
more
emphasis
on
Professional
artists
• Palo
Alto
resources
for
Palo
Altans
• Keep
studios
open
to
non-‐residents
of
Palo
Alto
• Regional
and
local
relationship
• Broader
community
includes
national
art
community
• Think
global
act
local
• Broader
community
is
not
defined
well
• Define
community
beyond
Palo
Alto
Service
Requirement:
• A
go
to
site
for
groups
looking
for
volunteers
• Clearer
expectations
of
community
requirements
• Respect
for
studio
work
time
• Quantify
volunteer-‐ship
–
punch
cards
• Prevent
burnout!
• Not
quantify
time
of
volunteer
work—evaluate
by
quality
• Don’t
make
volunteer
requirements
so
onerous
to
interfere
with
work,
as
artists
spend
various
amounts
of
time
in
the
studio
• Limit
outside
requirements
for
artists
• Allow
residency
volunteer
work
to
include
neighboring
communities
Programming:
• Have
artists’
work
for
sale
at
Palo
Alto
Art
Center
gallery,
promote
artists
and
City
• Lecture
series
• Online
shop
• Encourage
collaboration,
community
building
by
facilitating
artists
working
in
similar/same
media
to
meet,
interact
• Shows
of
our
(Cubberley)
artists
in
other
places
• Have
a
shop
onsite
for
artists
to
sell
art.
Hours
could
be
limited
as
long
as
clearly
communicated
to
public
• Have
art
shop
open
at
same
times
as
the
Friends
of
the
Library
books
sales
–
to
help
get
traffic
and
visibility
• Make
the
community
interested
also
in
purchasing
art
and
supporting
art
making
in
this
way
• Public
Art
work
opportunity
• More
programs
for
kids
(ages
3-‐12
for
example)
• Collaborative
project—community,
ie;
painted
chair
• Encourage
artists
to
do
workshops
for
larger
community
if
they
are
interested
• Collaborations
with
Art
Center
• Show
at
Art
Center
• Include
ceramic
artists
who
are
at
the
Art
Center
and
in
the
local
community
in
collaborations
• Themed
sponsored
events
–
inspire
work
among
different
media
• Bringing
artists
together
to
create
for
charity
or
specific
cause
• Socially
engaged
art
installations
representing
City
concerns
• Show
could
be
artists
from
community
or
Cubberley
• Educational
component
• More
kids
• Classes/workshops
–
separate
out
the
Cubberley
classes
+
teaching
out
“What’s
Happening
@Cubberley
.
.
.
“
• Feature
studio
artists’
work
in
rotating
exhibits
–
maybe
City
Hall
• Music,
writing
Arts
Center
• Use
artists
for
public
art
works
in
Palo
Alto
Publicity:
• Spread
the
art
reputation
of
artists
in
Palo
Alto
to
the
broader
community,
this
will
strengthen
the
City
• Advertise
their
work
• Increased
publicity
for
artist’s
open
studios
• City
promote
program
more
• Better
advertising
within
City
of
what
the
Cubberley
program
is
doing
• Better
publicity
of
donations
of
art
to
City
• City
makes
more
visible
their
growing
collection
of
resident
artists
work
• Staff
support
for
publicity
• Monthly
city-‐wide
arts
newsletter/website
• Monthly
arts
calendar:
Cubberley
artist
events,
PA
Art
Center
events,
special
events,
tree
lighting
• You
Tube
• More
vibrant
interactive
web
and
Facebook
presence
• Expand
City
website
• Include
Cubberley
artists’
bios
on
City
web
page
• Better
website
so
artists
and
public
can
find
info
• Improving
website/news
about
program
to
let
others
know
what
Palo
Alto
is
doing
• Website
–
link,
highlight
featured
resident/artist,
rotate
monthly
• Feature
an
artist
of
the
month
on
City
website
• Some
component
of
information
on
walls
of
Cubberley
to
let
people
know
artists
are
present
• “Open”
days
while
working,
with
critical
mass
present
General
comments:
• Very
important
to
continue
the
program
• Give
artists
access
to
affordable
studio
on
a
long-‐term
basis
• Keep
it
long
term
Comments
on
the
meeting
itself:
• Need
clear
definitions
of
“strengthening”
and
“excellence.”
So
far
they
are
left
undefined
• More
of
this
meeting
be
open
discussion
ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION
Clarifying
Timeline:
Rhy
clarified
that
the
future
of
the
Cubberley
Community
Center
site
is
being
discussed,
negotiated
and
handled
by
the
City
and
PAUSD..
The
assumption
is
that
change
to
the
site
use
will
take
time,
at
least
five
to
ten
years,
or
more.
The
goal
is
to
strengthen
the
Studio
Program
NOW,
in
preparation
for
the
next
open
call
for
artists
in
late
Spring
2014.
Staff
commitment
to
the
Studio
Program:
Rhy
reiterated
her
commitment
to
the
ongoing
success
and
viability
of
the
Studio
Program:
envisioning
a
vibrant,
enlivened
space
of
community
engagement
with
opportunities
for
regular
arts
and
cultural
events.
Adequate
staffing
is
needed.
Participants
stated
their
concerns
about
the
need
to
“strengthen”
the
program
and
what
that
might
mean:
Discussion
about
strengthening
the
visibility
and
profile
of
the
program,
so
that
it’s
less
vulnerable
to
budget
cuts
in
the
future.
Need
to
be
pro-‐active
prior
to
changes
in
site
use
of
the
Cubberley
Community
Center.
Recognition
of
the
value
of
program
assessment
and
the
openness
to
look
for
ways
to
improve
programs.
If
there
were
shared
workspace,
how
would
that
be
managed
and
maintained
to
assure
safety?
Other
questions:
Could
the
1%
Public
Art
Money
be
used
to
support
artist
workspaces
and
exhibition
venues?
Do
we
need
private
and/or
corporate
philanthropy
to
reach
these
big
goals?
ATTACHMENT
G
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program
Staff
Report
Minutes,
January
8,
2014
Community
Meeting
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program
Community
Meeting
Notes
with
Amended
Recommendations,
based
on
community
input
1/8/2014
Approximately
17
artists
and
community
members
and
7
staff
were
in
attendance.
VISION
POINTS
(Draft)
• A
community
for
artists
that
fosters
diverse
and
numerous
opportunities
for
growth
and
collaboration
in
the
creation
of
new
work
• Diversity
of
media
represented,
diversity
of
artists
in
terms
of
age,
ethnicity,
points
in
career
• Dynamic
and
accessible
destination
with
economic
value
for
the
community
• Strong
engagement
and
visibility
with
the
community
• Prestigious
and
competitive
program
with
a
large
number
of
strong
applicants
TERM
LIMITS
(Amended)
In
order
to
create
and
support
a
diverse
and
vibrant
creative
community
as
well
as
to
support
the
strength
of
the
current
Cubberley
Artists
community:
• Staff
recommends
term
limits
of
4
years.
• Artists
may
reapply
for
a
second
term,
for
a
total
of
two
terms
in
residence
• Staff
will
establish
a
ranking
formula
based
on
total
years
in
residence,
that
would
allow
current
resident
artists
to
apply
for
the
next
term
• After
two
terms,
artists
would
be
eligible
again
after
a
2
term
waiting
period.
• Program
should
serve
a
true
diversity
of
artists
(age,
ethnicity,
points
in
career),
and
artistic
disciplines.
Additional
Community
Feedback:
• General
support
for
the
need
for
terms
• Current
resident
artists
should
be
eligible
to
apply
for
next
term
o Value
of
having
experienced
artists
as
mentors
o Preservation
of
institutional
memory
o Current
artists
worked
hard
to
build
community
among
artists
and
invest
in
the
program
• Jury
process
and
move
in/move
out
is
disruptive
to
artists
work
time
• Some
preferred
3
year
terms
and
others
preferred
4
year
terms
• Artists
living
in
Palo
Alto
should
earn
extra
points
since
this
is
a
program
of
the
City
of
Palo
Alto,
even
though
the
reason
why
more
artists
don’t
live
in
the
city
is
they
can’t
afford
it
• Staggered
system
for
reapplication
can
help
maintain
community
cohesion
• Need
for
greater
outreach
and
marketing
effort
to
get
enough
applicants
to
reach
goals
• Concept
of
Emeritus
Artist
is
not
very
interesting
to
the
artists
COMMUNITY
SERVICE
(Amended)
Staff
recommends
quantifying
service
requirement;
while
service
has
been
a
component
of
the
program
from
the
beginning,
the
requirement
has
not
been
quantified
and
there
has
been
no
system
of
accountability.
• Each
artist
would
be
required
to
complete
four
hours
per
month,
or
the
equivalent
on
a
quarterly
or
annual
basis.
• The
service
would
be
focused
on
the
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program.
Service
opportunities
might
include:
program
marketing,
outreach,
website,
facility
liaison
to
City
staff,
support
for
potential
gallery,
pop-‐up
shops,
tracking
of
service
hours,
leading
free
public
lectures,
workshops,
shows,
etc.
o If
Cubberley
does
not
need
the
hours,
artists
could
work
at
Art
Center
or
with
the
Public
Art
Program
Additional
Community
Feedback:
• Four
hours
per
month
is
reasonable
• Artists
could
pay
in
exchange
in
lieu
of
the
4
hours/month.
If
so,
set
at
a
level
to
incentivize
work
or
at
IRS
rate
for
volunteers
SHARED
SPACE
In
an
effort
to
serve
more
artists
and
enliven
the
program
and
the
space,
a
few
studios,
especially
the
large
ones,
would
be
set
aside
for
shared
lab
space.
This
is
a
different
model
than
bifurcating
a
studio;
rather
it
would
involve
incorporating
into
the
program
the
trend
of
artists
who
prefer
to
work
in
this
type
of
laboratory,
collaborative
studio
environment.
This
would
be
great
for
printmakers
and
photographers,
but
would
also
help
attract
artists
in
new-‐to-‐Cubberley
disciplines,
including
but
not
limited
to
digital
media
artists,
public
and
installation
artists,
mixed-‐
and
multi-‐
media
artists
whose
work
might
include
literary
and
performing
arts
and
other
disciplines
as
generated
by
applicants.
Vacant
space
could
be
used
for
short
term
rentals
and/or
gathering
space
for
the
artists.
(Glass
and
ceramic
artists
still
would
not
be
eligible.)
Additional
Community
Feedback:
• A
lot
of
support
for
this
idea
by
the
artists
• This
concept
will
take
work
to
develop
• Specialized
equipment
(e.g.,
printmaking
presses)
require
supervision
and
oversight
• Individual
artists
would
need
storage
space
within
larger
space
• Consider
who
would
manage
a
shared
space,
concern
about
respect
for
tools
and
equipment
• For
the
1st
round,
ask
for
groups
to
apply
together
due
to
potential
difficulty
of
placing
artists
together
• Some
artists
interested
in
short-‐term,
hourly
rentals
for
big
projects
NEXT
STEPS
A
follow-‐up
meeting
will
be
scheduled
to
present
the
final
draft
of
updated
staff
Cubberley
Artist
Studio
Program
Guidelines
and
Application.
Staff
will
continue
to
consider
all
community
input
and
present
its
final
recommendations
to
the
Policy
and
Services
Committee,
for
their
review
and
ultimately
final
approval.
DRAFT
Cubberley Artist Studio Program
Guidelines and Application
Draft Mission
The Cubberley Artist Studio Program (CASP) supports the vitality of the arts in Palo Alto by
providing subsidized studio space for artists, building creative community and fostering public
engagement with the arts and artists.
CASP is located at the Cubberley Community Center (“Cubberley”), a former high school site,
jointly owned by the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District. In addition to the
artist spaces, Cubberley serves as an auxiliary campus for Foothill College, a home to day care
providers, private schools, performing arts organizations, youth sports programs and other
community service programs.
Draft Vision and Program Goals
• Create a community for artists that fosters diverse and numerous opportunities for
growth and collaboration in the creation of new work.
• Ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in terms of artistic disciplines,
artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic approaches.
• Create a dynamic, economically valuable, and accessible cultural destination.
• Foster active engagement and visibility with the community.
• Develop a prestigious and competitive program with a large number of strong applicants.
Program Overview
• After a selection process, successful artist applicants are awarded a studio space for one
four-year term, and may reapply for a second term.
• Artists may apply as individuals or in teams of two or more artists.
• 23 single, shared or lab studios are available.
• Studio sizes range from 360 to 1000 square feet.
• One dedicated space (formerly the Art Center’s Jewelry Studio) for programming and
exhibition opportunities: artist lectures, workshops, performances, pop-up shops and
possibly café.
• Utilities are provided and paid for by City of Palo Alto (gas, electricity, wi-fi, water, sewer
and refuse collection services) in connection with rental. Participating artists will
provide and pay for any and all telephone service at the leased premises.
• Rent subsidized by the City of Palo Alto (with commercial rate approximately $2.00-
$3.50/square foot). Rent is $.82 per square foot for Palo Alto residents, $.91 per square
foot for non-residents. This rate is subject to change in accordance with the Municipal
Fee Schedule. For artist teams, rent will be split amongst the team members in a process
Comment [RH1]: Pending artists’ input
1
DRAFT
determined by staff in conjunction with participating artists. If multiple tenants, all
names shall appear on lease and all artists must meet City’s insurance requirements.
• Artists selected for the program are expected to:
o Participate in a community of mutually supportive and respectful artists
o Regularly use studio space. Artists agree to maximize the frequency of their use of the studio.
o Complete four hours of service per month, or the equivalent on a quarterly or
annual basis. Service is focused on supporting the vitality of CASP.
o Donation of one artwork per residency term to the Public Art Program of the City
of Palo Alto
o Participation in the Open Studio events, each year as well as any other open
community events
o Provide annual plans and reviews.
Eligibility
CASP seeks applicants from artists at all points in their career, for whom studio residency
would make a significant impact on their artistic development. Any artist residing in the
greater Bay Area is eligible to apply, although artists residing in Palo Alto will have preference.
CASP recognizes the increasing fluidity in contemporary artists’ working practices between and
across disciplines. As a result, the program is open to visual artists working in traditional visual
media such as printmaking, painting, sculpture, mixed-media, and photography, as well as
relatively newer genres such as new media and digital art, installation art, public art, and social
practices.
We encourage artists of any discipline to apply for consideration. For example, literary artists
and performance artists whose work contains a demonstrative visual element may be
considered. Creative entrepreneurs such as artisans or designers who create original products
may also be considered.
High school and university undergraduate students are not eligible to apply. Students in
graduate programs are eligible to apply, if studio spaces are not provided by their respective
universities.
Limitations of the Cubberley facility and infrastructure may prevent artists who work in some
media from participating in the program. These applications will be considered on a case-by-
case basis by staff.
Artists are eligible to apply for one four-year term, and then the following consecutive term.
After two four-year terms, artists must wait two terms (eight years) before reapplying.
2
DRAFT
Selection Criteria (determined through application materials)
• Creative excellence or the potential for creative excellence
• Strong exhibition history, reviews and/or record of accomplishments demonstrated in
resume or CV.
• Artist’s demonstrated need for the program (as determined in the application
materials) and the potential impact to their artwork and/or careers.
• Contribution the artist would make in meeting the (draft) mission, vision and goals of
the program.
• Intention to comply with the requirements of the program as outlined in relevant
documents including the guidelines, application, contract and specifically, the Artists’
Requirements section below.
• Residency in Palo Alto (preferred, but it is not required).
Selection Process
Artists must apply online in CaFE system.
A panel of art professionals will evaluate the applications according to the Selection Criteria,
using a points system. Points will be added or subtracted accordingly. For example, artistic
excellence, demonstrated need, ability to contribute to the program, and residency in Palo Alto
would garner points. Points would be deducted for incumbent artists (based upon number of
years in the program).
In addition to those artists selected for studio residency, a number of artists will be selected as
alternates. Should a studio become available prior to the next selection process, staff will select
from the waiting list, based on rank, media compatibility, and diversity for the available space.
The selected artist would complete the remainder of the term and then may reapply in the next
selection process.
Applicants may not have any contact with the panelists. Violation of this policy could result in
ineligibility.
Comment [RH2]: Expand when final info is available
Comment [RH3]: Pending input from artists on Feb. 13
3
DRAFT
Artist’s Responsibilities:
• Regular use of studio space. Artists agree to maximize the frequency of their use of the
studio.
• Service. Each artist is required to complete four hours of service per month, or the
equivalent on a quarterly or annual basis. Service is focused on supporting the vitality of
CASP. Each artist will make an annual proposal to meet the service requirement and
report progress quarterly.
• Open Studios. Participation in Open Studio events and other open events each year
• Artwork Donation. Donation of one artwork per residency term to the Public Art
Program of the City of Palo Alto. The donation is subject to the approval of the Public
Art Commission and will be deemed a gift made under terms and conditions
established by the City. CASP artists shall propose to donate to the City by no later than
during the last year of their lease. The process for accepting donations will involve the
Public Art Commission’s approval.
• General Participation. CASP Artists are expected to participate in artists community
meetings.
• Be a good neighbor. CASP artists shall act as good neighbors with their fellow artists, the
community, and the City. This shall include respectful communication, being responsive
to the needs of the diverse Cubberley community of artists and other groups, and the
City’s and the CSD’s staff.
• Annual Review. Participation in an annual review process conducted by City staff. This
annual review will include a written statement from each CASP artist annually, on or
before a date identified by City staff, that outlines their productivity, plans for the next
lease term year, documentation of community service, exhibition activity and program
participation. This written statement will be reviewed once each year by CSD staff.
Failure to submit by stated deadline may prohibit contract renewal.
4
DRAFT
Cubberley Artist Studio Program
Application Form
Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Website:
Are you a US Citizen?
Application type:
_____Individual
_____Group (2 or more applicants wishing to share a lab studio)**
**Artists applying as a group should apply together by submitting ONE application per group,
specifying number of individuals on the application form, but indicate a lead applicant who will
serve as a contact person. In your Artist Statement (question #2), tell us how lab studio
residency will support your individual and collaborative work. Also explain the relationship
between the applicants and their prior collaborations together.
1. Briefly describe the primary media in which you work: (character limit)
2. If selected, please estimate the amount of time you would use your studio per week
/month. Do you have a regular studio schedule? If yes, please specify. (character limit)
3. Artist Statement: discuss your need for the studio program and the anticipated impact
to your work and career. (character limit)
Comment [AE4]: This will all be used for an online form using CaFE
Comment [RH5]: Check CAO
5
DRAFT
4. One of CASP’s stated goals is to ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in
terms of artistic disciplines, artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic
approaches. Please outline what you bring to the program for the benefit of the
community, and your ability to fulfill and reinforce the (draft) mission, vision and goals.
(character limit)
5. Residency at CASP requires a commitment of four hours of service per month, or the
equivalent. Are you prepared and able to make that commitment? What skills or
experience do you have that may be used in fulfillment of your service? (i.e.,teaching,
carpentry, webmaster, publicity, exhibition coordinator, archivist, event planning?
(character limit)
Cubberley Artist Studio Program Compliance Form
Upon signing this application, I understand my responsibilities in supporting CASP as a
community context in which I can pursue creative work and share collegial interaction with a
small community of artists. In the spirit of the program, if selected, I intend to commit myself to
using the studio as intended by the program and depart according to the terms of my
agreement with the City of Palo Alto. I further agree to abide by the Program’s guidelines and
policies.
Non-Discrimination: CASP encourages and welcomes the participation of artists from all
backgrounds and does not discriminate with regard to race, sex, sexual preference, disabilities,
religion, marital status, or nation of origin in its admission policies.
Signature:
Date:
Conditions and Agreements
1. APPLICANT has carefully read and fully understands the GUIDELINES AND APPLICATION
document and the Lease Agreement attached to this document.
2. The Lease Agreement is an integral part of this proposal and must be attached to this
APPLICATION.
3. APPLICANT warrants that she/he has the capability to successfully undertake and
complete the responsibilities and obligations of CASP ARTIST contained in the Lease
Agreement.
4. This APPLICATION may be withdrawn at any time.
5. APPLICANT has fully completed the APPLICATION’s with any appropriate or requested
supplemental material.
Comment [RH6]: This whole section needs review by CAO to determine what is needed, what is redundant, what is in and what is out.
6
DRAFT
6. All the information contained in or supplementing said questionnaire is true and correct
to the best of APPLICANT’S knowledge.
7. CITY reserves the right to reject any or all APPLICATIONS and to accept that
APPLICATION, which will, in its opinion, best serve the public interest.
8. By submission of this APPLICATION APPLICANT acknowledges and agrees that the CITY
has the right to make any inquiry or investigation it deems appropriate to substantiate
or supplement information contained in this questionnaire, and authorizes the release
to CITY of any and all information sought in such inquiry or investigation.
APPLICANT
Signature: Date:
Incomplete applications may be eliminated.
Make sure you have completed all the requested data and have included all required
materials. Please refer to the attached checklist before final submission.
Application Checklist
All application materials are to be submitted online through CaFE. We cannot accept
applications by hardcopy or email.
1. Completed application form
2. Documentation of recent work (see CaFE guidelines for uploading images).
o Please provide up to ten representative images of your work.
Or
o For artists who create performance, video, or time-based media, please provide
a link to video documentation of work online; up to 3 minutes will be screened.
3. Resume or curriculum vitae, including exhibition and publication history
4. Signed Compliance Form
Application Deadline: June 1, 2014
Receipt of your application will be acknowledged by email. Applicants will be notified of
selection results no later than September 1, 2014. Move-in date will be no later than
November 1, 2014.
Submit Application Materials to:
CaFE –
For questions: Contact Nadya Chuprina at nadya.chuprina@cityofpaloalto.org, or call
650.329.2227. If an applicant is accepted into CASP, the City will expect compliance with the
following requirements:
Comment [AE7]: Need details on number of images and formats
Comment [RH8]: need URL link
7
DRAFT
Complete CASP Artist Requirements
Studio Space:
• Artists must maintain liability insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 (Insurance
Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage with Comprehensive General,
Fire/Legal Liability coverage of at least $1,000,000 per person and per occurrence). This
insurance can be purchased from the City of Palo Alto.
• Artists are also required to pay annual tax assessments, including, but not limited to,
the possessory interest tax that may be attributable to the artist-tenant’s occupancy of
the Cubberley studio space.
• The Cubberley studio must be the sole studio space for the artists and used for the
primary purpose of creating art. PROHIBITED USES: Any participating artist, who
maintains or intends to maintain a second studio, including a home studio, regardless of
the purpose of use, will be disqualified from consideration as an artist-tenant at
Cubberley. Storage and live/work uses of the studio space are also not allowed. CASP
artists cannot use the studio for any other purpose or to engage in, or permit, any other
business activity within or from the studio.
• Artists can use their studios for selling their artwork and for fee-based teaching
opportunities.
• Regular use of studio space. Artists agree to maximize the frequency of their use of the
studio.
• Lease. The City leases space to artists-tenants on an annual basis; the term is a one-year
period. Once an artist is selected, he/she will not be re-evaluated during the balance of
the four–year term, but the City reserves the right to modify this policy upon notice. The
artist will be required to demonstrate annually, that he/she is meeting the requirements
and otherwise maintaining the eligibility standards for continued occupancy. At the end
of the fourth year of occupancy, the artist-tenant may be required to resign the space,
as the lease term expires at such time. The artist may submit another CASP application
and apply for consideration in a new round for another selection process. After two
four-year terms, artists must wait through two terms (eight years) before reapplying.
• LEAVE PROVISION: Whenever an artist will be continuously absent from Cubberley for
over a one–month period, the artist-tenant shall notify the City, in writing by email and
in advance, of the proposed absence. Notwithstanding the leave of absence, the artist-
tenant’s obligation to make the rental payments will continue in accordance with the
lease agreement.
Comment [RH9]: Check with CAO
8
Policy and Services Committee
MINUTES
1
Special Meeting
February 18, 2014
Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 7:24 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Klein, Price (Chair), Schmid
Absent: Scharff
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2013.
Houman Boussina, Acting City Auditor, indicated the Quarterly Report was a
standard report which provided an update regarding Audit Reports, other
monitoring and administrative assignments, and Fraud, Waste and Abuse
Hotline administration.
Council Member Schmid noticed the Report contained only one audit on the
schedule; the Solid Waste Program Audit. No other major audit items were
identified for the third and fourth quarters.
Mr. Boussina reported the information indicated only the audits in process
or completed during the period of the Report. The Annual Work Plan
contained a more comprehensive list of audits planned for the upcoming
year.
Council Member Schmid asked if other audits were in process at the current
time.
Mr. Boussina noted the Audit Office completed the Inventory Management
Audit; was scheduled to present the Performance Report on March 10,
2014; and was completing field work and preparing a report for the Solid
Waste Program Audit.
2 February 18, 2014
Council Member Schmid inquired whether the City Auditor was working on
any Special Advisory Memorandums (SAM).
Mr. Boussina stated none were currently in process. Staff was
contemplating one SAM, and one was listed in the Work Plan.
Council Member Schmid liked SAMs and hoped they could be effective. He
noted the Inventory Management Audit and Contract Oversight Audit were
filled with impacts and asked if the Audits were reported to the Finance
Committee.
Mr. Boussina answered yes.
Council Member Schmid felt the Auditor should also report out to the Policy
and Services Committee.
Mr. Boussina understood from the prior City Auditor that audits concerning
Utilities would be heard by the Finance Committee and most other audits by
the Policy & Services Committee.
Council Member Schmid indicated the Solid Waste Program Audit may or
may not be a Utility audit.
Mr. Boussina explained the Audit concerned the Refuse Fund and Enterprise
Fund.
Council Member Schmid agreed it was an Enterprise Fund, but not
necessarily a Utility Fund. Presenting the Audit to the Policy & Services
Committee would be valuable as it concerned zero waste goals of the City.
Complaint Number 9 regarding the Hotline was noted as entered and closed
during the quarter. Yet, the complaint was referred. He requested
clarification.
Mr. Boussina felt the complaint was important but not necessarily
appropriate for the Hotline Committee to address. People Strategies and
Operations was the appropriate department to address the complaint. The
Hotline Committee considered the issues and agreed that would be the
appropriate course of action.
Council Member Schmid requested Staff express the action differently in
future reports; perhaps note a complaint was being reviewed by the
appropriate department.
Chair Price noted the City was impacted by reporting from the State Board
of Equalization with respect to Sales and Use Tax allocation reviews. Staff
could not provide information to the public or address potential
3 February 18, 2014
misallocations until it received reporting from the State Board of
Equalization.
Mr. Boussina concurred.
Chair Price inquired whether it was an ongoing issue.
Mr. Boussina replied yes.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid to recommend the City Council approve the Auditor’s Office
Quarterly Reports as of December 31, 2013.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Scharff absent
2. Approval of Updated Guidelines, Procedures, and Selection Processes
for the City of Palo Alto’s Cubberley Artists Studio Program (CASP,
Formerly the Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program), in Preparation
for the Spring Release of a New Application and Selection Process.
Rhyena Halpern, Assistant Director for Community Services, reported the
Cubberley Artists Studio Program (CASP) served artists well and
demonstrated the City's commitment to artists. CASP was essential to
retaining artists in the community. Policies were last reviewed by the Policy
and Services Committee in 1995. CASP began in 1989 in response to a need
for affordable space for artists. Approximately 60 artists had participated
since 1990. Currently 22 artists were in residence, 11 of whom were Palo
Alto residents. The program provided 23 studio spaces. Artists paid
approximately one-third of the market rate for studio space. The City
received approximately $100,000 in revenue annually for CASP. The City's
subsidy was valued at approximately $165,000 annually. Primarily two
types of programs were identified nationally. The first type of program was
a studio rental program; allowed unlimited lease renewals, sometimes had
low income requirements, and often had a low rate of turnover. The second
type of program was a residency program; was usually short-term with a
range up to three years. CASP was a hybrid program. Many programs
provided some type of rental subsidy. Many required an onsite service
component of two to eight hours per month. CASP required general service
but that service was not quantified in terms of time or location of service.
Many programs provided shared workspace and shared tools. CASP did not
provide shared space or tools. Most programs provided galleries and
program spaces. CASP did provide a dedicated exhibition space or program
space. CASP artists had limited opportunities to generate revenue. Many
programs had regular open hours for the community. CASP held open
studios twice per year and episodic programs. Many residency or juried
programs had term limits. CASP had terms but not term limits. Staff
4 February 18, 2014
surveyed 120 local artists. One third of respondents were searching for
studio space. Half of respondents were residents of Palo Alto; others were
residents of Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, and other
cities. Five artists currently in residence at Cubberley had been there for 15-
24 years, six artists for 10-14 years, ten artists for 4-9 years, and one for
less than 2 years. Since 2003, nine artists left CASP through attrition.
Current artists valued long residences and created a strong community.
Currently artists applied every five years and were required to donate a
piece of art to the City. CASP could serve more artists through term limits
and could better reflect the public sector's values. A wider range of artistic
disciplines and shared work space would be beneficial to the community.
Updating CASP policies and procedures could improve name recognition,
public value, economic impacts for artists, accountability and reporting, and
Staff involvement. Staff held five outreach meetings and communicated
informally with artists regarding proposed changes to CASP. Staff proposed
to institute term limits of two 4-year terms. Artists could apply again after
two additional terms. If studio space became available during a term,
termed-out artists could reapply and be placed on a waiting list. Staff
proposed focusing outreach on increasing the diversity of artistic disciplines,
the number of artists at different points in their career, and the number of
cultural approaches. Staff oversight of and involvement with CASP artists
would increase. Staff proposed implementing the practice of shared studios;
quantifying community service to four hours a month; increasing economic
activity for artists; and converting one vacant space into a café, gallery,
shop, and/or program space. Staff proposed an updated Mission Statement,
Values, and goals for CASP.
Council Member Schmid asked who performed the survey and how the list of
participants was chosen.
Ms. Halpern indicated a consultant performed the national research and local
survey.
Council Member Schmid requested details of the survey.
Alissa Erickson, Contractor, reported that SurveyMonkey was utilized for the
online survey which was open for three weeks in October 2013. Survey
participants were identified through the Art Center's Art Alert system, Art
Center teaching faculty, artists, and local galleries.
Ms. Halpern wished to perform a larger survey at some time in the future.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether respondents had some contact or
activity with CASP.
5 February 18, 2014
Ms. Erickson explained that respondents had contact with the City of Palo
Alto and the Art Center. The survey asked if respondents were familiar with
CASP, to which a significant portion of respondents indicated they were not.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether Staff was aware of any
information in the National Citizen Survey regarding art and the Art Center.
Ms. Halpern was not aware of any art information in the National Citizen
Survey.
Council Member Klein noted the difference in rates charged to Palo Alto
artists and nonresident artists appeared to be 10 percent. He asked how that
amount was determined.
Karen Kienzle, Senior Program Manager, did not know how the original
differential was determined. In the Budget Process two years ago, Staff
proposed an increase for rates charged to artists. Artists and City Staff
negotiated the current differential in rates.
Ms. Halpern reported in 1995 the rate was 41 cents per square foot for Palo
Alto residents and 45 cents per square foot for nonresident artists.
Council Member Klein calculated the differential for those rates to be 10
percent.
Greg Betts, Director of Community Services, explained that Staff proposed
an increase in artists' rates during the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget cycle. The
Finance Committee lowered the amount, and the differential for artist rates
was the same as that used for City camp programs and recreational
activities.
Council Member Klein understood the subsidy did not include amounts paid
by the City for utilities, and inquired about the amount the City paid for
utilities per square foot.
Ms. Halpern could provide that information at a later time.
Council Member Klein noted artists in residence did not pay utilities, taxes,
and maintenance for their studio spaces. If those amounts were included,
the City's subsidy would be greater. He suggested that information be
included in Staff's report to the City Council.
Ms. Halpern agreed to do so.
Council Member Klein inquired about the process for selecting the piece of
art donated by each artist in residence.
6 February 18, 2014
Ms. Kienzle explained that the Public Art Commission (Commission) worked
with artists to identify three works and then to select one of the three
pieces, considering how the individual piece would mesh with the public art
collection and long-term care.
Council Member Klein suggested Staff include that information in their report
as well.
Ms. Halpern stated artists were generous in their donations. Staff was
interested in receiving pieces that typified artists' work.
Council Member Klein referred to Staff's desire to increase attendance at
open studio programs, and asked how Staff proposed to do that.
Ms. Halpern reported Staff needed to be involved with artists in order to
collect good data to create a marketing plan.
Council Member Klein noted that points would be deducted for incumbent
artists based upon their number of years in residence. He asked how that
would work with proposed term limits.
Ms. Halpern reiterated that the existing CASP did not have term limits, and
Staff recommended term limits be instituted. For the upcoming selection
cycle only, Staff recommended a review process that awarded points to
applicants. Reducing the number of points for incumbent artists would
provide a better chance for other artists to participate in CASP.
Council Member Klein stated term limits would not begin for another eight
years.
Ms. Halpern agreed.
Council Member Klein asked why term limits were delayed for eight years.
Ms. Halpern wished to accommodate current artists in residence and their
need for studio space while also making CASP more accountable, accessible,
and equitable.
Council Member Klein expressed concern about the application of points. If
a deduction was only a few points, it would be meaningless. If a deduction
was 50 points, then Staff should institute term limits in the upcoming
selection cycle. There would always be a bias in favor of current artists in
residence.
Ms. Halpern inquired whether Council Member Klein was concerned about
not creating bias.
7 February 18, 2014
Council Member Klein was not sure the deduction of points would be
effective.
Ms. Halpern explained that the selection process would have two tiers. A
maximum of 20 points could be awarded in the first tier, which focused on
important criteria. If an applicant scored 15 points in the first tier, then he
would proceed to the second tier. A maximum of 30 points could be
awarded in the second tier. Points would be awarded for overall strength of
the application, the clarity and quality of the application, an artist's
commitment to community service, and City residency. A maximum of six
points would be deducted for incumbent artists based on the length of their
incumbency.
Council Member Klein asked if the score for an artist with 24 years as an
incumbent artist would be reduced six points.
Ms. Halpern responded yes. Depending on the pool of applicants, an
applicant receiving a score of 20 to 30 points would be recommended for
CASP. She requested Council Member Klein's opinion of the selection
process.
Council Member Klein was concerned that younger artists would not apply
because they did not believe they could be selected. He inquired whether
Staff spoke with younger artists not affiliated with CASP regarding the
selection process.
Ms. Halpern reported Staff learned of approximately six younger artists who
were interested in CASP.
Ms. Kienzle explained that one of the ongoing challenges was CASP's lack of
visibility in the Bay Area. Staff hoped to rectify the situation by partnering
with participating artists. Hopefully publicity regarding the new selection
process would generate strong interest. Informally Staff had heard from
non-participating artists that they were interested in CASP.
Ms. Halpern remarked that many artists traveled to San Francisco and San
Jose for studio space. Those artists would be interested in CASP. Staff had
no way of knowing the number of applications they would receive.
Council Member Klein inquired about the meaning of "demonstrated need."
Ms. Halpern indicated the artist would define need or identify his reasons for
needing studio space. The applicant would articulate his need for space and
how it would impact his work.
Council Member Klein suggested all artists would have the same reasons for
needing studio space.
8 February 18, 2014
Ms. Halpern did not know what the reasons would be.
Council Member Klein suggested Staff clarify that applicants did not need to
submit financial statements or income tax returns to demonstrate need.
Ms. Halpern agreed to do so.
Council Member Klein offered a hypothetical scenario of an incumbent artist
who was chosen for a second term of four years. The artist would have to
apply again in four years. He felt the artist would most likely be chosen
again unless the artist stopped working. He asked if it was likely that
current incumbent artists would remain in CASP for another eight years.
Ms. Halpern had no idea of the number of artists who would apply, and there
was no way to know that number.
Council Member Klein understood that the number of applicants was
unknown.
Ms. Halpern hoped some artists would reapply.
Chair Price inquired whether Staff deliberately drafted criteria that were
comparable to criteria of other programs.
Ms. Kienzle reported the proposed selection criteria were parallel with and
analogous to criteria of other juried programs.
Chair Price asked if Staff identified best practices in other programs that
could be utilized to obtain the goals of having a diverse artist population and
an intensive marketing campaign.
Ms. Halpern spent a great deal of time in the prior 15 years reviewing
studios in terms of economic development and growth of the creative sector.
In terms of best practices, Palo Alto and CASP was a unique situation. CASP
could create an energetic, dynamic space that involved many working artists
and maximized opportunities. Studio spaces at Cubberley could become an
exciting cultural destination. When that happened, economic impacts
happened.
Chair Price asked if Staff anticipated positioning CASP for other funding and
support. Few artist programs were affiliated with local governments. Staff
seemed to be suggesting they could market CASP and intensify the creative
community using a revitalized approach. She inquired whether current and
interested artists were interested in and expressed a need for shared space.
Ms. Halpern indicated all comments she received were positive about more
shared space. Many artists in residence were interested as well.
9 February 18, 2014
Ms. Kienzle agreed that generally comments were positive regarding shared
space.
Chair Price agreed with comments about economic vitality and cultural
presence. She inquired about Staff's plan to obtain a mixture of individuals
to serve on the panel.
Ms. Halpern felt it was important to have high-level jurists, whether artists,
arts administrators, or art professors. Staff would identify the highest level
of people who did not have conflicts of interest locally.
Ulla de Llarios noted the average stay for an artist at Cubberley was eight
years. The present system achieved the goals of evaluating Cubberley
artists against applicants from the community on an ongoing basis and
provided available studios for qualified applicants. The proposed rule change
was redundant, because the average rental period was eight years or less.
Term limits would not guarantee a stronger program, but would likely dilute
it.
Linda Gass commended many of the proposed changes, but failed to
understand how term limits would support the Mission, Vision, and goals of
CASP. The only purpose of term limits was to create turnover. Broad
advertising to attract a large pool of applicants and robust selection criteria
were the best methods to address turnover and the goals of the program.
Marguerite Fletcher stated there was not a gravitational likelihood that
current artists would automatically receive an advantage in a juried process.
CASP had artists from an astonishing number of cultures and an amazing
diversity of stages of career.
Margot Knight, Djerassi Resident Artists Program Executive Director,
believed CASP was a program where artists were partners with the City to
create a more vibrant community. Artists were not the key beneficiaries,
but secondary beneficiaries to a larger public policy to support a vibrant
community. Proposed changes would quantify community access and raise
the public profile. A good program would support a variety of artists, career
stages, ethnic groups, and art forms. An eight-year mandate was not
unreasonable. Perhaps a solution was a fallow period. She suggested an
eight-year limit for artists with a four-year period before artists could
reapply.
Council Member Klein inquired about Djerassi's process for selection, number
of artists in residence, and term of residence.
Ms. Knight received 900 applications from around the world for 2014
residencies. Djerassi utilized seven separate juried panels for seven
10 February 18, 2014
separate disciplines. Artists were invited for a period of 30 days. After a
residency, artists could not reapply for three years. Alumni artists were
invited for short residencies in the winter; however, Djerassi did not provide
the same level of service and staffing for winter residencies as for core 30-
day residencies.
Ms. Halpern indicated Staff wished to be equitable, accessible, and open
rather than punitive. If term limits were imposed, the worst case scenario
would be insufficient applications such that artists on a wait list would
receive studio space. Staff felt strongly that CASP should serve artists in
need and spread the wealth of CASP to as many artists as possible.
Council Member Schmid noted the City was negotiating with Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) regarding the future of Cubberley, and could need to
qualify its commitment to CASP in the future. He inquired whether the
proposed public space would be contiguous to studio spaces.
Ms. Halpern replied yes.
Council Member Schmid believed integrating the artistic community with the
broader community was important. Currently artist studios at Cubberley
were isolated from the broader community. Opening a gallery, selling art,
and increasing community awareness would be critical to CASP moving
ahead.
Ms. Kienzle provided a map of the artists' studios at Cubberley.
Council Member Schmid stated there was strong power in incumbency. An
existing artist in residence had an advantage in competition. Perhaps
incumbent artists were the best artists. He questioned whether long-term
residency was the best use of a resource. He noted students were excluded
from participation and asked why one studio was not set aside for young
people. That could be a way to create or help create a new generation of
artists. The survey had a clear bias toward older age groups.
Ms. Halpern explained that students were not included, because they had
more access to arts and studio space. The lack of support for studio space
was one of the main barriers to artists continuing to work. The Art Center
served younger people. The Teen Services Program provided many
opportunities in creative fields. Staff felt other programs served the younger
population.
Council Member Schmid questioned the ability to create an artistic
community if young people were excluded. He requested Staff present a
table that explained turnover by indicating the number of new artists that
11 February 18, 2014
were admitted to CASP in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. Each year the
number of incumbents was a small portion of the total applicants.
Ms. Halpern reported data for 1995 through 2003 was almost nonexistent.
Staff's best information indicated CASP served 60 artists over the life of the
program.
Council Member Schmid wanted to know the percentage of incumbents who
were selected.
Ms. Halpern could provide that information.
Council Member Schmid suggested that incumbents could be better artists
such that new applicants could not compete with incumbents. He wished to
ensure that Staff reached out to the wider community and made room for
outsiders.
Council Member Klein felt the number of applicants was not overwhelming.
Given the number of artists in Palo Alto, CASP should receive many more
applications. He questioned the need for CASP if only 20 applications were
received every few years.
Pamela Antil, Assistant City Manager, clarified that Staff did not think the
number of applications would be low. The low turnover rate and lack of a
term limit discouraged artists from reapplying.
Council Member Klein believed better publicity would result in a greater
number of applications. If it did not, then Staff should reexamine the need
for CASP. Staff should expand their thinking and propose different concepts
for term limits. He wanted to include artists in their 20s and 30s. Some
spaces should be reserved for the most promising artists. A system should
be more welcoming of artists who were not well established. On the other
hand, he did not want a wholesale turnover of artists.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid to continue the item until Staff returns with an updated staff report
and guidelines including an outreach plan ensuring a diverse range of artists
will apply and a phase-out process for incumbents.
Ms. Halpern indicated Staff discussed reserving one studio for emerging
artists, another for creative entrepreneurs, and another for installation and
public artists. The problem was Staff did not know the likely composition of
the applicant pool. Within the selection criteria, Staff was considering
artistic excellence or the potential for artistic excellence. Other criteria were
the artist's stated need and the artist's contributions to the program and the
12 February 18, 2014
community. An artist's fit into the overall program provided a variety of
diversity and artistic disciplines to assure plurality of representation.
Council Member Klein recommended Staff further revise CASP policies and
procedures. There was an advantage for incumbency, particularly for
present excellence versus a promise of excellence. He inquired about the
method for a jury to utilize those two criteria which seemed to compete with
one another. Perhaps two juries would be necessary.
Ms. Halpern explained that was the purpose of having two tiers in the
selection process.
Council Member Klein did not support delaying implementation of term limits
for eight years. A staggered system of one or three years with incumbents
divided into two classes could be more appropriate. He did not favor
removing artists over a short period of time. Staff should propose efforts to
reach less established artists and to obtain a greater number of applicants.
Chair Price was not comfortable with term limits. The jury process and
attrition would remove incumbent artists over time. She concurred with a
staggered approach. In a well juried system, the quality of the panel would
provide valuable creativity for artists and the broader community. Many
points in the Staff Report were good. Recreating a partnership between the
City and artists could provide a meaningful outcome.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER
AND SECONDER to return to the Policy & Services Committee on April 8,
2014.
Council Member Schmid did not wish to mandate a certain level of turnover.
Staff should include in their report efforts to obtain a more diverse group of
artists and a statement regarding the proposed public space. Those points
would be important in gaining community support.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 3-0 Scharff absent
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS:
Chair Price announced the next meeting was scheduled for March 25, 2014,
at 7:00 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:17 P.M.
1
Cubberley Artist Studio Program
Guidelines and Application
Mission
The Cubberley Artist Studio Program (CASP) supports the vitality of the arts in Palo Alto by
providing City-sponsored, affordable studio space for artists, building creative community and
fostering public engagement with the arts and artists.
Background
CASP is located at the Cubberley Community Center (“Cubberley”), a former high school site,
which the Palo Alto Unified School District leases to the City of Palo Alto (“City”). In addition to
the artist spaces, Cubberley serves as an auxiliary campus for Foothill College, a home to day
care providers, private schools, performing arts organizations, youth sports programs and other
community service programs.
Vision and Program Goals
Create a community for artists that fosters diverse and numerous opportunities for
growth and collaboration in the creation of new work.
Ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in terms of artistic disciplines,
artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic approaches.
Create a dynamic and accessible cultural destination for the community, with economic
value for the resident artists.
Foster active engagement and visibility with the community.
Continue to increase the reputation of the program as prestigious and competitive.
Ensure that the program is accessible, open, inclusive and equitable, and responsive to
the community need for studio space.
Program Overview
After a selection process, successful artist applicants are awarded a studio space for one
four-year term, and may reapply for a second term.
Artists may apply as individuals or in teams of two or more artists.
Staff may match up individual artists in a shared studio space.
23 single, shared or lab studios are available.
Studio sizes range from 360 to 1100 square feet.
Cultural Café- one dedicated space (formerly the Art Center’s Jewelry Studio) will be
transformed into a major gathering place for the community, for programming and
exhibition opportunities included but not limited to artist lectures, workshops,
performances, pop-up shops and a café.
2
Utilities are provided and paid for by the City (gas, electricity, wi-fi access, water, sewer
and refuse collection services) in connection with the rentals. Participating artists will
provide and pay for any and all telephone service at the leased premises.
Rent is subsidized by the City of Palo Alto (with commercial rate approximately $2.00-
$3.50/square foot). Rent is $0.82/square foot for Palo Alto residents, and $0.91/square
foot for non-residents.
Rental rates are subject to change in accordance with the Municipal Fee Schedule.
For artist teams, rent will be allocated amongst the team members in a process
determined by City staff. If there are multiple tenants, all names of the individuals shall
appear on the lease as tenants.
All artists must meet the City’s insurance requirements. Each artist must obtain and
maintain proof of liability insurance and taxes. (An option exists where artists can be
cove red under the City’s insurance policy for a fee.)
Artists selected to the program are expected to (please see CASP Responsibilities and
Requirements Section):
o Participate in a community of mutually supportive and respectful artists
o Regularly use the studio space. Artists agree to maximize the frequency of their
use of the studio.
o Complete four hours of service per month, or the equivalent on a quarterly or
annual basis. Service is focused on supporting the vitality of CASP.
o Donate one artwork in their first term (to the City’s Public Art Program.
o Participate in the Open Studio events, each year as well as any other open
community events.
o Provide written annual plans and annual reviews.
Eligibility
CASP seeks applications from artists at any stages in their careers, for which studio residency
would make a significant impact on their artistic development. Any artist residing in the
greater Bay Area is eligible to apply, although artists residing in Palo Alto will have preference.
CASP recognizes the increasing fluidity in contemporary artists’ working practices between and
across disciplines. As a result, the program is open to artists, working in traditional visual media
such as printmaking, painting, sculpture, mixed-media, and photography, as well as artists with
relatively newer genres including but not limited to new media and digital art, installation art,
public art, and social practices.
We encourage artists of any discipline to apply for consideration. For example, literary artists
and performance artists whose work contains a demonstrative visual element may be
considered. Creative entrepreneurs such as artisans or designers who create original products
may also be considered.
High school and university undergraduate students are not eligible to apply. Students in
graduate programs are eligible to apply, if studio spaces are not provided by their respective
universities.
3
Limitations of the Cubberley facility and infrastructure may prevent artists, who work in some
media, from participating in the program. These applications will be considered on a case-by-
case basis by staff.
Artists are eligible to apply for one four-year term, and then re-apply for the following
consecutive four-year term. After the two four-year terms have expired, artists must wait two
terms (eight years) before reapplying.
Selection Criteria
Creative excellence or the potential for creative excellence of the artist
The artist’s s strong exhibition history, reviews and/or record of accomplishments
demonstrated in resume or CV.
The artist’s demonstrated need for the program and the anticipated significant impact
to their artwork and/or careers.
The contribution that the artist intends to make in meeting the mission, vision and
goals of the program.
The artist’s intention to comply with the requirements of the program as outlined in
relevant documents including the guidelines, application, contract and specifically, the
Artists’ Requirements section below.
Residency in Palo Alto (preferred, but it is not required).
Selection Process
Artists must apply online in the CaFE system.
An applicant may not make contact, directly or indirectly, with the panelists before or during
the selection process, which spans from May 1 through September 5th, 2014. A violation of this
policy could result in the City’s determination of the applicant’s ineligibility.
Staff will do an initial review of all applications to ensure eligibility.
A panel of art professionals will evaluate and rank the applications according to the above
Selection Criteria in Phase 1.
In Phase 2, a team of at least 3 staff members, will place the highest ranking applicants
according to the program’s vision and goals. Staff may select to include a panelist from Phase 1
in this process.
If the application process identifies the need, short term rental of a studio may be offered.
Staff may match up individual artists in a shared studio space.
4
For the upcoming 2014 round, incumbent artists who are in residence or who have been in
residence at Cubberley within the last four years are invited to apply and can expect that if they
are selected, they will be entitled to serve a partial term.
In addition to those artists selected for studio residency, a number of artists will be selected as
alternates. Should a studio become available prior to the next selection process, staff will select
from the alternate list, based on rank, media compatibility, and diversity for the available space.
The selected artist would complete the remainder of the term and then may reapply in the next
selection process.
All decisions are final and are not subject to a grieving process.
5
Cubberley Artist Studio Program
Application Form
Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone: Email:
Website:
Application type:
_____Individual
_____Group (2 or more applicants wishing to share a lab studio)**
**Artists applying as a group should apply together by submitting ONE application per group,
specifying number of individuals on the application form, but indicate a lead applicant who will
serve as a contact person. In your Artist Statement (question #2), tell us how lab studio
residency will support your individual and collaborative work. Also explain the relationship
between the applicants and their prior collaborations together, as well as how you envision
sharing the studio time and space.
1. Briefly describe the primary media in which you work, including specialized equipment,
materials and supplies you typically use: (character limit)
2. If selected, please describe your physical space needs, requirements and/or preferences
(character limit).
6
3. If selected, please estimate the amount of time you would use your studio per week
/month. Do you have a regular studio schedule? If yes, please specify. (character limit)
4. Artist Statement: State your need for the studio program and the anticipated impact to
your work and career. (character limit)
5. One of CASP’s stated goals is to ensure that a wide range of experience is represented in
terms of artistic disciplines, artistic development, as well as diverse cultural and aesthetic
approaches. Please outline what you would contribute to the program for the benefit
of the community, and your ability to fulfill and reinforce the (draft) mission, vision and
goals. (character limit)
6. Residency at CASP requires a commitment of four hours of service per month, or the
equivalent, as well as a donation of artwork, and opening your studio twice a year for
Open Studios. Are you prepared and able to make these commitments? What skills or
experience do you have that may be used in fulfillment of your service? (i.e., teaching,
carpentry, webmaster, publicity, exhibition coordinator, archivist, event planning?
(character limit)
7. Residency at CASP includes expectations and requirements, listed in the CASP
Responsibilities and Requirements Section of this document. Please review them and
check here that you read them and understand these expectations and requirements,
and will comply with them if selected for the program. (check yes or no)
7
Cubberley Artist Studio Program Compliance Form
Upon signing this application, I, the Applicant, understand my responsibilities in supporting
CASP as a community context in which I can pursue creative work and share collegial
interaction with a small community of artists. In the spirit of the program, if selected, I intend to
commit myself to using the studio as intended by CASP and depart according to the terms of my
agreement with the City of Palo Alto. I further agree to abide by the Program’s guidelines and
policies.
Non-Discrimination: CASP encourages and welcomes the participation of artists from all
backgrounds and does not discriminate with regard to race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial
status, weight or height in its admission policies.
The Applicant has carefully read and fully understands these Guidelines and
Application.
The Applicant warrants that she/he/they has/have the capacity to successfully
undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations of the CASP Artist.
This Application may be withdrawn at any time.
The Applicant has fully completed the Application and provided the appropriate and
requested supplemental material.
All of the information provided with this Application is true and correct to the best
of the Applicant’s knowledge.
The City in the exercise of its discretion reserves the right to accept and reject any
and all Applications.
By submission of this Application, the Applicant grants consent to the City to verify
and substantiate or supplement information contained in this Application. The
Applicant hereby authorizes any third party to release to the City any and all
information concerning the Applicant which the third party possesses.
Name: ________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________________
Incomplete applications may be eliminated.
Make sure you have completed all the requested data and have included all required
materials. Please refer to the attached checklist before final submission.
8
Application Checklist
All application materials are to be submitted online through CaFE. We cannot accept
applications by hardcopy or email.
1. Completed application form
2. Documentation of recent work (see CaFE guidelines for uploading images).
o Please provide up to 6 representative images of your work.
Or
For artists who create performance, video, or time-based media, please provide a
link to video documentation of work online; up to 2 minutes will be screened.
And
o A URL to your website will be accepted either in lieu of or in addition to the
above; up to 2 minutes will be spent viewing your site.
3. Resume or curriculum vitae, including exhibition and publication history
4. Signed Compliance Form
Application Deadline: July 1, 2014
Receipt of your application will be acknowledged by email. Applicants will be notified of
selection results by no later than September 1, 2014. Move-in date will be scheduled for no
sooner than October 1 and no later than November 1, 2014.
Submit Application Materials to:
CaFE –
For questions: Contact Nadya Chuprina at nadya.chuprina@cityofpaloalto.org, or call
650.329.2227.
9
If an Applicant is accepted into CASP and joins the Program, the Applicant will comply with
the following requirements:
CASP Artist’s Responsibilities:
Regular use of studio space. Artist agrees to maximize the frequency of use of the
studio.
Service. Each artist is required to complete four hours of service per month, or the
equivalent on a quarterly or annual basis. Service is focused on supporting the vitality of
CASP. Each artist will make an annual proposal to meet the service requirement and
report progress quarterly.
Open Studios. Participation in Open Studio events and other open events each year
Artwork Donation. Donation of one artwork per residency term to the Public Art
Program of the City of Palo Alto is required. The donation is subject to the approval of
the Public Art Commission and will be deemed a gift made under terms and conditions
established by the City. CASP artists shall propose to donate to the City by no later than
during the last year of their lease. The process for accepting donations will involve the
Public Art Commission’s approval.
General Participation. CASP Artists are expected to participate in artists community
meetings.
Be a good neighbor. CASP artists shall act as good neighbors with their fellow artists, the
community, and the City. This shall include respectful communication, being responsive
to the needs of the diverse Cubberley community of artists and other groups, and the
City’s and the CSD’s staff.
Annual Review. Participation in an annual review process conducted by City staff. This
annual review will include a written statement from each CASP artist annually, on or
before a date identified by City staff, that outlines their productivity, plans for the next
lease term year, documentation of community service, exhibition activity and program
participation. This written statement will be reviewed at least once each year by CSD
staff. Failure to submit by stated deadline may prohibit contract renewal.
CASP Artist Requirements
Studio Space:
An artist must maintain liability insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 (Insurance
Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage with Comprehensive General,
Fire/Legal Liability coverage of at least $1,000,000 per person and per occurrence). This
insurance can be purchased from the City of Palo Alto.
An artist is required to pay annual tax assessments, including, but not limited to, the
possessory interest tax that may be attributable to the artist-tenant’s occupancy of the
Cubberley studio space.
The Cubberley studio must be the sole studio space for the artists and used for the
primary purpose of creating art. PROHIBITED USES: Any participating artist, who
maintains or intends to maintain a second studio, including a home studio, regardless of
10
the purpose of its use, will be disqualified from consideration as an artist-tenant at
Cubberley. Storage and live/work uses of the studio space are also not allowed. A CASP
artist may not use the studio for any unauthorized purpose or to engage in, or permit,
any other business activity within or from the studio.
An artist may use the studio secondarily for selling his/her artwork and for fee-based
teaching opportunities.
Regular use of studio space. An artist shall maximize the frequency of use of the studio.
Lease. The City leases space to artists-tenants on an annual basis; the term is a one-year
period. Once an artist is selected, he/she will not be re-evaluated during the balance of
the four–year term, but the City reserves the right to modify this policy upon notice. The
artist will be required to demonstrate annually, that he/she is meeting the requirements
of the program, complying with the terms and conditions of the lease, and otherwise
maintaining the eligibility standards for continued occupancy.
Terms. At the end of the fourth year of occupancy, the artist-tenant may be required to
resign the space, as the lease term expires at such time. The artist may submit another
CASP application and apply for consideration in a new round for another selection
process. After the two four-year terms have expired, artists must wait two terms (eight
years) before reapplying.
Leave Provision: Whenever an artist will be continuously absent from Cubberley for
over a one–month period, the artist-tenant shall notify the City, in writing by email and
in advance, of the proposed absence. Notwithstanding the leave of absence, the artist-
tenant’s obligation to make the rental payments will continue in accordance with the
lease agreement . Further clarification and requirements may apply depending on the
situation, to be determined by City staff.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4550)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability
Summary Title: Direct Staff to Pursue the Four-Component Organics Facilities
Plan
Title: Staff Requests Direction From Council on Pursuing the Four-Component
Organics Facilities Plan for Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, and Biosolids, Which
Includes: Recommending No Near-Term Uses for the Measure E Site,
Developing New Biosolids Facilities That May Also Process Food Scraps at the
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and Continuing With Off-Site
Composting of Yard Trimmings in the Immediate Future, and Rejecting All
Proposals in Response to the Energy Compost Facility or Export Option
Request for Proposals
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council direct Staff to:
1. Reject all proposals received in response to the “Energy/Compost Facility or
Export Option for Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, and Biosolids” Request for
Proposals (E/CF RFP) process.
2. Begin to pursue the Organics Facilities Plan (OFP, Attachment A) by hiring a
Program Management firm.
3. Apply for a State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Fund (SRF)
loan for Component One of the Organics Facilities Plan (OFP).
4. Initiate design of Component One of the OFP, Biosolids Dewatering and
Truck Haul-Out Facility, including direction to prepare related modifications
to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) partner agency
agreements.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
5. Initiate predesign of Component Two, Development of a Thermal
Hydrolysis Process Wet Anaerobic Digestion (THP AD) facility, at the
RWQCP; Component Three, Food Scrap Preprocessing; and Component
Four, Yard Trimmings Processing of the OFP, including the following:
a. Determine the price of electricity that the RWQCP will receive for power
generated by the facility;
b. Establish the optimum size of the THP AD facility built to accommodate
biosolids for a 30-year planning horizon as well as capacity for food
scraps, which Palo Alto and any other jurisdiction would commit to bring
to the facility;
c. Establish a list of contributing partner agencies who commit to bring
food scraps to the facility;
d. Finalize a financing plan for Component Two of the OFP;
e. Determine the appropriate purchasing and project delivery mechanisms
that should be utilized to develop the OFP; and
f. Determine the required CEQA documentation for the Components of
the OFP.
6. Update the existing timeline and schedule in December, 2014 for all
Components of the OFP including next steps for the development of
Component Four, Processing of Yard Trimmings, where Staff will seek to
identify and pursue technologies to harness the energy and resource
potential of yard trimmings that could be located on the relatively flat 3.8-
acre portion of the Measure E site or elsewhere.
Executive Summary
Rather than select any of the proposals submitted in response to the E/CF RFP,
staff instead recommends that the City of Palo Alto pursue an OFP, which staff
has developed in concept based on the review of proposals submitted in response
to the E/CF RFP and the draft Biosolids Facilities Plan (BFP).
(www.cityofpaloalto.org/energycompost)
The OFP provides the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP)
partners the best option for short-term resilience, long-term cost savings, energy
production, and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). A Graphic
Summary of the OFP is presented on the last page of Attachment A.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
In brief, the OFP consists of four components:
Component One: Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul-Out Facility.
Component Two: Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facility utilizing the Thermal
Hydrolysis Process.
Component Three: Food Preprocessing Facility; Preprocessed food scraps
would then be fed into the anaerobic digester
(Component Two above).
Component Four: The pursuit of technologies to harness the energy and
resource potential of yard trimmings.
In connection with its approval of the OFP, staff recommends that the City Council
reject all proposals submitted in response to the E/CF RFP. Staff’s
recommendation is based on issues related to economics, competitiveness,
operational issues, as well as legal procurement considerations.
Table 1 compares the costs and GHG emissions for the OFP, E/CF RFP Proposals
(Synagro, Harvest Power, and We Generation (Cambi Services)), and current
conditions (biosolids incineration, off-site composting of commercial food scraps,
and all yard trimmings):
Table 1
Comparison of the OFP, E/CF RFP Proposals, and Current Conditions
Organics
Facilities
Plan Synagro
Harvest
Power
We Gen
(Cambi)
Current
Conditions
Net Present Value
(20 years) of all costs $76.8 M $98.9 M $97.1 M $107 M $98 M
Annual Greenhouse
Gasses (MT CO2e)
Total (includes truck trips)
-5,260 MT 1,153 MT -3,263 MT -5,291 MT 3,057 MT
From an economic and competitive perspective, the costs for the OFP are lower
than any of the three E/CF RFP proposals available to the City at this time.
Existing proposals submitted in response to the E/CF RFP cannot be modified, or
combined to implement the OFP that staff proposes here. As a threshold matter,
City of Palo Alto Page 4
the OFP is substantially different, and more advantageous as compared with the
scope of work requested in the E/CF RFP and proposed by bidders in response.
Key differences include:
The OFP contemplates the City acting as the owner-operator of the
Anaerobic Digester (AD) facility, while the E/CF RFP asked proposers to
provide a privately funded and operated facility. This structural change
results in significant financial benefits over time, including efficiencies in
staffing and management.
Reduced overall cost resulting from the recently announced 30-year loan
terms available to the City and its regional wastewater partners, through
the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program;
Reduced risk to the City and its ratepayers through a phased approach to
development that matches investment in capital facilities with the growth
of the food scraps program.
While two of the bidders have subsequently offered to combine and modify their
proposals in an attempt to match staff’s improved OFP proposal, this combined
proposal would not comply with the existing RFP which requested a third party
operated facility. However, the current bidders would not be barred from
submitting subsequent proposals and bids. Further, now that staff has better
refined its preferred approach staff believes it will receive additional and more
cost effective proposals and bids in response to more narrowly focused RFPs and
Invitation For Bids (IFB).
For these reasons, staff recommends that the Council exercise its authority
pursuant to section 2.30.470(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and reject all
proposals submitted in response to the City’s E/CF RFP.
All four components of the OFP will be initiated and pursued as soon as possible,
through a series of new RFPs. The existing E/CF RFP proposers may reference
their existing proposals in new RFP submittals beginning with the first RFP to
select an overall Program Management Firm. Subsequent RFPs will select Project
Designers, and potentially Design/Build or Design/Build/Operate firms as
appropriate. The existing timeline will be updated this fall and submitted to
Council. Key next steps and tentative milestones are contained in the “Next steps”
Section, below.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Background
The organic waste streams of wastewater solids (also called sewage sludge), food
scraps from municipal solid waste, and yard trimmings, can be converted from
sources of GHG emissions to fuels for renewable energy generation, which would
dramatically reduce the City’s carbon footprint. Two factors contributed to a
reconsideration of the current organics’ processing options. First, capping the
closed Palo Alto Landfill led to the closure of the Palo Alto Composting Facility, a
facility that had been in operation for 30 years. Secondly, the RWQCP Long Range
Facilities Plan called for the replacement of the incinerators due to their advanced
age and regulatory concerns.
Passage of Measure E in 2011 and the BFP Evaluation
These two events were brought together by the citizen initiated Measure E,
passed in 2011, which called for consideration of processing all three waste
streams (biosolids, food scraps, and yard trimmings) on 10 acres of the closed
Palo Alto landfill, adjacent to the RWQCP. As part of the Action Plan developed
after the passage of Measure E (the 2011 Action Plan), the E/CF RFP was
developed and issued to proposers in March, 2013. The E/CF RFP allowed
proposers to use the 10-acre Measure E site as well as a half-acre site within the
RWQCP.
Concurrent with the E/CF RFP process , the BFP evaluated a range of options for
biosolids along with the E/CF RFP. Both the E/CF RFP proposals and the BFP
evaluation indicate the development of proven wet AD as the preferred
technology for biosolids treatment and food scraps. All of the competitive E/CF
RFP proposals utilized aerobic composting for the processing of yard trimmings.
These conclusions yielded an OFP that provides significant GHG reductions for the
City by generating local energy while increasing the RWQCP’s sustainability and
operational resilience. The OFP does not define a specific use for the Measure E
site and would limit any future use of the Measure E site to the “flat” 3.8-acre
area. This would free up the remaining 6.2 acres to be reconsidered as parkland.
Council and Community Involvement
Progress towards the recommendation of this report and development of the OFP
can be found in Staff Report ID# 4051, which accompanied the February 10, 2014,
Council study session. Since the study session, Staff continued an open dialog with
City of Palo Alto Page 6
the community. Staff had direct conversations with citizen panel members, who
represent both the groups that supported and opposed the November 2011
Ballot Measure E. The OFP was also presented to the public at community
meetings on April 1 and 5, 2014; and at a RWQCP Partners’ meeting on April 7,
2014.
A summary of the questions and discussion from Council, the community, and the
six-member community panel are included in Attachment B. Staff also discussed
the OFP with representatives from Harvest Power and We Generation (Cambi
Services), two of the competitive proposers. A fundamental question discussed
with all parties and reflected in the summary of the questions addresses the
exploration of options available to modify the E/CF RFP, modify a proposal, or
combine the proposals, in order to allow for a low risk, cost competitive and more
timely project. Discussions were held to identify a legal and effective way to
modify the E/CF RFP process for procurement of an organics processing facility.
However, based on legal, purchasing, and competitiveness concerns, a path
forward to develop a project using the current E/CF RFP proposals is not possible.
Therefore, staff recommends canceling the E/CF RFP as necessary to move
forward with the procurement steps for the OFP. The rationale for E/CF RFP
cancelation is discussed in greater detail in the Discussion section.
Discussion
Staff Recommends that the Council Direct Staff to Initiate and Pursue the
Organics Facilities Plan (OFP).
The OFP includes four components:
Component One: Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul-Out Facility
Wastewater Treatment Fund
City Owned and Operated
Component Two: Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facility utilizing the
Thermal Hydrolysis Process
Wastewater Treatment Fund and potentially
Refuse Fund
City Owned and Operated
Component Three: Food Preprocessing Facility, which feeds the Wet
Anaerobic Digester
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Refuse Fund
Component Four: The pursuit of technologies to harness the energy
and resource potential of yard trimmings
Refuse Fund
Components One, Two, and Three are fundamentally interrelated to process both
wastewater solids and food scraps. Work can begin concurrently on all four
components, but the components will not be completed by the same date.
The development of Component Four, yard trimmings research and development,
has little bearing on the development of Components One, Two, and Three, and
will be planned somewhat independently. A more complete discussion of the
timeline for the development of the Four Components is included in
Timeline/Next Steps section below. A graphic summary of all four components of
the OFP is presented on the last page of Attachment A.
Staff has prepared the following preliminary list of Next Steps. These will be
reviewed further as the existing project Timeline is updated and submitted to
Council in December, 2014.
1. Coordination Meetings with the RWQCP Partners Apr 2014
2. Issuance of Program Management Firm RFP Apr 2014
3. Present Proposed Electric Price (Under PA Clean
Program) to the Utilities Advisory Commission
Jun 2014
4. Selection of Program Management Firm Sept 2014
5. Deliver Updated Project Timeline to Council Dec 2014
6. Issue Component One Design/CEQA RFP Jan 2015
7. Commence Pre-Design Work on Components Two
through Four
Feb 2015
8. Finalize Coordination with RWQCP Partners (Food
Scraps and Financing)
Mar 2015
9. Develop Financing Plan for Components One and
Two
Mar 2015
10. Completion of Component One 2018 - 2019
11. Initial Retirement of Incinerators 2018 - 2019
12. Demolish Incinerators 2019 - 2020
13. Completion of Component Two 2020 - 2022
City of Palo Alto Page 8
14. Completion of decision making & potential
construction of Components Three & Four
2020 - 2022
Component One of the OFP: Development of Biosolids Dewatering and Truck
Haul-Out Facility
Overview
The City’s consultant, CH2M HILL, produced a BFP, which builds on the RWQCP’s
Long Range Facilities Plan. Component One, a Biosolids Dewatering and Truck
Haul-Out Facility is a key priority in the plan. This facility will provide the
necessary resilience to allow the RWQCP to transport biosolids in the case of a
disaster, emergency, or failure of the primary (current or future) biosolids
handling system. With proper planning the facility can be built ahead of, and still
be compatible with, various options for Component Two (see Attachment C Q7).
The Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul-Out Facility will allow the RWQCP to
decommission the sewage sludge incinerators and reduce GHG emissions by
2,343 tons per year. Additionally, the demolition of the incinerators will open-up
another half-acre at the RWQCP and allow more site planning options for
Component Two, the Thermal Hydrolysis Process AD Facility.
Estimated Cost and Timeline
Component One is both essential for the RWQCP’s reliable operations and a
necessary first step towards the development of an AD facility. It is anticipated to
cost $12 million (2015 dollars) and be completed by 2018. Annual operational
costs are estimated to be $1.6 to $2.0 million, depending on the final
transportation and disposal costs of the biosolids. Two currently viable and
environmentally preferable destinations for the dewatered solids are: (1) the
Synagro Central Valley Compost Facility in Merced County, the same facility in the
Synagro E/CF RFP proposal, and (2) the East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD) wastewater treatment plant in Oakland, CA. Other options may be
identified as part of Component One.
Component Two: The Development of Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP)
Anaerobic Digester (AD)
Overview
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Component Two is the development of THP AD. Anaerobic digestion is a proven
wastewater technology for stabilizing sludge and biogas generation. Wastewater
treatment plants worldwide use wet AD systems to treat sludge. Due to the high
water and low solids content of sludge, wet AD is an appropriate technology, and
still compatible with the addition of the higher solid food scraps. At least two
publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants in the Bay Area – EBMUD in Oakland
and Central Marin Sanitation Agency in San Rafael – are using wet AD to process
and “co-digest” combined wastewater solids and food scraps.
The BFP provides an evaluation of three wet AD technologies and preprocessing
options. The option that provides the greatest biogas yield, smallest physical
footprint, and the highest quality biosolids, was the combination of THP with wet
AD. The smaller physical footprint offers a significant advantage for dealing with
site planning constraints within the available area. According to the BFP
recommendations, THP AD technology provides clear non-monetary benefits for
treatment and disposal of sewage sludge and favorable overall project economics.
See Table 1 above.
THP AD Technology
The most established THP AD system under development in North America is a
proprietary technology sold by CAMBI, Norway; CAMBI is also the technology
provider included in the We Generation (Cambi Services) E/CF RFP proposal. The
CAMBI THP technology has been installed and operated at 40 wastewater
treatment plants throughout Europe, South America, Japan, and Australia. A new
CAMBI THP system will begin operation in July 2014 at the Washington, D.C. Blue
Plains wastewater treatment plant, the first CAMBI THP system in North America
and largest in the world. A CAMBI THP system is in design for the Hampton Roads
Sanitation District wastewater treatment plant in Virginia Beach, VA. The San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Southeast Wastewater Treatment
Plant is evaluating the use of a CAMBI THP system as part of its new digester
project. The SFPUC project is also contemplating co-digesting food scraps into the
CAMBI THP AD system. SFPUC staff have successfully pilot tested the co-digestion
of food scraps with their wastewater solids.
Pre-design, Estimated Cost and Timeline
Prior to moving forward with Component Two, design development (predesign) is
needed to answer vital questions related to project sizing, the use and sale of
City of Palo Alto Page 10
electricity, project financing, site considerations, project delivery options, and
RWQCP Partner approval considerations. It is anticipated to cost $57 million (2015
dollars) and be completed between 2020-2022. Initial annual operational costs
are estimated to be approximately $400,000.
Biogas generated by the THP AD facility would fuel an onsite combined heat and
power system. The energy is 100 percent renewable power and heat for the
RWQCP, offsetting purchased power, and providing 4,560 tons of GHG reduction
per year.
Ultimately, moving forward with Component Two will require selecting a project
delivery method that takes into account the costs, speed of delivery, quality of
the project, ability to operate, risk, and City control. Staff will consider both
design-bid and design-build project delivery options.
The predesign of Component Two (THP AD), which will define the project, is
estimated to take about seven months when staff can return to Council with the
next steps to release an RFP for the design or a design-build contract for the THP
AD system. The CEQA process could also begin at this next step.
The project can take advantage of the area in the RWQCP opened up by the
decommissioning and demolition of the incinerators. The goal would be to
complete the design phase of the THP AD development by 2018. Construction
could begin shortly thereafter with the THP AD facility fully operational for the
processing of biosolids in 2022. These preliminary time frames will be reviewed
and an updated Timeline will be submitted to Council in December, 2014.
Component Three – Food Scrap Preprocessing
Overview
In order to successfully process food scraps in a THP AD, the food scraps must be
preprocessed so that contaminants are removed and the food can be pumped
into the THP AD facility. Since food scraps provide energy potential by increasing
the digester’s biogas output, the marketplace has been active in developing new
technologies to preprocess food scraps.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
The City currently collects commercial food scraps (12,100 tons annually) but not
residential food scraps (estimated at 3,400 tons annually). Staff plans to evaluate
the costs and benefits for increased collection and handling costs needed to
separate food scraps from the residential garbage and yard trimmings, and will be
reporting back to Council in fall 2014. THP AD facility predesign will identify the
initial available excess capacity for food scraps. This capacity will help determine
how much additional food could be accepted into the facility or if additional THP
AD capacity should be built to accommodate available feedstocks.
Food waste tonnage and its source(s) will also help define not only the size of the
preprocessing equipment but also its potential location. Despite the constrained
footprint of the RWQCP, the preprocessing facilities might be able to be located
on the RWQCP site next to the THP AD facility. Conversely, the food scrap
preprocessing could be located at an off-site location where the food scrap loads
could be tipped, preprocessed into slurry and consolidated into larger trucks to be
pumped into the THP AD facility. Staff observed an example of this in the We
Generation (Cambi Systems) proposal submitted in response to the E/CF RFP,
which included the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos as a
preprocessing site. Other material recovery options could include transfer
stations, like the Sunnyvale Material Recovery and Transfer (SMaRT) Station,
where Palo Alto is a partner.
Inclusion of Palo Alto’s commercial food scraps in the digester has the potential to
increase biogas production and further reduces the City’s GHG emissions by 1,825
tons of CO2e. Collecting residential food scraps suitable for an AD system presents
some unique challenges. Staff may recommend the co-composting of residential
food scraps with yard trimmings as a more cost effective, convenient, and
sustainable processing option. Staff also will continue to actively support and
encourage home composting.
Estimated Costs and Timeline
Due to the uncertainty about the sizing and location of a preprocessing facility,
staff’s cost estimates for Component Three are preliminary, and will be later
refined as the research noted above is completed. At this time, and subject to
later revision, capital costs are estimated at $8.9 million. The capital costs along
with RWQCP treatment costs will be recovered through food scrap tipping fees.
The preliminary food scrap tipping fee estimate is $46 per ton, also refined later.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
The development time for a food preprocessing system could be relatively short.
The technology is modular and relatively compact. However, for food
preprocessing and digestion in Component Three to begin, the RWQCP must be
certain that the THP AD facility is fully operational and that it meets regulatory
requirements. Therefore, the full deployment of Component Three would be
completed between 2020-2022, at least one year after the THP AD facility begins
operation.
Component Four – Yard Trimmings Processing
While aerobic composting is an established and environmentally sound
processing option, new technologies are being developed to harness the energy
and resource potential of yard trimmings. The San José/Santa Clara Regional
Wastewater Facility recently approved a one-year small scale demonstration
project to gasify wood waste with biosolids. Staff will continue to follow these
emerging technology developments and improvements in composting technology
to evaluate whether a local facility on the 3.8-acre relatively flat portion of the
Measure E site is a sustainable option. Staff recommends no change to the
current yard trimmings compost operations in the near term.
Staff Recommends that the Council Reject all Proposals Submitted in Response
to the E/CF RFP
In connection with its approval of the OFP, staff recommends that the City Council
reject all bids submitted in the E/CF RFP. Staff’s recommendation is based on
issues related to economics, competitiveness, as well as legal procurement
considerations. A description of the E/CF RFP and the specific proposals received
is described in detail in the February 10, 2014 staff report (Staff Report ID# 4051).
The E/CF RFP was designed to provide firm pricing and test the market for novel
or new technologies to process food scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids. The
expectation was that there would be synergy associated with processing the three
waste streams together and that would warrant the associated risk. However, the
technologies proposed were generally considered conventional with a limited
amount of risk. Therefore, while the three E/CF RFP proposals were competitive,
the shift in staff understanding of the cost-benefit potential of a THP AD system
based on the findings in the BFP and the realization that a City owned-and-
City of Palo Alto Page 13
operated facility would provide long-term savings with minimal risk exposure has
led staff to recommend canceling the E/CF RFP and rejecting proposals. The We
Generation (Cambi Services) proposal provides a technology solution similar to
the OFP. Unfortunately, due to the low score and the fact that the We Generation
(Cambi Services) was also the highest cost proposal, the E/CF RFP process was not
an appropriate procurement vehicle to secure the THP AD technology. Staff, as
shown in the cost section, has illustrated how it can deliver a more robust project
at a lower cost over the 20-year term than the proposals.
While not the goal of the E/CF RFP process, staff noted that the E/CF RFP
proposals validated the technology suite (AD and composting) that forms the
basis of the OFP. Both the proposers and city consultants have confirmed that
staff should focus on these technologies. Technologies like dry AD and gasification
do not appear to be viable solutions in the near term. Staff would allow the E/CF
RFP proposers to reference their proposals in any subsequent OFP procurement
process.
Economic and Competitive Factors Support Rejection of all Proposals.
The four-component OFP provides the City with a more cost effective,
environmentally robust, and flexible option for processing food scraps, yard
trimmings, and biosolids, than the E/CF RFP proposals. To illustrate this, staff
compared the three competitive E/CF RFP proposals to the OFP and current
operations. The key parameters being compared are costs, GHG, and technical
factors. For a full description of the E/CF RFP proposals and how the proposals
were screened, see Staff Report ID# 4051 from February 10, 2014.
Cost
To compare the overall costs of the project, staff converted proposal data into
equivalent terms for key criteria in order to determine the comparable net
present value for the different project proposals. For the economic model, staff
used an inflation rate of 2.5 percent per year, a net present value discount rate of
4 percent, a sale price of energy at 10.4 cents / kilowatt hour (kWh), a 20-year
financing period, a borrowing rate of 4.5 percent for privately funded projects,
and a borrowing interest rate of 2.5 percent for publicly funded projects. The
different alternatives used the same assumptions for the three feedstocks.
Changing any of these variables would have an impact on the overall economics
of any project. The price that the City’s utilities will pay for any renewable energy
City of Palo Alto Page 14
generated by the project can be an important variable that influences projects
economics when comparing an export option for biosolids and food with an
onsite AD.
Table 2 compares the proposals submitted in response to the E/CF RFP with the
OFP and current conditions as follows:
1. The Four-Component Organics Facilities Plan
2. The Synagro (export) proposal
3. The We Generation (Cambi Services) proposal with outside food scraps
4. The Harvest Power proposal with outside food scraps, and
5. Current conditions (biosolids incineration, off-site composting of food
scraps and yard trimmings)
While the E/CF RFP responders each proposed multiple alternatives, the chart
includes only the option that provides the most favorable pricing to the City over
a 20-year term. A 30-year option is also presented for the OFP and the Harvest
Power proposal – the only E/CF RFP proposal to include a 30-year option.
Table 2
Comparison of the OFP, E/CF RFP Proposals, and Current Conditions
Organics
Facilities
Plan Synagro
Harvest
Power
We Gen
(Cambi)
Current
Conditions
Net Present Value
(20 years) of all costs $76.8 M $98.9 M $97.1 M $107 M $98 M
Annual GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Total (includes truck trips)
-5,260 MT 1,153
MT
-3,263
MT
-5,291
MT 3,057 MT
Annual Truck Trip
Greenhouse Gasses (MT
CO2e)
284 MT 748 MT 142 MT 253 MT 291 MT
RFP Rank Scoring
(1 = Best) -- 1 2 3 --
Notes: 20 year term, all three feed stocks (food scraps, yard trimmings, biosolids)
2.5% Inflation
4% Net Present Value Discount Rate
City of Palo Alto Page 15
City Financing at 2.5% Interest
Private Financing at 4.0% Interest
Harvest Power and We Generation (Cambi Services) will accept outside food scraps
The OFP provides the lowest overall net present value (NPV) over the 20-year
time horizon ($76.8 million NPV). This is a result of the lower borrowing costs for
the City (2.5% interest) as compared to the private sector (4% interest).
Additionally, the bulk of the expense in the OFP, especially for biosolids, is a
capital expense, which does not increase over the 20-year term. The E/CF RFP
proposals have much higher operating and maintenance costs that were
estimated to escalate over the term annually at a 2.5% inflation rate. The
operation and maintenance of a City-operated facility can be completed with
existing staff. Therefore, this escalation yields an overall higher net present value
for the E/CF RFP proposals and the current conditions.
An additional Synagro proposal to export and process only biosolids (not shown in
the table) is the lowest priced option ($53 million NPV). When considering the
addition of composting food scraps at Z-Best into the Synagro proposal ($70
million NPV), the OFP ($64 million NPV) comes in at a lower price.
CH2M HILL, in their analysis of the E/CF RFP proposals noted the relatively low-
cost estimates the proposers provided for capital costs and voiced concerns that a
project built by the proposers would need to be “replaced” after a 20- or 30-year
term. The quality of materials used for the BFP cost estimate (concrete digesters,
full redundancy for major equipment, etc.) is distinctly different than the quality
of materials (and expected life) assumed in the E/CF RFP proposals. On the other
hand, the OFP engineering estimates provide for facilities that are designed to
have a 30-year functional life and could be extended to 50 years (as is true at
other wastewater treatment plants). The OFP may be a higher capital cost, but it
will be less expensive over a 30-year term and provide a reliable facility long into
the future.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
GHG emissions estimates are based on the latest 2013 emissions estimates for
the RWQCP incinerators, the 2011 Energy/Compost Facility Feasibility Study
completed by Alternative Resources Inc. (ARI), and the analysis provided by CH2M
HILL in the BFP. As mentioned earlier, a large reduction in CO2 equivalent
anthropogenic GHG is a result of the decommissioning of the RWQCP sewage
City of Palo Alto Page 16
sludge incinerator. The RWQCP will see its annual GHG emissions change from its
current 3,057 metric tons to a new 714 metric tons (2,343 metric ton reduction
per year) by constructing a solids dewatering and truck haul-out facility, retiring
the incinerators, and hauling to the Central Valley. Staff will continue evaluating
hauling the sludge to either the Central Valley for composting or to EBMUD in
Oakland; the hauling price with EBMUD is still negotiable. EBMUD offers an
option where GHG emissions would offset RWQCP GHG emissions approximately
1,660 metric tons because EBMUD already has existing digesters and electricity
producing equipment and sells renewable energy to the Port of Oakland.
By adding THP AD, the City will see a further change in emissions from producing
714 metric tons of CO2e to offsetting 3,846 metric tons (i.e., a total 4,560 metric
ton reduction). The OFP, the We Generation (Cambi Services) proposal, and the
Harvest Power proposal, all achieve similar greenhouse gas emission reductions.
The Synagro proposal, which uses aerobic composting to process biosolids and
food scraps, is an improvement over the current operations, but does not achieve
the reductions associated with digestion and the generation of renewable energy.
Food scraps added to the THP AD system will provide dramatic increases in biogas
production. The addition of Palo Alto’s commercial food waste will result in nearly
5 million kWh of renewable power every year. When compared to the existing
composting operations, the resulting power will yield a reduction in GHG
emissions by 1,795 metric tons of CO2e.
Implementing the OFP will see emissions drop by over 8,000 metric tons of CO2e –
the equivalent of removing over 1,500 cars from the road.
Technical Analysis
The BFP compared a variety of different technologies, including the three
technologies offered by the E/CF RFP: composting by Synagro; traditional AD with
thermal drying by Harvest Power; and THP AD by We Generation (Cambi
Services). The BFP compared cost, energy output, and a number of different
qualitative factors; the BFP identified the THP AD technology as the best long-
term option for the RWQCP with traditional mesophilic AD as a close second
option. Aerobic composting of biosolids or transport to EBMUD for AD were seen
as good interim solutions during construction of an on-site facility. CH2M HILL
City of Palo Alto Page 17
also provided technical support on the E/CF RFP evaluating and supporting the
efficacy of the technology in the proposals.
The City’s consultant, Alternative Resources Inc. (ARI), supported staff in the
evaluation of the E/CF RFP proposals. The proposal scoring was 50 percent
technical (or non-cost) and 50 percent cost. The costs are evident in the table. The
nonmonetary evaluation was comprised of six sections:
1. Quality of Proposal (5%)
2. Technical Resources and Experience (15%)
3. Financial Resources/Strength of Proposal (15%)
4. Record of Performance/Reliability of Technology (25%)
5. Technical Approach (25%)
6. Business Proposal (15%)
Seven reviewers who represented the City Departments of Public Works, Utilities,
and Administrative Services, along with representatives from Stanford and the
City of San José, provided scores, which were based on the submitted proposal
and an interview.
Proposal Qualitative Score Cost Rank
Synagro 66.00 1
Harvest Power 57.29 2
We Generation (Cambi Services) 51.43 3
Five of the seven reviewers ranked Synagro number one and two ranked Harvest
Power number one.
Legal Considerations Support a Rejection of All Proposals
The current RFP contemplated a third party operated facility, rather than one
operated by the City. While the proposals technically comply with the
requirements in the RFP, the RFP process itself has convinced staff that certain
third party owned and operated facilities are no longer the best approach. In
addition, while the RFP contemplated an emerging technology (though did not
require it), none of the bidders proposed it. Accordingly, the more conservative
risk allocation structure contained in the RFP served to add unnecessary cost to
City of Palo Alto Page 18
the proposal. While some of the proposals technically comply with the RFP, the
RFP no longer represents staff’s modified OFP proposal.
While two of the bidders have subsequently offered to combine and modify their
proposals in an attempt to match staff’s improved OFP proposal, this combined
proposal would not comply with the existing RFP which requested a third party
operated facility. However, the current bidders would not be barred from
submitting subsequent proposals. Further, now that staff has better refined its
preferred approach staff believes it will receive additional and more cost effective
proposals and bids in response to more narrowly focused RFPs and Invitations For
Bids.
Responding to Key Issues
In the development of the OFP, Staff has received many comments from the
Council, the E/CF RFP proposers, RWQCP partner agency staff, the six-member
community group of Measure E supporters and Byxbee Park open space
advocates, and formal community meetings. Staff has provided response to the
comments received in Attachment C to this staff report.
Timeline/Next Steps
Staff has prepared the following preliminary list of Next Steps. These will be
reviewed further as the existing project Timeline is updated and submitted to
Council in December, 2014.
1. Coordination Meetings with the RWQCP Partners Apr 2014
2. Issuance of Program Management Firm RFP April 2014
3. Present Proposed Electric Price (Under PA Clean Program) to the
Utilities Advisory Commission
Jun 2014
4. Selection of Program Management Firm Sept 2014
5. Deliver Updated Project Timeline to council Dec 2014
6. Issue Component One Design/CEQA RFP Jan 2015
7. Commence Pre-Design Work on Components Two through Four Feb 2015
8. Finalize Coordination with RWQCP Partners (Food Scraps and
Financing)
Mar 2015
9. Develop Financing Plan for Components One and Two Mar 2015
10. Completion of Component One 2018 - 2019
11. Initial Retirement of Incinerators 2018 - 2019
City of Palo Alto Page 19
12. Demolish Incinerators 2019 - 2020
13. Completion of Component Two 2020 - 2022
14. Completion of decision making & potential construction of
Components Three & Four
2020 - 2022
Resource Impact
In the following sections, the resource impact for the Wastewater Treatment
Fund, the Refuse Fund, and the Gas and Electric Funds are discussed. Components
One and Two will be budgeted primarily in the Wastewater Treatment Fund and
Components Three and Four will be budgeted primarily in the Refuse Fund. As
referenced in the “Recommendations” section of this staff report Council
authorization to pursue a design contract is only being requested for Component
One. As this plan, if approved by the City Council, moves forward, staff will bring
forth related resource impact descriptions to the City Council.
Wastewater Treatment Fund Financial Resource Impacts
The project and operating costs for the Component One (biosolids dewatering
and haul-out), and Component Two (THP AD) facilities will be funded by the City
of Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Fund. For more information on how partners
fund the Wastewater Treatment Fund, see Attachment C Q12. At Council
direction, staff will initiate work with all five partner agencies to modify
agreements, as needed, and bring the recommended project to partner agencies
for approval before bringing back the modified agreements to Council for final
approval.
For Components One (dewatering and haul-out facilities) and Two (biosolids THP
AD), the Wastewater Treatment Fund’s new debt service expense (approximately
$3.3 million / year) will be recovered through partner and sewer fund billing and
paid to the State of California under terms of an SRF loan (discussed under project
delivery in Attachment C Q16). Staff will return to Council for adoption of the
resolution authorizing the application of the SRF loan. As of March 2014, the state
SRF loan rate is 1.9% on a 30-year repayment term, which is a public financing
rate much more favorable than that available to the RFP proposers through
private financing. Staff will return to Council for authorization of a funding
agreement for the loan. Financing tables for a $69 million SRF loan are included in
Attachment E.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
A THP AD facility, especially one designed in part for food scrap digestion, is a
strong candidate for grant funds. CalRecycle and the California Air Resources
Board have prioritized food scrap AD as an excellent technology to reduce GHG in
the solid waste sector. Grant funds are generally made available to “shovel-ready”
projects in the construction stage after design, permitting, and environmental
work has been completed. While staff cannot currently secure any grant funds,
staff can evaluate the general availability of grants and will pursue grants to
reduce capital cost, improve project financing, and reduce ratepayer impact.
There will be no net change in total personnel to operate the system. Similar to
other wastewater plants, staff recommends that a post-construction startup and
support phase be included to ensure safe and reliable operation and proper
transfer to city operations staff.
Wastewater Treatment Fund Operating Cost Reductions
Implementing Component Three (food preprocessing) and using surplus THP AD
capacity may reduce operating cost impacts in the Wastewater Treatment Fund.
The project may also be eligible for grants, which will be pursued if the project
meets requirements. Specific financial grant opportunities are summarized in the
BFP report.
Food scrap revenue estimates are preliminary and at the early investigative stage.
Food scrap revenue can be realized by setting the tipping fee for potential
customers at a point that is below or at market rate and above the treatment
costs. Staff believes that the market rate is approximately $45 to $50/wet ton
tipping fee for treatment of food scraps. Collection and transport costs vary by
agency. Treatment costs for a new food scrap system are still being estimated and
depend on the commitment period required for return on investment as well as
available surplus capacity in the THP AD over time. Because of the need for cost
recovery for the initial capital cost of an onsite food processing system, it appears
that little available revenue from receiving food scraps would be available to
defray wastewater treatment fund operating expenses. Taking in food scraps
from offsite pre-processing systems might offer better wastewater treatment
fund cost defrayal opportunities and yield higher long-term operational reliability.
More research is needed. Given the speculative nature of food scrap revenue and
the lack of current commitments for solid waste food scrap treatment, staff is not
currently considering this revenue as guaranteed over the life of the digester
City of Palo Alto Page 21
facility. Partner agencies will be granted first rights of refusal to available surplus
capacity on a first-come, first served basis; surplus capacity is estimated at 19,000
dry pounds per day (9.5 dry tons per day), which is approximately equivalent to
the tonnage of Palo Alto commercial food scraps currently collected. Staff has
been and will continue to evaluate interest and commitment level from partner
agencies.
Refuse Fund Resource Impacts
Staff believes that there would be no adverse Refuse Fund impacts from
participating in the OFP. The Refuse Fund currently pays its hauler to accept
commercial food scraps for composting at the Z-Best Composting Facility near
Gilroy. The City’s agreement term with GreenWaste of Palo Alto terminates in July
2017 unless extended. With a new or revised contract the City could divert its
food scraps to a City operated organics facility. The tip fee is not defined at this
time.
While the Refuse Fund can take advantage of surplus digester capacity, some
additional upsizing might be needed for the food wastes (or use standby
equipment). A rough estimate of a capital costs needed ($8.9 million) for an
onsite food scrap handling system is in addition to the estimated $69 million
needed for the wastewater treatment equipment for biosolids handling
(Components One and Two). To offset the capital costs, the Refuse Fund would
most likely pay a “tip fee” to the Wastewater Fund. The Refuse Fund would need
a 20- to 30-year commitment to process food scraps at the RWQCP in order for
the project to be economically feasible.
Electric and Gas Fund Resource Impacts
An AD project’s economics are very sensitive to the price that Utilities will pay for
any renewable energy generated from the project. The project’s electric rate is a
critical factor in realizing local benefits. The price of electricity must be approved
by Council following recommendations and discussions among Public Works,
Utilities, and ASD. Activities to discuss the price of electricity are shown in the
Next Steps and include starting discussions with the Utilities Advisory Commission
in June, 2014 and returning to Council by year end.
Total RWQCP energy use in 2013 was 16,493 MWh/year in electric use and
412,129 therms of natural gas. The Component One biosolids dewatering and
City of Palo Alto Page 22
truck haul-out component of the project will reduce the RWQCP’s natural gas and
electric expenses by approximately $441,0001 and $151,8782 per year,
respectively (approximately 400,000 therms of natural gas and 1,487 MWh/year
of electricity).
Component Two, the THP AD system, produces more energy than it needs to run
itself. A summary table is shown below; net energy for the THP AD system for
biosolids only is 15,573 MWh/year. Adding food scraps as part of Component
Three will produce an additional 5,424 MWh/year of power.
Table 3
Summary of Energy for Component 2 THP AD (biosolids only)
Parameter Unit Quantity
Conversion
kWh/unit
Energy
kWh/year
Truck Vehicle Miles Miles/year 91,276 n/a n/a
Diesel Petroleum
Consumed Gallons/year 14,488 38 549,828
Natural Gas Consumed MBTU/year 0 293 0
Power Consumed kWh/year 1,722,857 1 1,722,857
Power Produced kWh/year -14,231,597 1 -14,231,597
Heat Produced MBTU/year -12,333 293 -3,614,523
Landfill Emissions
dry tons
landfilled/year 0 n/a n/a
-15,573,436
Natural gas will not be used initially and in negligible amounts in later years of the
system (i.e., there are some minor needs for backup fuel, waste gas burners, and
auxiliary equipment). Net heat produced (3,615 MWh/year) will be used to heat
the biosolids building and for process heat. The electric energy produced
(14,231,597 kWh/year from two 800 kW engines) would be subject to an
Interconnection Agreement between City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) and the
RWQCP providing for the interconnection with the City grid; the agreement would
be subject to Council approval. If purchased by CPAU, the potential 14,232
MWh/year of produced RWQCP electric energy would supply approximately 1.5%
1 $441,000 is approximately 1.13% of the adopted FY 14 budget’s $38,866,000 expected annual gas fund revenue
2 $151,878 is approximately 0.11% of the adopted FY14 budget’s $135,255,000 expected annual electric fund
revenue
City of Palo Alto Page 23
of CPAU’s electric needs of 972,000 MWh/year3, and it would add to the City’s
renewable energy portfolio.
The RWQCP’s produced electric energy can either (a) offset RWQCP electric needs
and/or (b) be sold to electricity buyers. More specifically, options include:
1. Offset RWQCP power (currently purchased at 10.214 cents/kWh under E-
18/E-18G) and pay standby charges pursuant to rate E-7 when the engines
are offline, not producing electricity; or
2. Sell the produced power:
a. Sell all produced power to CPAU at market value (currently about 9.53
cents/kWh) through a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) subject
to Council approval, retaining the option to offset plant power and pay
standby charges under rate E-7-G; or
b. Sell all produced power on the open market (e.g., to Stanford, PG&E,
etc.) through a 20-year PPA and pay a “wheeling charge” for the
transmission costs; or
c. Sell all produced power to CPAU through a 20-year PPA subject to
Council approval capturing the benefits of a yet-to-be-determined
incentive rate for renewable baseload power (feed-in-tariff rate for local
solar is currently 16.5 cents/kWh). This option is not yet available but
the current 20-year levelized value of local baseload (24 hours/day)
renewable energy production is 9.53 cents/kWh. This would require a
change to Council policy.
Using biogas energy to offset RWQCP power needs instead of selling the power to
CPAU may provide a greater financial benefit for the RWQCP, unless a buyer
offers a purchase price much higher than the 20-year electric expenses of the
RWQCP. In January 2013, Council approved a policy on the pricing of energy that
would be purchased by CPAU from potential green waste-to-energy facilities
(Staff Report #3432). The policy states that CPAU committed to purchasing the
electricity at the market rate for renewable energy (including any avoided
transmission or other costs) at the time the contract is signed. Based on current
market conditions staff estimates that price to be about 9.53 cents/kWh for a 20-
year purchase commitment. In the interest of providing some level of certainty
around the energy price, the resolution also committed CPAU to purchasing the
3 Fiscal Year 2012 purchase = 972 GWh
City of Palo Alto Page 24
electricity at a default floor price of 7.7 cents/kWh. Both the 7.7 cents/kWh and
the 9.53 cents/kWh is well below the price needed to make the project financially
viable for RWQCP partners. Utilities Department staff have indicated that a price
equivalent to the 16.5 cents/kWh Palo Alto CLEAN rate for local solar generation,
would result in a cost increase of approximately $1 million/year for the Electric
Fund, which is equivalent to an electric retail rate increase of 0.9% to all electric
rate payers in Palo Alto. Staff expects to begin the discussion about the value of
local energy and the community’s desire to pay a higher price with the Utilities
Advisory Commission in June 2014 and bring a recommendation to Council by the
year end.
Project Delivery
Staff recommends that the City employ the resources of consultants to design and
manage the project. Staff will utilize a program manager to obtain services for the
loan application and manage scope development for the numerous RFPs needed
for project delivery. The anticipated RFPs are listed in Attachment F (Wastewater
Major CIP Projects Delivery). Staff will return to Council in approximately
September 2014 for program manager contract approval. See Attachment C Q16
and Q17 for more information on project and service delivery.
Policy Implications
Implementing Components One, Two, and Three of the OFP will yield significant
reductions in GHG emissions (over 8,000 CO2e MT) to help Palo Alto reach its
Climate Action Plan goals. The OFP supports the recommendations in the
RWQCP’s Long Range Facilities Plan, Council’s directive to decommission the
incinerator, and provide a beneficial use for biosolids. The OFP allows for the City
to maximize the beneficial use of commercial and residential food scraps by
creating energy and compost as specified in the 2007 Zero Waste Operational
Plan. Ultimately, the OFP provides a sustainable path forward for organics
management by creating local, reliable renewable energy, keeping costs down,
and reducing citywide GHG emissions.
Environmental Review
The project’s CEQA process for Components One, Two, and Three is expected to
be either a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). If Council selects a proposal or if a Component Four (Yard Trimmings
technology) project is considered that utilizes any of the 10-acres defined in
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Measure E, an EIR would likely be prepared and the process may take up to two
years.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Organics Facilities Plan (PDF)
Attachment B: Graphic Summary of the Organics Facility Plan (PDF)
Attachment C: Answers to Council and Related Questions (PDF)
Attachment D: Draft Biosolids Facilities Plan Executive Summary (PDF)
Attachment E: Financing Analysis Tables (PDF)
Attachment F: Wastewater Major CIP Projects Delivery (PDF)
Attachment G: Key Terms (DOCX)
Attachment H: 042914 4550 Doc Letters 04-29-14 Organic Facilities Plan (PDF)
Attachment A
Palo Alto Organics Facilities Plan – April 2014
The Organics Facilities Plan (OFP), has resulted from Palo Alto’s review of
proposals submitted in response to the “Energy/Compost Facility or Export
Option for Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, and Biosolids” Request For Proposals
(E/CF RFP) and the draft Biosolids Facilities Plan (BFP). The OFP provides the City
of Palo Alto (City) and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) partners
the best option for short‐term resilience and long‐term cost savings, energy
production and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG1) of greater than
8,000 metric tons CO2e.
The OFP consists of four Components:
Component One: Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul‐Out Facility
Component Two: Wet Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility Utilizing the
Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP)
Component Three: Food Preprocessing Facility
Component Four: The Pursuit of Technologies to Harness the Energy
and Resource Potential of Yard Trimmings
Components One and Two, recommendations from the Biosolids Facilities Plan
(BFP) prepared by CH2M Hill, address Biosolids from the RWQCP and will be paid
for by the Wastewater Fund. Components Three and Four will be funded by the
City Refuse Fund. Components One, Two, and Three are interconnected and will
be planned concurrently. Work can begin concurrently on all four components,
but the components will not be completed by the same date.
Component One is a Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul‐Out Facility. This will
allow the RWQCP to both operate during emergencies and to decommission the
sewage sludge incinerators as soon as practical, per Council direction. The
incinerators are the City’s largest point source of City‐generated GHG.
The development of the Component One Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul‐
1 Reported as annual metric tons (MT) of anthropogenic CO2‐equivalent greenhouse gas emissions throughout
report
Out Facility can begin immediately and can be completed by 2018 at an estimated
cost of $12 million. Once this dewatering and haul‐out facility is constructed, the
City will export its dewatered sludge for further treatment, retire the incinerators,
and provide an approximate annual reduction of 2,343 tons of GHG.
Component Two develops a THP2 AD facility at the RWQCP to process sewage
sludge into biosolids for ultimate disposal. Component Two uses Component One
for final dewatering and truck load‐out. The THP AD process beneficially creates
biogas (e.g., methane), which combusts into renewable energy.
The THP AD facility can also receive food scraps under the OFP’s Component
Three. Under Component Three, staff will evaluate potential preprocessing
technology options and locations.
Predesign and financial analysis of the Component Two THP AD Facility and the
Component Three Food Preprocessing Facility requires staff to define the price for
the facility’s renewable energy output and its optimal size (i.e., quantifying
capacity for food scraps). Component Two is estimated to cost $57 million.
Component Four, yard trimmings research and development, involves research
into emerging technologies to capture the energy and resource potential
embedded within yard trimmings. The deployment of such a technology could be
on the 3.8‐acre flat portion of the 10‐acre Measure E site on the closed Palo Alto
Landfill or another location. Until such a facility is developed, the current aerobic
composting conducted near Gilroy, CA, provides the best value for the City with
relatively moderate GHG. The development of Component Four is independent of
the development of Components One, Two, and Three, and will be planned
separately.
2 THP is a high‐pressure steam pretreatment for downstream AD systems; the thermal hydrolysis step disintegrates
cell structures and dissolves naturally occurring cell polymers into an easily digestible feed for AD; the
pretreatment step also makes the sludge more flowable, allowing a smaller footprint for the digesters, which is a
real advantage for the constrained 25‐acre RWQCP site; THP increases organic biodegradability, yielding more
biogas and energy and offsetting more GHG than other AD systems; THP yields a final dewatered solids up to 40%,
much higher than traditional AD systems at 28% solids, resulting in less hauling and land application costs; the final
THP dewatered biosolids are sterilized and pathogen free due to 165C treatment for 20 minutes
More detail on the four Components follows:
1. Component One: The Development of Wastewater Solids Dewatering and
Truck Haul‐Out Facility
CH2M HILL has completed a final draft of the Biosolids Facilities Plan.
Component One is a is a key priority. The Wastewater Solids Dewatering and
Truck Haul‐Out facility will provide the necessary resilience to allow the
RWQCP to transport solids in the case of a disaster, emergency, or failure of
the current solids handling system. The facility can be designed and built
ahead of Component Two.
Component ONe allows the RWQCP decommission and demolish the sewage
sludge incinerators. This component reduces 2,343 annual tons of GHG. The
demolition of the incinerators opens up another half‐acre for efficient design
and construction of the Component Two.
Component One is both essential for the RWQCP’s reliable operations and a
necessary first step towards the development of an AD facility. It is anticipated
to cost $12 million (2015$) and be completed by 2018. Annual operational
costs are estimated between $1.6 and $2.0 million. Design and construction
details and cost will vary depending on the final disposition of the dewatered
solids. Two currently viable and environmentally preferable destinations for
the dewatered solids are: (1) aerobic composting at the Synagro Central Valley
Compost Facility in Merced County, the same facility in the Synagro E/CF RFP
proposal, and (2) anaerobic digestion and energy recovery at the East Bay
Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) wastewater treatment plant in Oakland, CA.
2. Component Two: The Development of THP AD
Component Two is the development of THP AD. Anaerobic digestion is a
proven wastewater technology for stabilizing wastewater solids (also referred
to as sludge) and biogas generation. Wastewater treatment plants worldwide
use wet AD systems to treat sludge. Wet AD is an appropriate technology for
high water and low solids content sludge. Wet AD is compatible with the
addition of the higher solid food scraps3. At least two wastewater treatment
plants in the Bay Area (EBMUD in Oakland and Central Marin Sanitation
Agency in San Rafael) are using wet AD to process and “co‐digest” combined
wastewater solids and food scraps.
The BFP evaluated three wet AD technologies and preprocessing options. The
option that provides the greatest biogas yield, smallest physical footprint, and
the highest quality biosolids, was the combination of the THP with wet AD.
According to the BFP recommendations, THP AD technology provides clear
non‐monetary benefits for treatment and disposal of sewage sludge and
favorable overall project economics. THP AD is a proprietary technology
currently sold by CAMBI, Norway; CAMBI is the technology provider to the We
Generation E/CF RFP proposal. The CAMBI THP technology has been installed
and operated at 40 wastewater treatment plants throughout Europe, South
America, Japan, and Australia. New CAMBI THP systems will begin operation in
July 2014 at the District of Columbia Wastewater Treatment Plant, the first
CAMBI in North America and largest in the world. A CAMBI system is in design
for the Hampton Roads Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant in
Virginia Beach, VA. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant is evaluating use of a CAMBI THP
system as part of its new digester project. The SFPUC project could also
incorporate food scraps into the CAMBI THP AD system.
Prior to moving forward with Component Two, design development
(predesign) is needed to answer vital questions related to project sizing and
site considerations.
A THP AD Facility would supply electric energy through biogas combustion
generated by the AD units. The energy is 100 percent renewable electric
energy and provides 4,560 tons of GHG reduction.
3 Much of the debate in the Measure E campaign revolved around the potential to use dry AD. The Feasibility Study
in 2011 also looked at dry AD for much of the analysis. Since wastewater solids made up the majority of the
material to be processed, dry AD was deemed infeasible. One E/CF RFP proposal included dry AD technology, but
did not meet minimum qualifications and was not considered. Dry AD was also not likely to be an appropriate
technology for the food scraps and yard trimmings only due to the ratio of the material. The dry AD facility recently
constructed in San Jose has a yard trimming to food scrap ratio of 20:80, while the Palo Alto ratio of materials is
closer to 50:50. This ratio would provide a low biogas yield, resulting in poor project economics.
2a Project Sizing
The THP AD system will be designed to accommodate the projected 30‐year
increase in wastewater solids loads based on population growth projections
from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). While THP AD systems
allow for some modularity for future expansion (e.g., adding a tank), the
system will be designed to accommodate future capacity. The THP AD system
will have that initial extra capacity available for the addition of food scraps as
part of Component Three.
There are many questions that remain on sizing the food scrap systems. A food
receiving station, energy generation equipment, and dewatering equipment
may require upsizing to accommodate food scraps. Food scraps can be
processed to maximize THP, digester, and dewatering use of surplus capacity
until the initial excess capacity is needed for wastewater solids. This initial
excess capacity might allow a THP AD system at the RWQCP to process most,
and possibly all of Palo Alto’s commercial food scraps for a period of time
which would be determined during the predesign phase.
2b Site Considerations
The THP AD facility will impact existing RWQCP operations. The RWQCP has
numerous underground utilities including large diameter pipes. The half‐acre
location set aside in the E/CF RFP for on‐site digestion can be used, but cannot
be optimized for Component Two until the incinerator is decommissioned and
demolished. The removal of the incinerator prior to construction of the THP
AD system will allow for the optimal design and minimal disturbance to
existing operations.
Careful consideration will need to be given to truck ingress and egress. Food
waste trucks would arrive at the site (either small local haul trucks with
approximately 6 tons of capacity or larger consolidated trucks with
approximately 22 tons of capacity). The number of trucks will depend on the
capacity of the facility and the acceptance of outside sources. Trucks will also
leave the site transporting residual solids for either land application, further
composting, or for further processing or energy production such as at the
regional Bay Area Biosolids to Energy Project.
Closely linked to the site considerations is the location, on the RWQCP or
offsite, of the food preprocessing component (Component Three). Onsite
preprocessing requires a truck scale, a fully enclosed tipping floor to contain
odors, and space for the preprocessing equipment to remove contaminants
from the food scraps and turn the scraps into a slurry for injection into the THP
AD system. An offsite food scraps processing facility handles the
preprocessing, but the onsite RWQCP system requires a food receiving station
with rock trap, dilution water tank, pumps, and screening facility to protect the
THP AD System. Onsite solid waste facilities at the RWQCP require permits
from CalRecycle through the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) at Santa Clara
County.
3. Component Three – Food Scrap Preprocessing
Preprocessing of food scraps involves removal of contaminants and physical
conversion into a pumpable mixture for delivery into the THP AD Facility.
Food scraps provide energy potential by increasing the digester’s biogas
output and the marketplace has been active in developing new technologies
for efficient preprocessing.
The City collects an estimated 12,100 tons of commercial food scraps. The City
does not currently collect the estimated 3,400 tons of residential food scraps.
Staff is evaluating the effectiveness of the Residential Two‐Cart Pilot Program,
which is, in part, designed to evaluate the potential to capture residential food
scraps. Staff will evaluate the costs and benefits for increased collection and
handling costs needed to separate food scraps from the residential garbage
and yard trimmings, and will be reporting back to Council in the fall 2014.
The THP AD facility predesign will identify the initially available excess capacity
for food scraps. This will help determine how much additional food could be
accepted into the facility or if additional THP AD capacity should be built to
accommodate available feedstocks. Additionally, the food waste tonnage and
its source(s) will help define not only the size of the preprocessing equipment
but also its potential location. The preprocessing facilities may be located on
the RWQCP site next to the THP AD Facility despite the limited space.
Conversely, the food scrap preprocessing could be located at an alternate
location where the food scrap loads could be tipped, preprocessed into slurry,
and consolidated into larger trucks to be pumped into the THP AD Facility. The
We Generation (Cambi Systems) proposal included the Shoreway
Environmental Center in San Carlos as a preprocessing site. Other material
recovery options include transfer stations, like the Sunnyvale Material
Recovery and Transfer (SMaRT) Station, where the City of Palo Alto is a part
investor.
The cost estimates are rough due to the current uncertainty regarding the
sizing and location of a preprocessing facility. Capital costs are estimated at
$8.9 million for preprocessing and digester preparation of the food scraps.
Operating costs with built‐in capital recovery in the tip fee is estimated at
$46/per wet ton. Further research is needed to refine these estimates.
The development time for a food preprocessing system could be relatively
short. The technology is modular and relatively compact. However, for food
preprocessing and digestion in Component Three to begin the RWQCP must be
certain that the THP AD Facility is fully operational and that it meets regulatory
requirements. The full deployment of Component Three would be completed
between 2020 and 2022 which is at least one year after the THP AD Facility
begins operation.
The inclusion of food scraps in the digester increases biogas production and
further reduces the City’s GHG. Nevertheless, staff continues to support home
composting and may consider the co‐composting of residential food scraps
with yard trimmings as a suitable and sustainable processing option.
4. Component Four – The Evolution of Yard Trimmings Processing
Aerobic composting is an established and environmentally sound processing
option. However, new technologies are being developed to harness their
energy and resource potential. The San José/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater
Facility recently approved a demonstration project to gasify4 woody waste
with biosolids. Staff will continue to follow these technology developments
and improvements in composting technology to evaluate whether a local
facility is a sustainable option.
4 Gasification is a thermal process using extremely high temperatures in the absence of oxygen that transforms a
solid material into a synthesis gas that can be combusted to create energy. While gasification is a thermal process,
it does not yield the same air pollutants as incineration. See BFP gasification Technical Memorandum on status of
gasification for biosolids.
Attached is a visual representation of the OFP.
Organics Facilities Plan
1
Interim
Hauling
Biosolids Dewatering
and Truck Off‐Haul
Component #1
Anaerobic Digestion
Component #2
Food Scrap
Pre‐processing
Component #3
Yard Trimmings
Component #4
Design and Construction
B
Contracting
and DesignBF
Proposed Organics Facilities Plan
F
Y
Add Food to Digester
Construction
Food Scrap
Preprocessing
Development
Consider Alternatives to Current Aerobic
Composting and New Locations
B Biosolids – Wastewater Treatment Fund
F Food Scraps –Refuse Fund
Y Yard Trimmings –Refuse Fund
Emergency Back up
Biosolids
Processing
1
Interim
Hauling
Biosolids Dewatering
and Truck Off-Haul
Component #1
Anaerobic Digestion
Component #2
Food Scrap
Pre-processing
Component #3
Yard Trimmings
Component #4
Design and Construction
B
Contracting
and Design B F
Proposed Organics Facilities Plan
F
Y
Add Food to Digester
Construction
Food Scrap
Preprocessing
Development
Consider Alternatives to Current Aerobic
Composting and New Locations
B Biosolids – Wastewater Treatment Fund
F Food Scraps – Refuse Fund
Y Yard Trimmings – Refuse Fund
Emergency Back up
Biosolids
Processing
Attachment C
Answers to Council and Related Questions
1. What are the major differences between the Organics Facility Plan (OFP) and
the proposals submitted in response to the Energy/Compost Facility or Export
Option for Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, and Biosolids Request for Proposal
(E/CF RFP)?
Answer:
City as Owner-Operator
The OFP is based on the City acting as the owner-operator of the anaerobic
digestion facility. The E/CF RFP was designed to limit the risk to the City in
adopting a less-proven technology like gasification or Dry anaerobic digestion
(AD) for biosolids and having the proposers own and operate the facility. The E/CF
RFP proposals included proven technologies like Wet AD and aerobic composting,
which coincided with the BFP recommendations for biosolids treatment. Staff
identified significant long-term operations and maintenance (O & M) cost savings
by acting as the owner-operator.
Site Constraints
The OFP allows for the optimal use of the RWQCP site. The THP AD facility size
impacts existing RWQCP operations. The RWQCP has numerous large diameter
underground utilities. The half-acre location set aside in the E/CF RFP for on-site
digestion can be used, but cannot be optimized for Component Two until the
incinerator is decommissioned and demolished. The removal of the incinerator
prior to construction of the THP AD system will allow for the optimal design and
minimal disturbance to existing operations.
Careful consideration will need to be given to truck ingress and egress. Food
waste trucks would arrive at the site (either small local haul trucks with
approximately 6 tons of capacity or larger consolidated trucks with approximately
22 tons of capacity). The number of trucks will depend on the capacity of the
facility and the acceptance of outside sources. Trucks will also leave the site
transporting residual solids for either land application, further composting, or for
further processing or energy production such as at the regional Bay Area Biosolids
to Energy Project.
Closely linked to the site considerations is the location of the food preprocessing
component (Component Three). No final decision on location has been made. On-
site preprocessing requires a truck scale, a fully enclosed tipping floor to contain
odors, and space for the preprocessing equipment to remove contaminants from
the food scraps and turn the scraps into slurry for injection into the THP AD
system. An off-site food scraps processing facility handles the preprocessing, but
the onsite RWQCP system requires a food receiving station with rock trap,
dilution water tank, pumps, and screening facility to protect the THP AD system.
Onsite solid waste facilities at the RWQCP require permits from CalRecycle
through the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) at Santa Clara County.
Due to the accelerated timing of the E/CF RFP proposals, their AD facilities were
limited to a half acre, which would present significant logistical and planning
challenges for the RWQCP.
RWQCP Operations
Lastly, the component approach in the OFP will allow the RWQCP to ensure that
the AD facility and the later inclusion of food scraps will not adversely impact the
other operations and permit restrictions of the RWQCP.
2. What are the reasons for rejecting the E/CF RFP proposals?
Answer: The E/CF RFP proposals do not provide the best value for the City and
long-term GHG reductions. Staff developed the OFP with Component Two (THP
AD Facility) as an owner-operated facility after the E/CF RFP proposals were
evaluated.
The Synagro (export) proposal scored as the highest technical analysis and lowest
cost option, but this proposed solution does not provide the other benefits
identified by the City of Palo Alto as critical elements of an organics facilities plan.
Staff believes that there is long-term value to the City in stabilizing sewage sludge
on-site, reducing GHG emissions, and generating local energy, which is why Staff
recommends canceling the E/CF RFP and pursuing an onsite organics facility. The
We Generation (Cambi Services) proposal, the proposal using the preferred
technology identified in Component Two, was the lowest scoring of the three
proposals under consideration and would render it less preferable for selection.
3. Can we modify the E/CF RFP to accommodate our preferred project and
service delivery method?
Answer: No. The differences between the E/CF RFP and the OFP are too great.
The most significant difference being the shift from a contractor owned and
operated facility to a City owned and operated facility.
The AD and composting technologies proposed in the E/CF RFP proposals
validated the conclusions in the BFP and the cost savings possible with an owner-
operated facility. Had staff known that only proven and well-established
technologies would be submitted in the E/CF RFP process, staff could have issued
an addendum to the E/CF RFP for an owner-operated option. However, this was
not a viable option at the time. Issuing a new RFP for the Components will allow
for new proposers to participate.
4. Can we negotiate with the proposers for a modified or joint contract?
Answer: No.
Competitiveness
Staff would like to encourage new proposals to satisfy the requirements in the
OFP. Further, the likely project description of Component Two of the OFP that
calls for the construction of a THP AD facility may include the CAMBI technology
but there are other technology providers that may be interested in participating
in a bid. At the start of the THP AD design, staff will return to Council with a
request for sole source approval for CAMBI should other emerging THP
technology provider(s) be unreliable and unproven in the wastewater treatment
market.
Purchasing/Fairness
If the City were to allow a combined proposal of multiple proposers, this would
set an unfair precedent to the other bidders and future bidders. For example, if
the City elected to combine the Harvest Power proposal with the We Generation
(Cambi Services) proposal, that opportunity should be provided to other
proposers or potential proposers who did not submit under the original E/C RFP.
Any RFP process is designed to provide an equal playing field for the proposers,
where the City cannot “pick-and-choose” whatever scenarios it wants despite the
results of the process. Selecting We Generation (Cambi Services) or some
combination of the proposals would violate the integrity of the purchasing
process and potentially invite protests and claims from the other proposers.
Other teams, who either proposed or elected not to propose, would need to be
provided with the same opportunity to create this type of proposal. A desire to
create this combination would require the development of a new RFP.
5. What is the risk to the City if the facility is owned and operated by the
RWQCP?
Answer: Staff does not believe that the Four-Component OFP is risky. The AD
technology is proven and established. Staff has always planned to consider
publicly financed and owner operated biosolids treatment systems alongside the
E/C RFP proposals. The original RFP was developed with the intent of
procurement through a design-build-own-operate and maintain (DBOOM) project
and service delivery model. The primary reason for selecting the DBOOM model
was to reduce risk exposure inherent with selecting a novel approach or emerging
technology that could handle all three waste streams. Through the E/CF RFP
process, and with the responses received, it became apparent that at this time
the options available to the City (wet AD and aerobic composting) are, in fact,
relatively standard and can be more economically implemented, with the RWQCP
as the owner-operator. Through discussions with consultants and technology
vendors (including CAMBI, Norway) the City staff is confident that, with the
appropriate engineering and project management assistance, the City can control
the remaining risk exposure by taking the time to identify and answer the
appropriate questions needed to craft the OFP’s component RFPs.
6. How much planning is required before initiating Component One (Biosolids
Dewatering and Haul-Out Facility)?
Answer: The bulk of the planning was completed as part of the RWQCP’s Long
Range Facilities Plan in 2012. The initial step will be to hire a program manager to
oversee and develop Components One and Two.
7. Can Component One (Biosolids Dewatering and Haul-Out Facility) be designed
and built without limiting future options? How does this affect the overall sizing
of the Facilities?
Answer: Yes.
Compatibility
The dewatering and truck haul-out facility is necessary for and can be designed to
be fully compatible with the THP AD technology in Component Two. The provider
of thermal hydrolysis technology, CAMBI, has confirmed that Component One can
be designed and installed prior to installation of Component Two. Combining the
pre- and post-dewatering into one building with reduced redundancy in
dewatering equipment is feasible. This option was suggested by a proposer.
However, staff recommends separating these systems and using independently
redundant equipment for pre- and post-dewatering necessary for the THP
process.
Project Sizing
Components One and Two will be designed for a projected 30-year growth in
wastewater solids loads. While the facilities allow for some modularity for future
design (e.g., adding a tank), the facilities likely will need to be designed to allow
for the future capacity to be in place on the first day of operations. In other
words, the facilities will have extra capacity on operational day one to account for
the future solids loading.
The THP AD system will be designed for a projected 30-year (2045) growth in
wastewater solids loads, which results in excess capacity upon commissioning.
Hence, the excess capacity of the THP AD system can be used at the beginning of
the planning period to accommodate food scraps, which can be co-digested with
the wastewater solids. If and when growth occurs in the RWQCP service area, the
THP AD system might need to be expanded to accommodate both service area
growth and projected growth of the food waste program. This allows for a
cautious approach to infrastructure investment, while opportunistically leveraging
the economics of the excess capacity of the system. It allows Palo Alto to better
assess the economics of the co-digestion program; so, in the future, when
expansion is required either to accommodate more material for co-digestion or
more solids loading from growth, then an informed decision can be made as to
how best to expand the system based on the historical economic and
environmental performance. At that time there will also less uncertainty
regarding the quantity of co-digestion material, such as food scraps, that are
available.
8. Would incinerators be kept as a back-up?
Answer: No. Incinerators will not be kept as a backup. After a successful startup of
Component One (Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul-Out Facility) the
demolition of the incineration building can begin so that space is made available
for Component Two (THP AD Facility).
9. Can the City save time (i.e., have a facility up and running earlier than the
OFP) by utilizing the E/CF RFP and not canceling it?
Answer: Staff does not believe that using the E/CF RFP is an appropriate option
for legal, purchasing, and business reasons. Nevertheless, even if Staff could
recommend using the E/CF RFP, the construction of a privately owned and
operated facility would not yield significant time savings. The core time
uncertainties revolve around contracting and permitting. All documentation to
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be completed
prior to executing a design-build contract. This environmental documentation
process may be completed in one to two years. The timing of this type of project
delivery in the E/CF RFP (design-build-own-operate-maintain or DBOOM) relies on
the assumption that all contracting issues will be resolved prior to the completion
of the CEQA documents. However, due to the complexity of operating a private
facility within the operational area of the RWQCP, the contracting relationship
may require more time to develop, which could add an additional year to the
schedule.
In addition to City land use approvals, permitting a facility at the RWQCP requires
a wastewater discharge permit amendment and approvals from the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District, and CalRecycle. All projects, whether privately owned or City owned will
need to obtain these approvals. The permitting process is complex and requires
significant City involvement. Permitting could easily add one year to a project
schedule.
Any proposal, like Harvest Power’s proposal, that uses the Measure E site would
require additional permitting and could be subject a legal challenge. Tying the
development of Component One, the Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul-Out
Facility, to the Measure E site may result in unforeseen delays in the vital
decommissioning of the incinerators. While it is important to develop the energy
generation THP AD project in Component Two (or as proposed by Harvest Power
and We Generation (Cambi Services)), a large reduction in GHG and quick way to
create a more sustainable use for biosolids is to develop Component One without
delay. As noted earlier, there are many unresolved concerns, including the sizing
of the facility for food scraps and energy considerations that need to be resolved
before designing and constructing a THP AD facility.
10. What is the over-all timing for the OFP?
Answer: The timing for Components One, Two, and Three are linked. While the
specific steps and a detailed timeline are being developed by staff and will be
presented to Council in fall 2014, staff can provide a basic outline of the major
milestones. The overall program goals include: decommissioning the incinerator
and completing Component One (Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul-Out
Facility) by 2018; would be to complete the design phase of the THP AD
development by 2018. Construction could begin shortly thereafter with the THP
AD facility fully operational for the processing of biosolids sometime between
2020 and 2022. Food scraps, as part of Component Three, could be added to the
THP AD system between 2020 and 2023. Staff will provide a more detailed
timeline for Component Four (Yard Trimmings technologies) in fall 2014.
11. Will the proposed AD Facility import wastes from other communities?
The City Manager and Mayor have sent letters to neighboring cities and RWQCP
partners to gauge their interest in sending food scraps to a future AD Facility at
the RWQCP. To date, no other agencies have made commitments.
There are many questions that remain on sizing food scrap systems. New capacity
would be needed for some facilities and surplus capacity can be utilized for
others. A food receiving station, energy generation equipment, and dewatering
equipment require upsizing for food scraps. Food scraps can be processed to
maximize THP, digester, and dewatering use of surplus capacity until the initial
excess capacity is needed for wastewater solids. This additional capacity might
allow a THP AD system at the RWQCP to process most, and possibly all of Palo
Alto’s commercial food scraps for a period of time which would be determined
during the predesign phase. Utilizing surplus digester capacity for food scraps
might defray some operational and maintenance costs for the RWQCP’s
wastewater treatment fund partners, however further study is needed to quantify
this amount.
12: How are the RWQCP Partners being involved?
The Wastewater Treatment Fund recovers costs from the Palo Alto Wastewater
Collection Fund and from the City’s five partner agencies. Each agency bills their
respective sewer ratepayers for associated sewer and treatment costs.
Approximately 230,767 residents are served by the six agencies contributing
sewage to the RWQCP. For biosolids dewatering, digestion, and haul-out facilities,
the Wastewater Treatment Fund’s new debt service expense (approximately $3.3
million / year) will be recovered through partner billing and paid to the State of
California under terms of an SRF loan. The billing share will be based on a
contract-defined treatment capacity allocation. The expected capacity share
allocation for this project is shown below and is based on the existing contract
capacity share allocation for major capital improvement projects.
Agency Capacity
MGD* Capacity %
Palo Alto 15.30 38.16
Mountain View 15.10 37.89
Los Altos 3.80 9.47
East Palo Alto Sanitary District 3.06 7.64
Stanford University 2.11 5.26
Los Altos Hills 0.63 1.58
Totals 40.00 100.00
* Capacity expressed in annual average flow, million gallons per day
Funding of design and construction requires debt financing. The design and
construction project will need to be approved by the Mountain View and Los
Altos City Councils, Stanford University, and the Board of the East Palo Alto
Sanitary District as part of an agreement requirement with each of the Plant
partners; these four partners have “veto” rights for capital projects. A veto has
never occurred since agreements were originally authorized but is a possible
outcome. The agreement with Los Altos Hills does not require partner approval
for the construction project, however, Los Altos Hills is being kept apprised of the
project. Over many years, staff met with partner agencies at the staff and
board/council level, explaining the need to both retire the existing sewage sludge
incinerators and build a new solids handling system. Staff at the partner agencies
met regarding this project (most recently on April 7, 2014); staff continues to
keep our partners informed of progress. Meetings are being scheduled for spring
2014 for a Los Altos city council study session and with the East Palo Alto Sanitary
District engineering committee; staff are assisting Mountain View staff who
intend to communicate to their Council with informational reports and study
sessions, as warranted. At Council direction, staff will initiate work with all four
partner agencies to modify agreements, as needed, and bring the recommended
project to partner agencies for approval before bringing back the modified
agreements to Council for final approval.
13. Should the City prioritize the development of yard trimmings compost on
the 3.8 acre Measure E site?
At this time, there is no local composting generation in Palo Alto other than from
home composters. Two advantages can be realized if the City elected to compost
yard trimmings on the Measure E site: (1) the City would have control over the
operations and not rely on a contractor for capacity; and (2) the City would
achieve a small reduction in GHG due to a decrease in truck vehicle-miles
traveled. However, the GHG levels resulting from transportation are relatively
insignificant compared to the overall benefits of the OFP. Components One, Two,
and Three result in a net GHG emissions benefit of removing nearly 5,000 metric
tons of CO2e from the atmosphere. Of the 267 metric tons of anthropogenic CO2e
GHG emissions related to composting yard trimmings, 157 metric tons of CO2e are
emissions resulting from transportation. The transportation related to yard
trimmings is only 3 percent of the total OFP GHG emissions. Relocating aerobic
composting technology 50 miles to the north (from Gilroy to Palo Alto) also will
require a significant capital investment. This expense does not achieve significant
value for the City or reduce greenhouse gases significantly.
Additionally, new technologies are being developed and refined to harness the
energy potential in yard trimmings and wood waste. The City of San José is
developing a pilot project to gasify wood waste and biosolids at the San
José/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. Staff believes these technologies
will continue to mature and could be an appropriate activity on the 3.8-acre
Measure E site, on the RWQCP, or elsewhere, as part of Component Four of the
OFP. If that were to happen, then local compost would again be available to
residents. The cost estimate to develop an aerated static pile composting facility
that could manage all of the City’s yard trimmings was estimated and presented
to Council as part of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Composting efforts in 2009.
The estimated 2009 capital cost of $3 million adjusted for inflation at 3% per year
is approximately $3.5 million in 2014 dollars; however, capital costs may be more
expensive as new stormwater and air quality regulations have been promulgated
since the 2009 estimate.
14. What are the rates of home composting and what are the trends? Would
more aggressive home based programs change the need for a local composting
facility?
Answer: Staff does not keep a record of the number of home composters in Palo
Alto. While home composting is the best, most sustainable method to deal with
the City’s residential yard trimmings and food scraps, there are not nearly enough
residents currently composting at home to manage all of the City’s yard trimmings
to impact the projected sizing of Components Two, Three, and Four in the OFP.
However, with the implementation of an expanded home composting campaign
in 2014, Staff will be able to reassess the impact of home composting on
projected tonnages of yard trimmings and food scraps.
This expanded home composting campaign will be a focused outreach and
incentive-based campaign that will augment and add emphasis to the City’s
traditional, ongoing, multi-partner program for home composting, water
conservation, and pollution prevention programs. The goals of the expanded
campaign are to: 1) raise awareness about the benefits of home composting; 2)
increase the number of people composting at home; and 3) increase the number
of people using compost in their yard/garden.
The expanded campaign will encourage residents to compost at home through
education of how composting conserves water and energy while reducing waste
and pollution, and through incentives, such as the City providing a limited number
of free home composting bins to Palo Alto residents. Bins have been given away
at the Great Race for Saving Water on April 19, 2014, and at all Palo Alto compost
workshops during 2014. Staff will also be holding a free compost give-away event
on May 17, 2014, at the entrance to the closed Palo Alto Landfill.
15. Can we include levee protection and have Partner agencies share cost?
The new facilities built as part of the OFP will be designed above the Base Flood
Elevation (elevation 7.7) in order to provide 100-year flood protection for the new
facility. Reduction of the risk from tidal flooding and storm surge in Palo Alto,
including at the RWQCP, is part of a regional study being conducted by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with substantial support from the Santa Clara
Valley Water District. The regional and federal project is the optimum solution for
providing tidal flood protection. Staff recommends that no levees be included in
the proposed projects for the Organics Facilities Plan. Isolated sections of levee
improvements would not be effective in providing flood protection to the RWQCP
and surrounding areas.
The USACE South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study is currently evaluating levee
improvements in Alviso. The next stage of the study will be the northern portion
of the Santa Clara County shoreline, which will be funded 50/50 by the USACE and
Santa Clara Valley Water District (i.e., the local sponsor). Construction of levee
improvements along Palo Alto’s shoreline may be identified in the USACE study;
the future improvements can be funded through a combination of federal and
local sources (i.e., a 35/65 local/federal cost share, minimum, up to a 50/50
local/federal cost share, maximum). It is too early to commit to a local source for
the funding. A local assessment district is one potential mechanism to generate
the required matching funds. Because the RWQCP is one of the many parcels at
risk in Palo Alto’s tidal flood zone, the RWQCP partner agencies and the Palo Alto
Wastewater Collection Fund would be obligated to share in any assessed fees for
the levees, as ultimately approved by Council.
16. How is Component Two (THP AD Facility) delivered (design and
construction) and how are services provided (ownership)?
Answer
Project Delivery
Staff recommends that the City employ the resources of consultants to design and
manage the project. After completion of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review, staff will evaluate the merits of a design-bid-build (DBB) approach
and a design-build (DB) approach. The design-build approach is not expected to
significantly alter the project timeline, so the evaluation between these two
approaches will focus on potential cost savings, innovation, risk exposure and the
level of needed control over the quality of the design by the City.
The E/CF RFP allowed for less-common, innovative, and/or emerging technologies
to be proposed like gasification and dry AD. To reduce the risk to the City, the
E/CF RFP asked proposers to take on all of the financial and performance risk
through a design-build-own-operate-maintain (DBOOM) procurement process.
The City would pay a “tipping fee” for each feedstock only if the proposer could
guarantee performance. Since no gasification proposals were received and no dry
AD proposals progressed past the minimum criteria evaluation, staff reevaluated
the risk issue associated with being the owner operator of a wet AD. A wet AD
system is a well-established technology and often owner operated.
Most importantly, the City realizes significant savings as the owner-operator of a
THP AD system. The 20-year net present value of the City OFP is over $20 million
less than the most competitive E/CF RFP proposal with expenses shifting from
operations and maintenance to long-term capital.
Traditionally, projects at the RWQCP have been secured using the design-bid-
build project delivery process. This process is a step-by-step approach to project
delivery. The City prepares a scope of work for the design of a project, an RFP is
released, environmental design engineering firms respond, and the City selects a
consultant to complete final design of the project. The City then prepares a bid
package for the construction of the project. The construction contract is awarded
to the lowest responsive bidder. There are a few shortcomings of this process:
one, the process to respond to differences between the design and the needed
construction fixes can result in change orders; two, the procurement process
takes additional time with two bid periods; and three, the procurement requires
the selection of the lowest responsive bid.
As a response to tradeoffs with design-bid-build process, many communities
employ design-build project delivery. The initial engineering is more conceptual
and the engineering and construction tracks begin simultaneously. The
construction is also able to adapt more quickly to changes on the ground.
However, some conceptual design must be completed prior to the preparation of
a DB project and CEQA documents must be completed prior to a DB award. The
DB process can be structured to allow more (or less) control by the City, but
requires strong project management.
Another significant risk related to the DB process is that the contractor is
incentivized to reduce construction costs (value engineering) that may be at the
expense of operational costs. One solution to this problem is to couple DB with
operations (aka, DBO). This forces the DB contractor to consider the long-term
operational costs. However, as noted earlier, the City could save over $1 million a
year by operating the facility. This would make the DBO option less attractive.
However, another project delivery option is design-build-own-operate-transfer
(DBOOT). This delivery option is similar to the DBO option, but has the contractor
finance the facility and transfer or sell the facility to the public entity. This option
allows for the RWQCP to set the terms of the transfer (3-5 years) and use lower
interest rates to finance the subsequent years of the project. In some cases, the
private entity can take advantage of tax breaks unavailable to public agencies.
Like DBOOM, the DBOOT provides fewer opportunities for oversight by the owner
as compared to design-bid-build. Staff does not see Components One or Two as
candidates for DBO or DBOOT models. However, a DBO procurement model may
be more appropriate for Components Three and Four.
After Council acceptance of the OFP recommendations, staff will direct CH2M
HILL to begin a Component One (Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul-Out
Facility) predesign report (Staff Report ID # 3383, C13147733, Task 11). Staff has
developed a scope of work for program management; proposals are expected in
May 2014. Staff will return to council in approximately July 2014 for program
manager contract approval. The program manager will manage the contracting
for the major capital improvement work and apply for a financial SRF loan for the
project. Program management for the RWQCP’s Long Range Facilities Plan covers
$197 million of work over a 10-year timeframe; annual program management
costs are estimated to be $450,000 with the expense for preparation of a state
SRF loan expected to be approximately $100,000. The initial tasks of the program
manager will be to:
Assist with preparation of an SRF application and SRF specific
environmental reporting requirements,
Prepare of a design RFP for Component One Biosolids Dewatering and
Truck Haul-Out Facility,
Prepare the RFP for pre-design on the AD system,
Provide support services during the bid phase, and
Provide engineering services during the construction management phase.
The work of the program manager is for the biosolids project and the other major
capital projects of the wastewater treatment fund shown below:
Project Title
Project
Start
Year
Project Cost
Program Management Services 2014 $4,600,000
Solids Handling Facility 2014 $69,000,000
Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation 2014 $7,313,000
Lab & Environmental Services Building 2014 $17,903,763
Fixed Film Reactors Structure and Equipment 2017 $19,420,440
Headworks Facility (including Grit Removal System 2020 $38,856,627
Recycled Water Filters and Chlorine Contact Tank 2022 $14,209,044
Joint Interceptor Sewer 2022 $30,800,000
Total Long Range Facilities Plan (Major CIP) $202,102,874
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Financial
Assistance funds publicly-owned wastewater treatment projects with low-interest
loans through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The City of Palo Alto will be
the applicant for a loan for Component 1 and 2 (approximately $69 million). Staff
will return to Council for adoption of the resolution authorizing the application of
the SRF loan. The SWRCB will review the application for funding eligibility and
prepare a standard agreement for funding the project. After drafting the
agreement, staff will return to Council for authorization of the agreement. The
terms of an SRF loan would be a 30-year term with the first payment due
approximately one-year after construction completion. The City likely would apply
for an agreement for funding. The SWRCB would review the application for
funding eligibility and prepare a standard agreement for funding the project.
The SRF loan interest rate is one-half of the current state general obligation bond
rate. As of March 2014, the SRF loan rate is 1.9% on a 30-year repayment term,
which is a public financing rate much more favorable than that available to the
RFP proposers through private financing. The loan can fund hard costs (e.g.
construction) as well as soft costs, which include program management,
environmental documents, planning, design, value engineering, construction
management, and administration costs. Land and right-of-way costs are ineligible.
However, no new land or right-of-way is needed for the project. The Wastewater
Treatment Fund will be responsible for loan payments to the State. The partner
agreements will be modified to include approval of this project and a
commitment to repay debt obligations by each agency. Financing tables for a $69
million SRF loan are included in Attachment E.
Wastewater Treatment Fund Staffing and Service Delivery
There will be no net change in total personnel to operate the system; a change in
the type of personnel is needed, subject to Council approval of the budget for
staffing. When the incinerator is retired, staff expects to eliminate approximately
2.0 FTE WQC Plant Operator II (SEIU Job Class #509) positions through attrition.
The new system will require some operational attention and some specialized
maintenance:
The new dewatering and AD systems will be highly automated so the new
facilities will not require the level of close operator attention that the City’s
current sewage sludge incinerator and air pollution control systems have
needed for the last 42 years; and
The new Combined Heat and Power system (CHP) system (a.k.a., turbines
or internal combustion engines) will convert biogas into electricity; these
are specialized engines requiring skilled mechanics for maintenance. Nearly
all Bay Area wastewater plants with anaerobic digesters utilize a CHP to
convert biogas to energy.
For proper maintenance of the new digestion and CHP system, the RWQCP will
need to fill approximately 2.0 new FTE Maintenance Mechanic positions (SEIU Job
Class #505). After startup, the City will utilize a service contract for the engines to
ensure RWQCP staff is properly trained on operation and maintenance.
17: Can the City operate the Component One and Two biosolids handling and
treatment systems?
Local municipalities commonly own and operate facilities similar to the
recommended biosolids facilities in Components One and Two of the OFP. In
correspondence and conversations with the CAMBI-US managing director,
engineering consultants, and other municipal operators of the CAMBI thermal
hydrolysis system, all indicated that a municipally owned wastewater treatment
plant, such as the RWQCP, could operate and maintain a CAMBI thermal
hydrolysis process (THP) system. The District of Columbia Sewer and Water
Authority (DC Water) will be starting up a CAMBI THP system in July 2014; DC
Water is the first CAMBI THP system in North America and will be the largest in
the world. The DC Water wastewater treatment facility is about 16 times larger
than the RWQCP. The Hampton Roads Sanitation District Atlantic Treatment Plant
(slightly larger than the RWQCP) is in the design stage on a CAMBI THP system.
These agencies will also be the owner operator of the CAMBI THP system.
Similar to other wastewater plants, staff recommends that a post-construction
startup and support phase be included to ensure safe and reliable operation and
proper transfer to City operations staff, specifically:
The City will require six months of smooth and successful operation with
the new facility;
After construction of the thermal hydrolysis and AD system, qualified THP
staff from the THP provider will operate the thermal hydrolysis system
onsite for approximately eight months and train City staff on safe and
reliable operation;
Following the THP training and startup, the City will require a two year
service contract for THP operational support (offsite support);
After startup of the thermal hydrolysis process and AD facility and prior to
the addition of food scraps, the new facilities will require one year of
successful operation prior to the addition of any food scraps; and
The addition of pre-processed food scraps will be progressively staged in a
phased manner while staff gains experience operating the new system.
18. Can the THP AD system biogas be converted into renewable fuel instead of
renewable electricity?
Converting biogas into a renewable fuel is technically feasible but not pursued for
the project. An analysis of biogas energy value showed that use of the electricity
to meet THP AD process heat demands was a far more efficient use of the energy
than combusting a biofuel in a vehicle. Similarly, clean-up and compression of the
biogas for injection into the City gas distribution system is relatively complex and
not as valuable a use compared to converting the embedded energy into
renewable electricity. Converting the biogas into electricity maximizes the use of
the project’s energy production. The electric energy has four times the value of
biofuel energy (approximately $12/million BTU versus $3/million BTU).
Executive Summary
Introduction
The City of Palo Alto has operated the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to consistently provide
reliable, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible wastewater treatment for its citizens and regional
partners for more than 45 years. The City’s vision for future biosolids management encompasses the need
to address the RWQCP’s aging solids handling infrastructure, to proactively comply with changing and
uncertain regulations affecting biosolids, and to respond to community goals to increase the beneficial use
of recovered organic resources city-wide. Palo Alto strives to create renewable energy and offset
greenhouse gas emissions while being mindful of the financial impact on the RWQCP’s rate payers.
This Biosolids Facility Plan (BFP) provides a long-term roadmap to enable the City to reliably and sustainably
manage and beneficially reuse the wastewater solids produced at the RWQCP through year 2045.
The focus of the BFP is to develop and evaluate sustainable biosolids-only processing and reuse alternatives.
In parallel with the BFP, the City of Palo Alto is evaluating how other recovered organics (i.e., food scraps
and yard trimmings) can possibly be processed with biosolids. As part of this evaluation of integrated
organics management, the City of Palo Alto is comparing the results of the City’s Energy/Compost Facility or
Export Option for Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, and Biosolids Request for Proposals in concert with the
outcomes of the BFP. Together, the BFP and the energy/compost projects offer an important opportunity to
define a comprehensive and integrated approach to organics management and recovery.
Palo Alto’s City Council has prioritized the decommissioning of the RWQCP multiple-hearth furnaces (MHFs)
by the year 2019. The MHFs currently incinerate the RWQCP wastewater residuals; therefore, the City must
evaluate options for wastewater residuals management. Hence, the City prepared the BFP to select a cost-
effective biosolids management strategy to protect public health and the environment and to position the
City to respond to rapidly evolving biosolids regulatory, technological, and end-use opportunities.
This BFP is developed as a companion document to the City of Palo Alto Long Range Facilities Plan for the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Final Report (LRFP) (Carollo Engineers, 2012). The BFP builds on the
LRFP, allowing solids processing recommendations in the BFP to move forward in concert with other
planned improvements at the RWQCP (as defined in the LRFP). Together, the two documents provide a
comprehensive long-term plan for the RWQCP.
Summarized in this Executive Summary, the BFP includes:
• RWQCP residuals projections
• Description of evaluation methodology
• Development of viable alternatives
• Alternatives evaluation results
• Description of the recommended alternative
• Phasing and implementation plan
RWQCP Residuals Projections
Based on a planning period of 30 years from the base year 2015, the 2045 maximum month projections for
primary sludge, secondary or waste activated sludge, and fats/oils/grease were used for alternative facility
sizing and associated capital costs estimation, while the 2015 annual average solids projections were used
for the evaluation of annual operations and maintenance costs. The projected quantities are summarized in
Table ES-1. Note that for the BFP, food scraps and yard trimmings were not included in the analysis;
PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT ES-1
Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
however, the onsite alternatives could be designed to coprocess food scraps with the primary sludge and
waste activated sludge.
TABLE ES-1
Primary Sludge, Waste Activated Sludge, and Fats/Oils/Grease Projections
Parameter
2015 Average Annual
(dry pounds per day)
2045 Maximum Month
(dry pounds per day)
Primary Sludge and Waste Activated Sludge Dry Mass 44,460 64,516
Fats/Oils/Grease/Scum Dry Mass 2,200 2,200
Alternatives Evaluation Methodology
Generally, for biosolids facility projects, the wastewater residuals stabilization technology is initially dictated
by the biosolids end-use options. For this project, in addition to the end-use options, the selection of the
treatment technology and final biosolids end–uses will be determined by the evaluation criteria. The criteria
are reflective of Palo Alto staff and stakeholder values. The key criteria to evaluate biosolids management
alternatives are listed here and also shown in Figure ES-1:
• Technical viability and reliability
• Potential impacts on and benefits for the community and the environment
• Capital and operation and maintenance costs
• Minimizing greenhouse gas emissions
• Finding a beneficial use for the biosolids generated
• Producing renewable energy
• Managing organics and residuals at the local level
• Potential to integrate recovered organics from the Zero Waste Program with the biosolids
• Meeting current and future regulations
• Minimizing odors and other environmental impacts
Figure ES-1
Value Hierarchy and Criteria Categories for Palo Alto RWQCP Alternatives Evaluation
NPV
Impact on Community
Capital
Outside Funding Incentives
Energy
Labor
Chemicals
Hauling
O&M
EconomicPerformance
Traffic
Odor
Noise
Safety risk to O&Mstaff
SocialPerformance
GHG Carbon Footprint
Renewable Energy Generation
Beneficial use of
biosolids
Level of integration of PAorganic waste streams
Other EnvironmentalImpacts (Other than GHG)
EnvironmentalPerformance
Level of Complexity
Maintenance Expertise Required
Outside Entity Involvement
Diversity of BiosoildsEnd-use Options
Sidestream Impacts
TechnicalPerformance
Sustainability
Triple Bottom Line +
ES-2 PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT
Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Development of Viable Alternatives
Specific to the Palo Alto RWQCP, the viable options for biosolids management include onsite biosolids
processing solutions (e.g., anaerobic digestion) and solutions that involve trucking dewatered raw sludge for
further processing at an offsite processing facility.
Production of an anaerobically digested Class B biosolids cake will require management of the product in a
land- based solution. Production of a Class A biosolids cake would allow for more beneficial land-based
reuse opportunities, as well as alternative reuse opportunities, should the City decide to create a product for
local public distribution. For example, the City of Tacoma, Washington, blends its Class A cake with sawdust
to produce Tagro™, which is distributed to the public and sold in home and garden stores alongside
conventional soil amendments. Production of a thermally hydrolyzed and anaerobically digested Class A
biosolids can be sold or used as a soil amendment by blending with soil or another amendment such as
recovered wood chips. These onsite anaerobic digestion options allow for integration of food scraps
collected through the Palo Alto Zero Waste program.
For bulk agricultural land application in Northern California, there is currently not a clear advantage to
producing a Class A product rather than a Class B product. However, given that local management of
organics has been expressed as a community value for the City and given the ongoing pressure on land
application sites in California, production of a Class A product opens up future opportunities for biosolids
management, either locally or through production and distribution of a bulk material. In the long term
(during the course of the BFP planning period), the City of Palo Alto will want facilities that can produce a
Class A product, leaving multiple outlets and reuse opportunities available for RWQCP biosolids.
The following technology alternatives were considered for biosolids management:
1. Dewater and Haul (Raw Sludge) Solutions:
a. Synagro Central Valley Compost Facility
b. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Anaerobic Digestion
c. Kirby Canyon Landfill Facility
d. Future Synagro Bay Area Compost Facility
e. San José/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility
1. Zero Waste Energy Natural Gas Production Demonstration Project
2. Anaerobic Digestion at San José/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility
2. Onsite Processing Solutions (with truck haul to land application, or landfill alternative daily cover):
a. Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-fueled Combined Heat and Power
b. Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-fueled Combined Heat and Power
c. Thermal Hydrolysis Process and Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-fueled Combined Heat
and Power
d. Dewatering and Landfill Gas-fueled Thermal Drying
e. Dewatering and Thermal Drying/Gasification
To develop a robust analysis of each alternative, non-financial criteria were developed and analyzed in
addition to the economic analysis. The process, called multi-attribute utility analysis, includes a structured
evaluation of the risks and benefits of a decision in comparison to costs. Multi-attribute utility analysis is
recommended in situations where making a wrong decision could result in substantial financial risk,
collaboration and buy-in is essential to achieving desired outcomes, and the complexity or number of
alternatives is high. This type of analysis enables a decision-making process that explains the financial
benefits and risks inherent in the strategies considered, and is used to prioritize multiple activities so the
balance of economic, technical, environmental, and social factors is optimized.
PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT ES-3
Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alternatives Evaluation Results
During the initial screening of possible alternatives, two of the dewater and haul alternatives (Alternatives
1d and 1e, above) were identified as non-viable at this time and dropped from additional consideration.
Partnership opportunities with other wastewater agencies were reexamined to confirm the current viability
of the remaining dewater and haul options. The remaining eight viable alternatives were further developed
to allow for a planning-level evaluation. The financial analysis results from this evaluation are summarized in
Table ES-2, with the net present worth of the alternatives illustrated in Figure ES-2. The net present worth
for each alternative was estimated for the planning period of 30 years using a real discount rate of 1.5
percent.
TABLE ES-2
Alternatives Evaluation Financial Summary
Alternative
Biosolids
Classification
Biosolids
End-use
Capital
($million)
2015 Annual
O&M
($million/year)
2015 Net
Present
Worth
($million)
1a Dewater and Haul to Synagro Central Valley
Compost Facility
Class A Compost 14 1.6 53
1b Dewater and Haul to EBMUD Anaerobic
Digestion
Class B Land application 14 2.0 62
1c Dewater and Haul to Kirby Canyon Landfill Unclassified Landfill 14 2.3 69
2a Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-
fueled Combined Heat and Power
Class B Land application 53 0.5 64
2b Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion
with Biogas-fueled Combined Heat and Power
Class A Land application 70 0.5 83
2c Thermal Hydrolysis Process and Mesophilic
Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-fueled
Combined Heat and Power
Class A Land application 69 0.4 79
2d Dewatering and Landfill Gas-fueled Thermal
Drying
Class A Land application 57 1.6 95
2e Dewatering and Thermal Drying/Gasification Ash Landfill 53 2.2 106
Of the viable alternatives, two of the three sludge dewater and haul solutions emerged as economically
most feasible in comparison to the onsite processing solutions. Hauling to the Synagro Central Valley
Compost Facility (Alternative 1a) achieved the lowest positive (best) net present worth, followed by hauling
to EBMUD (Alternative 1b). It is recognized that beneficial use of biosolids is a project goal and that there
are increasing pressures to reduce or eliminate the disposition of unclassified sludge in landfills. Therefore,
Alternative 1c, which assumes the landfilling of unclassified sludge (not alternative daily cover), is recognized
as the least desirable dewater and haul alternative, and only considered as an emergency backup solution
for the RWQCP.
Of the onsite biosolids processing solutions, mesophilic anaerobic digestion (Alternative 2a) achieved the
lowest net present worth, followed by the thermal hydrolysis process (Alternative 2c) and temperature
phased anaerobic digestion (Alternative 2b). The anaerobic digestion solutions include a combined heat and
power system to beneficially utilize biogas generated by the anaerobic digestion process, thereby, resulting
in the most economical long-term solution. The thermal drying and gasification alternatives (Alternatives 2e
and 2f) were the highest cost alternatives.
ES-4 PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT
Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-2
Alternatives Net Present Worth Comparison
Net energy and anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were estimated for each alternative as
summarized in Table ES-3, and illustrated in Figures ES-3 and ES-4, respectively.
Relative to the existing solids handling system, the anaerobic digestion solutions, Alternatives 2a, 2b, and 2c
result in significant net energy production since these include a combined heat and power system to
beneficially utilize energy from biogas from the anaerobic digesters. Alternative 1b (Dewater and Haul to
EBMUD Anaerobic Digestion) also results in net energy production based on the energy recovered by the
combined heat and power system at EBMUD from the sludge that would be sent from the RWQCP.
These anaerobic digestion alternatives also result in significant GHG emission offsets. Both of these criteria
(net energy production and GHG emission offsets) are recognized as two of the most significant
environmental benefits of the anaerobic digestion solutions in comparison to the existing solids handling
system as well as the other biosolids processing alternatives evaluated. In addition to these, the volume of
anaerobically digested and dewatered biosolids to be hauled offsite and the related number of truck trips
annually are substantially lower than hauling dewatered sludge. With the thermal hydrolysis process
upstream of anaerobic digestion, greater volatile solids destruction would occur, further reducing the
quantity of biosolids hauled and also enhancing energy production.
PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT ES-5
Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE ES-3
Alternatives Environmental Analysis Summary
Alternative
Net Energya
(MWh/year)
Anthropogenic
GHG Emissionsb
(MT CO2e/year)
Hauling Miles
(truck
miles/year)
Number of Trucks
from RWQCP
(vehicles/year)
1a Dewater and Haul to Synagro Central Valley Compost
Facility
-2,576 714 311,300 1,354
1b Dewater and Haul to EBMUD Anaerobic Digestion 5,482 -1,660 101,500 1,354
1c Dewater and Haul to Kirby Canyon Landfill -1,255 3,104 92,000 1,354
2a Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-fueled
Combined Heat and Power
13,481 -3,642 135,900 755
2b Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-
fueled Combined Heat and Power
12,515 -3,335 129,500 719
2c Thermal Hydrolysis Process and Mesophilic Anaerobic
Digestion with Biogas-fueled Combined Heat and Power
14,219 -3,846 91,280 507
2d Dewatering and Landfill Gas-fueled Thermal Drying -4,706 1,061 55,590 397
2e Dewatering and Thermal Drying/Gasification -341 101 4,170 61
a Negative net energy represents net energy consumption, while positive net energy represents net energy production.
b Negative GHG emissions represent reduction in emissions, while positive GHG emissions represent increase in emissions.
MT CO2e/year = metric tons equivalent carbon dioxide per year.
MWh/year = megawatt-hours per year.
ES-6 PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT
Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-3
Alternatives Net Energy Production Summary
PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT ES-7
Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-4
Alternatives Anthropogenic Green House Gas Emissions Summary
The non-financial criteria were evaluated for each alternative to assist in the identification of the preferred
alternative. The total benefit scores for the alternatives were compared as illustrated in Figure ES-5.
Alternative 2c (Thermal Hydrolysis Process and Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-fueled
Combined Heat and Power) received the highest benefit score.
Hauling to Synagro Central Valley Compost Facility and to the EBMUD anaerobic digestion system
alternatives involve the hauling of unclassified sludge, leaving the sludge processing and final biosolids
product disposition to outside parties, outside the control of the RWQCP. These dewater haul solutions
were evaluated as viable near-term solutions for the RWQCP, but they are likely not viable solutions for the
entire 30-year planning period. Although the dewater and haul alternatives have relatively low net present
worth values, the net energy, GHG offsets, and non-financial scores were not as favorable as the anaerobic
digestion alternatives.
Alternative 2c (Thermal Hydrolysis Process and Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-fueled
Combined Heat and Power) received the highest benefit score, the best net energy production, and highest
GHG offsets, thereby emerging as the recommended approach to sustainable biosolids management that
best reflects Palo Alto and its stakeholders’ interests and values.
ES-8 PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT
Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-5
Alternatives Total Benefit Score Comparison
Recommended Biosolids-only Alternative
The recommended alternative for biosolids management is Alternative 2c: Thermal Hydrolysis Process and
Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-fueled Combined Heat and Power. As presented in Figure ES-6,
primary sludge, waste activated sludge, and fats/oils/grease are blended and predewatered, and then
undergo thermal hydrolysis followed by mesophilic anaerobic digestion. The digested solids, which are a
Class A Equivalent product (Exceptional Quality), are dewatered and land applied; however, many other
end-use distribution options are available to Palo Alto with this end product.
The biogas produced by anaerobic digestion is routed to a cogeneration system for production of power and
heat. By combining the captured landfill gas with the biogas, it is estimated that the system could produce
1.6 megawatts of power (equivalent to powering approximately 1,000 homes) and sufficient heat to sustain
the treatment process without supplemental fuel. Hence, the recovered resources from the system include
the nutrients in the biosolids reused by land application, energy converted to renewable power, and heat for
use by the RWQCP.
Cambi technology is assumed for the thermal hydrolysis process, as it is the most proven to date. Other
vendor processes, such as Veolia Kruger Exelys, can also be considered during predesign of the system.
Cambi has experience with food hydrolysis and digestion, which is an added benefit of this technology if the
City decides to coprocess food waste at the RWQCP in the future. The source-separated food would be
hydrolyzed making the more recalcitrant material amenable to anaerobic digestion, thereby improving the
PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT ES-9
Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
biogas production and helping Palo Alto beneficially utilize food scraps as part of its overall organics
management program. Other advantages of the thermal hydrolysis process are improved dewatering and
lower odor associated with the biosolids end-product. After blending with soil, the biosolids product could
be locally distributed by Palo Alto or a third party, such as Synagro.
Figure ES-6 shows the process flow diagram for Alternative 2c, including 2015 mass/energy balance and key
design criteria for the major unit processes.
Figure ES-6
Process Flow Diagram for Alternative 2c: Thermal Hydrolysis Process and Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion with
Biogas-fueled Combined Heat and Power
TPS+TWAS+FOG
170,263 gpd46,860 dppd Biosolids Cake
9.2 dtpd
30.6 wtpd
Biosolids
48,645 gpd19,304 dppd
6.1 MMBTU/H
THP Sludge48,645 gpd44,517 dppd
Filtrate143,574 gpd
Filtrate
62,810 gpd
Ave TKN: 1571 ppd
Ave NH3: 1310 ppd
Landfill Gas396,000 cf/d6.6 MMBTU/h
Mesophilic Digestion
No.of units 2Diameter 43'
Vol/unit 0.52 MG
Total volume 1.04 MG
Post-dewatering (Belt Filter Press)Duty units 2
Standby units 2
Belt width/unit 1m
Solids loading 1000 lb/hr/mSolids capture 95%
Cake conc 30%
CHP
Active units 2Standby units 1
Electric/unit 800kW
Installed 2,400kW
Biogas
313,728 cf/d
8.0 MMBTU/h
Recycle to headworksSidestream Treatment
Biogas Storage Tank (100' dia)
TPS+TWAS+FOG26,689 gpd44,517 dppd
Thermal Hydrolysis Design (TBD)
Land Application
Cake Storage & Loadout
Total volume 147 CY
Steam System Design (TBD)
1.6 MW
Dilution Water
Pre-dewatering (Centrifuge)Duty units 4
Standby units 2
Solids loading 1800 lb/hr/unit
Solids capture 95%Solids conc 20%
To WWTP and Grid
Solids stream
Liquids stream
Energy flow path
TPS+TWAS: Co-thickened Primary Sludge & Waste Activated SludgeFOG: Fats, oils, and greaseAverage Flow, gallons per day (gpd)Average Mass, dry pounds per day (dppd)
(cf/d = cubic feet per day; CHP = combined heat and power; CY = cubic yards; dppd = dry pounds per day; dtpd = dry
tons per day; FOG = fats, oils, and grease, gpd = gallons per day; kW = kilowatts; lb/hr/m = pounds per hour per meter;
m = meter; MG = million gallons; MMBtu/h = million British thermal units per hour; ppd = pounds per day; MW =
megawatts; TBD = to be determined, THP = thermal hydrolysis process, TKN = total Kjeldahl nitrogen, TPS = thickened
primary sludge; TWAS = thickened waste activated sludge; wtpd = wet tons per day; WWTP = wastewater treatment
plant.)
ES-10 PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT
Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Phasing and Implementation
Because of the requirement to decommission the MHFs by 2019, several unknowns regarding the quantity
and approach to organics management in Palo Alto, and final disposition of the Energy/Compost Facility, a
phased approach to implementation is recommended:
• Component 1: Design and construct a sludge dewatering and loadout facility onsite at the RWQCP. This
facility can be planned, designed, and constructed by the end of 2017. To ensure the best hauling and
tipping fee rates, it is recommended that the RWQCP continue to negotiate with both EBMUD and
Synagro as potential sludge receiving facilities. Once the facility is in service, after a typical 6 month
testing and performance period, the decommissioning and demolition of the MHFs may commence,
with completion by the end of 2018. This will open up more space on the RWQCP site for the
Component 2 facilities, in the central part of the site.
• Component 2: Design and construct Alternative 2c (Thermal Hydrolysis Process and Mesophilic
Anaerobic Digestion with Biogas-fueled Combined Heat and Power) facilities that would utilize the
dewatering and loadout facility (Component 1). The development of Component 2 can occur in parallel
with the construction and startup of Component 1, with construction of the Component 2 facilities
planned to begin immediately after the demolition of the MHFs. During this phase, it is recommended
that the RWQCP continue to explore the most economical end-use options for the biosolids product.
Construction of Component 2 facilities can be completed by the end of 2021. During start-up, the new
biosolids facilities would be integrated with the existing dewatering and loadout facility and then the
performance period of the entire system can be conducted.
The implementation schedule for Components 1 and 2 is summarized in Figure ES-7.
Figure ES-7
Overview of Implementation Schedule for Components 1 and 2
PALO_ALTO_RWQCP_BIOSOLIDS_FACILITY_PLAN_DRAFT ES-11
Draft
Attachment E - Wastewater Treatment Fund
Financing Analysis: Overview for Wastewater Treatment Fund
Table 1
CAPACITY
SHARE FLOW SHARE
Debt Payment1
Expense
Reduction (i.e.
savings) by
Retiring
Incinerators
with THP AD
Alternative
New Annual
WWT2 Fund
Expense for
Project
Year "A""B" "A" - "B"
2019 $3,296,657 $1,462,469 $1,834,189
2020 $3,296,657 $1,499,030 $1,797,627
2021 $3,296,657 $1,536,506 $1,760,151
2022 $3,296,657 $1,574,919 $1,721,739
2023 $3,296,657 $1,614,292 $1,682,366
2024 $3,296,657 $1,654,649 $1,642,008
2025 $3,296,657 $1,696,015 $1,600,642
2026 $3,296,657 $1,738,416 $1,558,242
2027 $3,296,657 $1,781,876 $1,514,781
2028 $3,296,657 $1,826,423 $1,470,234
2029 $3,296,657 $1,872,083 $1,424,574
2030 $3,296,657 $1,918,885 $1,377,772
2031 $3,296,657 $1,966,858 $1,329,800
2032 $3,296,657 $2,016,029 $1,280,628
2033 $3,296,657 $2,066,430 $1,230,227
2034 $3,296,657 $2,118,091 $1,178,567
2035 $3,296,657 $2,171,043 $1,125,614
2036 $3,296,657 $2,225,319 $1,071,338
2037 $3,296,657 $2,280,952 $1,015,705
2038 $3,296,657 $2,337,976 $958,682
2039 $3,296,657 $2,396,425 $900,232
2040 $3,296,657 $2,456,336 $840,322
2041 $3,296,657 $2,517,744 $778,913
2042 $3,296,657 $2,580,688 $715,970
2043 $3,296,657 $2,645,205 $651,452
2044 $3,296,657 $2,711,335 $585,322
2045 $3,296,657 $2,779,118 $517,539
2046 $3,296,657 $2,848,596 $448,061
2047 $3,296,657 $2,919,811 $376,846
2048 $3,296,657 $2,992,806 $303,851
$98,899,716 $64,206,323 $34,693,394
1: State SRF Loan=$69 mn, i = 2.5%, 30-y term, 1st payment starts 1-y after construction completion
2: WWT = Wastewater Treatment
Attachment E: Page 1 of 2 4/14/201411:16 AM
Attachment E - Wastewater Treatment Fund
Financing Analysis: Expense Impact by Contributing RWQCP Partner Agency
Table 2
Year
Palo Alto WWC
Fund Mountain View Los Altos EPASD
1 Stanford
Los Altos
Hills
2019 $699,780 $691,318 $167,994 $158,120 $83,609 $33,368
2020 $685,825 $677,373 $164,389 $155,777 $81,364 $32,900
2021 $671,520 $663,080 $160,694 $153,375 $79,063 $32,420
2022 $656,858 $648,429 $156,906 $150,912 $76,704 $31,928
2023 $641,829 $633,413 $153,024 $148,389 $74,287 $31,424
2024 $626,425 $618,020 $149,045 $145,802 $71,809 $30,908
2025 $610,635 $602,243 $144,966 $143,150 $69,269 $30,378
2026 $594,451 $586,072 $140,786 $140,432 $66,665 $29,835
2027 $577,862 $569,496 $136,500 $137,646 $63,997 $29,279
2028 $560,859 $552,506 $132,108 $134,791 $61,262 $28,709
2029 $543,430 $535,091 $127,606 $131,864 $58,458 $28,125
2030 $525,566 $517,240 $122,991 $128,864 $55,585 $27,525
2031 $507,255 $498,944 $118,261 $125,789 $52,639 $26,911
2032 $488,486 $480,190 $113,413 $122,637 $49,620 $26,282
2033 $469,248 $460,967 $108,443 $119,406 $46,525 $25,637
2034 $449,529 $441,264 $103,350 $116,095 $43,353 $24,976
2035 $429,317 $421,068 $98,129 $112,701 $40,102 $24,298
2036 $408,600 $400,367 $92,777 $109,222 $36,770 $23,603
2037 $387,365 $379,148 $87,292 $105,656 $33,354 $22,891
2038 $365,599 $357,400 $81,669 $102,000 $29,852 $22,161
2039 $343,289 $335,107 $75,906 $98,254 $26,264 $21,413
2040 $320,421 $312,257 $69,999 $94,413 $22,585 $20,646
2041 $296,981 $288,836 $63,944 $90,477 $18,815 $19,860
2042 $272,956 $264,829 $57,738 $86,443 $14,950 $19,054
2043 $248,330 $240,222 $51,376 $82,307 $10,989 $18,229
2044 $223,088 $215,000 $44,856 $78,068 $6,928 $17,382
2045 $197,215 $189,148 $38,172 $73,723 $2,766 $16,514
2046 $170,695 $162,649 $31,322 $69,270 ($1,500) $15,625
2047 $143,512 $135,487 $24,300 $64,705 ($5,872) $14,714
2048 $115,650 $107,647 $17,103 $60,026 ($10,354) $13,779
$13,232,578 $12,984,811 $3,035,060 $3,440,313 $1,259,857 $740,775
1: East Palo Alto Sanitary District
2: WWC = Wastewater Collection
Share Palo Alto Mountain View Los Altos EPASD Stanford
Los Altos
Hills
FLOW 38.17% 38.14% 9.86% 6.41% 6.14% 1.28%
CAPACITY 38.16% 37.89% 9.47% 7.64% 5.26% 1.58%
Attachment E: Page 2 of 2 4/14/201411:16 AM
Wastewater Major CIP &
Organics Facility Plan Program Management
& Projects Delivery
First RFP Overall Program Management (Consultant)
Development of RFPs
Applying for Grants and Loans
Pre-Design Work on Components No. 2-4
Prepare Financing Plans and Timelines for Each Component
Second RFP Component No. 1 Design
(Possibly Design/Build)
Third RFP Component No. 2 Design
(Possibly Design/Build)
Fourth RFP Component No. 3 Design/Build/Own/Operate/Maintain
(Possibly Fewer Functions)
(Possibly Outside Palo Alto & “No Project” Needed)
Fifth RFP Component No. 4 Design/Build/Own/Operate/Maintain
(Possibly Fewer Functions)
(Possibly Outside Palo Alto & “No Project” Needed)
Attachment G: List of Key terms
Anaerobic Digestion (AD): Anaerobic digestion is a collection of processes by
which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of
oxygen
Anthropogenic and biogenic greenhouse gas emissions: Anthropogenic GHG
emissions originate from human activity, which are different from biogenic GHG
emissions originating in the natural world. For example, the combustion of biogas
from a digester is considered biogenic while the combustion of natural gas and
other fossil fuels is considered anthropogenic.
Bay Are Biosolids to Energy Project (BAB2E): The RWQCP is 1 of 19 partners in
the Bay Area Biosolids to Energy Project (BAB2E). BAB2E is evaluating two
technologies: AquaCritox by SCFI and gasification by MaxWest. MaxWest
Environmental Systems, Inc., has been selected to enter into negotiations for a
20-year contract to design, build, own, and operate a biosolids management
system to benefit BAB2E project. This commercial-scale gasification facility
proposed by MaxWest Environmental Systems, Inc., will process 67,000 wet tons
of biosolids per year. The facility will be hosted at a BAB2E coalition member’s
site, though not in Palo Alto, and will also receive biosolids from neighboring
Coalition members. MaxWest was not a proposer for the E/CF RFP.
Biosolids: Biosolids is a term used to describe stabilized sludge, that is, the
wastewater solids after treatment. The term sludge and wastewater solids are
interchangeable; they refer to the residual material separated from the liquid
stream in the wastewater treatment process. The solids are residual material
prior to stabilization or pathogen removal. Biosolids is a term used to describe
stabilized sludge, that is, the wastewater solids after treatment. Biosolids are
highly regulated through the Environmental Protection Agency Title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 503 Rule (often referred to as the “503 Biosolids Rule”).
Biosolids, which are high in organic carbon and nutrients, can be used as a
fertilizer, land amendment, alternative daily cover for landfills, and as a fuel.
Technically, wastewater solids off-hauled and not stabilized through treatment
should be referred to as sludge or wastewater solids and not biosolids.
Dewatering: Dewatering removes water from sludge so that AD systems are
properly sized, to reduce hauling costs, and to maximize biogas production and
treatment efficiency. Combining the pre- and post-dewatering into one building
with reduced redundancy in dewatering equipment is feasible but increases risks
from an operational reliability perspective. This option was suggested by a
proposer. A fundamental reason for having separate facilities is that the THP and
AD process provide a pathogen free exceptional quality biosolids product.
Handling of these treated and untreated solids streams in the same building, and
indeed with the same equipment, presents the opportunity for cross
contamination; hence, staff recommends separating these systems and using
separate and independently redundant equipment for pre- and post-dewatering.
Dry Anaerobic Digestion: Much of the debate in the Measure E campaign
revolved around the potential to use dry AD. The Feasibility Study in 2011 also
looked at dry AD for much of the analysis. Since wastewater solids made up the
majority of the material to be processed, dry AD was deemed infeasible. One E/CF
RFP proposal included dry AD technology, but did not meet minimum
qualifications and was not considered. Dry AD was also not likely to be an
appropriate technology for the food scraps and yard trimmings only due to the
ratio of the material. The dry AD facility recently constructed in San Jose has a
yard trimming to food scrap ratio of 20:80, while the Palo Alto ratio of materials is
closer to 50:50. This ratio would provide a low biogas yield, resulting in poor
project economics.
Gasification: Gasification is a thermal process using extremely high temperatures
in the absence of oxygen that transforms a solid material into a synthesis gas that
can be combusted to create energy. While gasification is a thermal process, it
does not yield the same air pollutants as incineration. See BFP gasification
Technical Memorandum on status of gasification for biosolids.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Reported as annual metric tons (MT) of anthopogenic
CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions throughout staff report
Mesophilic Wet Anaerobic Digestion: Mesophilic digestion takes place optimally
around 30 to 38°C to develop proper micro-organisms – about the same
temperature as the human body.
State Revolving Fund (SRF): The State Water Resources Control Board Division of
Financial Assistance administers the SRF loan program. The SRF loan can fund
wastewater treatment projects. Between February 2005 and March 2014, SRF
interest varied between 1.7 and 3.0% with an average of 2.37%, standard
deviation of 0.29%; the interest rate used in the Biosolids Facilities Plan is 2.5%;
between 1989 and January 23, 2014, the SRF loan term was capped at 20 years
with limited exception; as of January 23, 2014, new SRF projects including the
city’s biosolids project can take advantage of 30-year terms.
Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP): THP is a high temperature and pressure
pretreatment process upstream of AD systems; the thermal hydrolysis step
disintegrates cell structures and dissolves naturally occurring cell polymers into an
easily digestible feed for AD; the pretreatment step occurs at a very high
concentration and also makes the sludge more flowable, allowing a smaller
digester volume and footprint, which is a significant advantage for the
constrained 25-acre RWQCP site; THP increases organic biodegradability, yielding
more biogas and energy and offsetting more GHG than other AD systems; THP
yields a final dewatered solids at 30-40%, much higher than traditional AD
systems at 18-25% solids, resulting in less hauling and land application costs; the
final THP dewatered biosolids are sterilized and pathogen free due to 165C at 20
minute treatment. CAMBI, Norway, is one of the providers of THP technology.
Other technology providers of THP do not have the same patents as CAMBI and
are in earlier stages of development (e.g,. Veolia Kruger Exelys); staff will continue
to monitor other THP technology providers.
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Enid Pearson <enidpearson1@gmail.com>
Friday, April 18, 2014 1:24 PM
Council, City
Organics Facilities Plan April 29, 2014
April 29 Council Ltr AD.doc
Mayor Shepherd and City Council Members
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA 81TY 6LERit'8 8FFI8E
lit APR 18 PH 2: 01
Attached is my letter supporting the Staffs recommendation
re the Organics Facilities Plan.
Thanks for your attention.
Enid Pearson, Former P A Councilmember
1
April19, 2014
Mayor Shepherd and Members of the Palo Alto City Council
Re: Staff Recommendation re Organics Facilities Plan
I support the staff's recommended proposal for developing a Four-Component Organics Facilities
Plan. I urge you to support it without further changes.
I have read the staff report and have several comments.
Your staff is to be commended for giving you a viable proposal to develop, fund and complete
several very complicated projects. It will take at least ten years to see all projects to their
completion. Many of you, including myself, one way or another, will be long gone from this
scene. But you have a chance to at least start these projects without messing around.
The difference between what the voters of Palo Alto were lobbied on and what may truly be built
is striking. Most of the greenhouse gas reductions will come from retiring the RWQTP's
incinerators and combining sewer sludge with food waste. This was already in the RWQTP's
long range plan before the E campaign was even started. I concede only that the time table may
have been brought forward.
This report confirms that the dry anaerobic process touted by E was not feasible and had not been
used anywhere in the world. And no where in the report is the one big selling point ofE that all
industrial buildings needed for the processes would be hidden by acres of a roof-top green garden
implying no impact on park land. The report noted two vendors used no park land (very
commendable) and the third very little.
Campaign pressure has been on you since 2007 and millions of dollars and thousands of hours
have been spent by the city on studies, staff work, compost task forces and meetings. Thousands
of pages of misinformation have been tossed around by the uninformed. You, and we, the public,
now have something we can finally believe and accept. Do.n't mess up this chance.
Your desire to please voters is expected, but we also want you to make decisions that honor and
effect bigger and tougher goals. Support staffs direction and you can reduce GHG's while still
protecting parks, open space and conservation lands-particularly our Bay lands.
Please, move forward. Support your staff's recommendations for a Four Component Organics
Facilities Plan.
Enid Pearson, former Palo Alto Councilmember
1019 Forest Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Byxbee Park Composting
Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM
Council, City
Keene, James
Composting Facility, Byxbee Park
Mayor Shepherd and Councilmembers;
)
CITY OF PALO .ALTO. C~ ei,.Y 8LERit'8 BFF18E
14 APR 22 PH 5:28
April22,2014
Next week you will be discussing the responses to the RPF sent out to seek suppliers who can comply with the
com posting required by Measure E. Based on the staff report it appears that no vendor or proposal provided an
acceptable response. Six companies responded to the RFP. Three were disqualified and of the three remaining
proposals, only one proposed to use any of the Measure E park land. None of the proposals saved any money
for the city's ratepayers.
Staff is recommending rejecting all ofthe proposals and instead is recommending that the City Council adopt a
Four Component Organics Facilities Plan (OFP) for a City operated facility. The first three components are on
the Regional Water Quality Control Plant site and the fourth component may potentially use a portion ofthe
Measure E site.
Please reject the RFP proposals and adopt the Staff recommended Organics Facilities Plan without amendments
because:
1. It provides the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant partners the best option for short-term
resilience, long-term cost savings, energy production and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
2. The costs for the OFP are lower than any of the three RFP proposals available to the City. ·
3. Using a Thermal Hydrolysis process combined with Wet Anaerobic Digestion for the Sewage Sludge
(Biosolids) and food scraps provides the greatest biogas yield, smallest physical footprint, and the highest
quality biosolids residual.
Yours very truly,
Bob Moss
401 0 Orme St.
Palo Alto 94306
1
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
CITY OF PALO ALi O. CA
Elizabeth Robinson <qetuo895@comcast.ne$1lY CLERK'S OFFICE
Tuesday, April 22, 2014 9:12 AM
Council, City 14 APR 22 AM·~ ~l
Four Component organics Facilities plan
I have been following your review of the staff recommendation, and request that you support the Four-component Organics Plan.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Weingarten
1
Carnahan, David ~~y ~ ~~! Q AlTO CA
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council members -I closely followed the evolving information and thinking
regarding the compost/ energy plant. I viewed the City Council's recent study session on
the matter and read the staff report.
I strongly urge you to ratify staff's recommendations regarding the Organics Facilities
Plan. The recommendations provide the path to the best possible outcome given the
amassed research, information, proposals, analysis, financial projections, etc. That we can
reduce GH gas emissions, deal with bio-solids more responsibly, and produce energy
without destroying parkland set aside by Measure E is great news for everyone.
Winter Dellenbach
1
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Shauny Moore <smooreva@gmail.com>
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:30AM
Council, City
Four Point Organics Facilities Plan
I urge you to accept the Staff recommended Organics Facility Plan,
Thank you,
Shauny Moore
666 Kellogg A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
CITY Of PALO ALlO. CA e1n, CLI!IU\ S OF PICE-
I~ APR 23 AM 7: It\
From: david.bubenik <david.bubenik@HomerAvenue.com>
Date: April 22, 2014 at 10:16:59 AM PDT
To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: AD's astonishing carbon footprint
Honorable Members of the City Council
Some time ago I wondered what the carbon footprint of the anaerobic digestion (AD) electrical generation
process might be, but could find no reference to it in the ARI or other publications. That seemed a strange
omission because the analysis is not difficult; a high school chemistry student could do it.
So I did it. The result is that, per kiloWatt-hour or MegaWatt-hour or any other measure of saleable
energy produced, the AD carbon footprint is double that of a coal-fired generator, which in turn is the
universal benchmark of carbon-dirty energy. The attached graphics show how this comes about.
The analysis is based on data in the document by C. de La Beaujardiere cited in the graphics, so the data
should be uncontroversial.
Some people call AD “renewable energy” because, presumably, vegetation picks that carbon out of the
air and we can cycle it through the AD process again and again. However, to return that carbon to the air,
we must build an expensive, spectacularly inefficient plant that produces a minute amount of our energy
needs (the Measure E dreamboat would have delivered only 1% of Palo Alto’s demand). As the attached
analysis shows, only 1/8 of the energy in that carbon could be called renewable; 7/8 is waste and
overhead. Perpetual motion does not exist.
Nature has sequestered the carbon in the biomass feedstock from the CO2 in the air. Done. On the other
hand, my trade publications describe heroic, expensive efforts to sequester the CO2 produced by
commercial coal and gas-fueled electrical generators.
We, however, are urged to put that naturally-sequestered carbon back into the air, at great capital outlay,
for a very small return, via an inefficient and very dirty process. That makes no sense to this engineer.
Isn’t leaving that sequestered carbon sequestered the wisest, most effective, most progressive way to
deal with global warming?
David Bubenik
Electrical Engineer
420 Homer Avenue
Palo Alto
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
City Council:
.• ~ \ .: . ,. .,
61T'I 6F f")t(L6 AL"f6. 8Ac
. . . CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Mhunw1ck <mhunwiCk@aol.com>
Wedn~sd~y, April 23, 2014 10:09 At'4 APR 23 AH II·: 5'1
Council, City
Byxbee Park
We are writing to ask you to reject the RFP proposals and to adopt the Staff recommended Organics
Facilities Plan. This sounds like the best of several plans.
Lynn & Marilyn Hunwick, University South Neighborhood, 1110 Webster Street, Palo Alto 94301.
1
Carnahan, David
From:
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CAJ.
Michael Goldeen <michael@goldeen.cOM'::~( CLERK'S OFFICE ··
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 10:43 AM
Council, City 14 APR 23 AH H: 58 ,
Subject: Energy/Compost Facility
Councilmembers;
Speaking as an ex Palo Altan, thank God, I find the Staffs Organic Facilities Plan much to be preferred over the option of
a comprehensive anCErobic digestion plant. It appears to be as carbon efficient as the comprehensive approach, and at
far lower cost and disturbance to its surroundings. It strikes me as one ofthose half-vast measures which work far
better than a final solution.
Too bad it's not likely to provide the "green points" or attention or rewards and environmental citations you hunger for.
You're just going to have to suck that up in favor of acting in the best interests of your constituents.
Respectfully,
Michael Goldeen
804 Lexington Avenue
Carson City, NV 89703
775-297-3688
michael@goldeen.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
~ry 0~ r~o A~TO. CA dl K s u FICE
Joe Hirsch <jihirschpa@comcast.net>
Wednesday, April23, 201411:01.4-k APR 23 AH II: 5$
Council, City
City Staff Organics Facilities Plan
Please adopt the Staff recommended Organics Facilities Plan unamended for the following reasons:
1. It provides the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant partners the best option for short-term
resilience, long-term cost savings, energy production and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions;
2. The costs for the OFP are lower than any ofthe three RFP proposals available to the City at this time; and
3. Using a Thermal Hydrolysis process combined with Wet Anaerobic Digestion for the Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) and
food scraps provides the greatest biogas yield, smallest physical footprint, and the highest quality biosolids residual.
Please do not use the Measure E site (formerly the Byxbee Park habitat corridor) for ordinary com posting.
Thank you.
Joe Hirsch
1
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 28, 2014
To: James Keene, City Manager
From: Mike Sartor, Public Works Director
Subject: Direct Staff to Pursue the Four-Component Organics Facilities Plan
Council Members:
This memo supplements Item #11 Staff Report: Directing Staff to Pursue the Four-Component Organics
Facilities Plan (ID# 4550) on the April 29, 2014 Council Agenda. It provides Council with alternative
recommendations should Council desire to direct a more immediate implementation of local aerobic
composting of yard waste on the Measure E site. At this stage, Staff is not issuing a new Staff Report
changing its recommendations, but these alternative recommendations have been vetted by staff and
are acceptable from an operational standpoint, should Council decide to direct implementation.
The Original Energy/Compost Request for Proposals (E/C RFP) and Technology Issues
In light of the passage of Measure E, and the hope by many that a single emerging technology existed
that would treat wastewater biosolids, food scraps and yard trimmings together, Council authorized a
very broad RFP to seek out private sector proposals which would accomplish this goal. It was hoped that
Palo Alto’s interest and a fast changing technological infrastructure would result in interesting new
proposals and the RFP was structured more than anything else to test the market place and attempt to
quantify pricing for such emerging technologies. However, the proposals received did not, for the most
part, include new technologies. Instead, the proposals utilized wet anaerobic digestion (WAD) for
biosolids, an old and well established technology utilized by most sewage treatment plants in the United
States. At the same time, Palo Alto was using a consulting engineering firm (CH2M-Hill) to develop a
Biosolids Facilities Plan to eliminate the Plant’s incinerators. The results reinforced the choice of WAD.
CH2M-Hill recommended coupling WAD with Thermal Hydrolysis (TH) to release more energy from the
biosolids, as did one of the responders to the RFP. Both on-site responders and CH2M-Hill
recommended pre-processing food scraps so that they could be added to the WAD, and produce more
methane. All responders and the research done by Staff concluded that aerobic composting was the
best technology currently available for yard trimmings. Aerobic composting is the choice of most
facilities, including the private sector facility near Gilroy that takes Palo Alto’s yard trimmings.
In short, we have learned that there is no single process, nor is there a feasible emerging new
technology, which can accept all 3 waste streams. Rather, the best path forward is utilizing established
technologies: TH and WAD for biosolids and food and aerobic composting for yard trimmings. Through
the RFP, staff has also concluded that mixing food stock and/or bio solids with yard trimmings would
1
degrade the compost and limit its ability to be used for residential use and other crop and food use.
Therefore Staff is recommending an Organics Facilities Plan (OFP) which combines what we have
learned into this 4-component plan.
Public or Private Ownership and Operation
Because Staff is recommending, for the most part, well-established technologies (as described above), it
no longer appears wise to have all components of the OFP owned and operated by the private sector, as
envisioned in the original RFP. The original RFP (the E/C RFP) anticipated the use of emerging, more
risky technologies. That risk could be avoided by the City through private sector ownership and
operation albeit with a higher cost. However, with the choice of less risky technologies, and the
advantages of public sector financing, Staff is now recommending City ownership and operation of the
Dewatering and Truck Off-Haul facility and the WAD facility. Private sector ownership and operation of
the Food Preprocessing and Yard Trimmings Composting bears further consideration as project
development continues. Staff has received several comments on the Net Present Value Staff calculated
for the cost of the OFP and agrees that the value is not correct and is in the process of modifying its
estimate. The new estimate is likely to be approximately 10% higher and will not change the Staff Report
conclusions.
Cancelling the Existing E/C RFP and Re-Issuing a More Narrowly Tailored RFP
Since Staff is now recommending an Organics Facilities Plan (OFP) which is much more focused on
specific, well-established technologies, it is recommended that the existing E/C RFP be cancelled. The
existing RFP is significantly different from the new recommended plan (the OFP) and could expose the
City to bid challenges if Staff did not select the top ranked proposer or negotiated a contract with any of
the current proposers that varied significantly from their original proposals.
Staff anticipates that a new, narrowly tailored RFP that incorporated the current OFP (with key
modifications discussed below) could be prepared in short order. The existing proposers could modify
their proposals to match the OFP and resubmit in response to a new RFP in a short period of time. The
new RFP would specify the facilities which are to be City owned and operated. Staff has reached out to
the existing proposers and at least two of them have expressed an interest in re-submitting a proposal.
In addition, now that the technology has been identified, staff believes there will be additional
proposers and that a more competitive price can be achieved. Finally, as the RFP will involve a more
traditional technology, staff anticipates that some of the proposal terms and conditions and risk
allocations can be relaxed further increasing the likelihood of reduced pricing.
Alternative Recommendations to the Staff Report Recommendations
In order to address some of the concerns regarding a quicker implementation of dry aerobic composting
of yard trimmings, Staff is providing Council with Alternative Recommendations. These Alternative
Recommendations add two key provisions to the Staff Report Recommendations. First, they specify that
a new RFP will be immediately issued to replace the existing one. The new RFP would specify which
facilities are to be City Owned and Operated. The current proposers could modify their proposals to
match the OFP and resubmit in response to the new RFP in a short period of time. Adding this provision
addresses the concern that it will consume too much time to issue multiple RFPs as envisioned by the
OFP.
The second and more controversial added provision is that the new RFP would express a preference that
the relatively flat (3.8 acre) portion of the Measure E Site be used for yard trimmings processing. The
community’s comments continue to be split over this issue, with some of the community opposed, and
2
some in favor of use of this land for a compost facility for yard trimmings. Because CEQA compliance has
not yet been achieved for a facility on the Measure E site, Council cannot make a final decision with
respect to this use. Council can, however, issue an RFP that states its preference to explore aerobic
composting of yard trimmings on the 3.8 acre flat portion of the Measure E site and that this RFP be
issued immediately.
The Alternative Recommendations are shown below.
1a. Cancel the “Energy/Compost Facility or Export Option for Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings,
and Biosolids” Request for Proposals (E/CF RFP).
1b. Immediately reissue a substitute RFP for implementation of Components #2-4 (Anaerobic
Digesters; Food Preprocessing; Yard Trimmings Composting) of the Organics Facilities Plan
(OFP, Attachment A). The RFP shall express a preference that the relatively flat portion
(3.8 acres or less) of the Measure E Site shall be used for Aerobic Composting of Yard
trimmings (Component #4). No later than December 2014, Staff shall return to Council
with recommendations to commence CEQA work and negotiate a contract(s) with the top-
rated proposer(s).
2. Begin to pursue the Organics Facilities Plan (OFP, Attachment A) by hiring a Program Management
firm. Should there be any differences between the OFP and the Recommendations adopted by
Council, the Recommendations shall govern.
3. Apply for a State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan for Component
One of the Organics Facilities Plan (OFP).
4. Initiate design of Component One of the OFP, Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul-Out Facility,
including direction to prepare related modifications to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(RWQCP) partner agency agreements.
5. Initiate the answering of predesign questions associated with Component Two, Development of a
Thermal Hydrolysis Process Wet Anaerobic Digestion (THP AD) facility, at the RWQCP; Component
Three, Food Scrap Preprocessing; and Component Four, Yard Trimmings Processing of the OFP,
including the following:
a. Determine the price of electricity that the RWQCP will receive for power generated by the
facility;
b. Establish the optimum size of the THP AD facility built to accommodate biosolids for a 30-
year planning horizon as well as capacity for food scraps, which Palo Alto and any other
jurisdiction would commit to bring to the facility;
c. Establish a list of contributing partner agencies who commit to bring food scraps to the
facility;
d. Initiate a financing plan for Component Two of the OFP;
e. Determine the appropriate purchasing and project delivery mechanisms that should be
utilized to develop the OFP; and
f. Determine the required CEQA documentation for the Components of the OFP.
6. Update the existing timeline and schedule in December, 2014 for all Components of the OFP.
3
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4619)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Business Registry Certificate Program
Title: Approval of Staff Recommended Framework for Development of a
Business Registry Certificate Ordinance & Fee Program as a Replacement/
Enhancement of the City's Current Use Certificate Program to be
Implemented by December 31, 2014
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council direct staff to move forward with a two phase framework to
implement a Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance & Fee Program as a full cost-
recovery replacement/ enhancement of the existing Use Certificate Process including:
Phase One
1. A focus on businesses occupying or planning to occupy commercial spaces within Palo
Alto.
2. Creating a new online-based BRC program through technology incorporated within the
City’s existing Permit Management System.
3. Developing/ implementing an outreach and marketing plan including stakeholders from
multiple types of businesses.
4. Return to Council for approval of BRC ordinance and program implementation and
launch by 12/31/14, including plan for initial enforcement.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Phase Two
5. Options for enhanced enforcement, including fiscal impacts, for Council consideration.
6. An analysis of options to expand the BRC program to include businesses not occupying/
planning to operate from commercial spaces within Palo Alto.
Staff further recommends transferring $35,000 from the City Council Contingency to the City
Manager’s budget for initial start-up costs including outreach, training, and program/
technology development.
Background
Palo Alto is one of a small number of California cities that do not have a business registry or
fee/taxi as a local requirement for opening or operating a business within the City. Although
some have argued that this creates an incentive for business to locate in Palo Alto, the City has
also lacked the access to the critical data that license/ registry can make available.
As the demand for commercial space in Palo Alto has increased, the density of use of
commercial space (especially high-tech offices) has also increased in general. The changing
nature of office use has come with more people occupying buildings in new open floor plan
configurations. Often, these employees are commuting by auto from San Francisco and other
locales to work in Palo Alto. This has had a perceived deleterious effect on the parking and
traffic situation as well as the quality of the environment around our business districts.
The need for the City to obtain real data behind employment in our business districts is clear.
With such data, the City can begin to measure employment trends and business activity
throughout the City in a cohesive and coordinated manner. Its availability is vital for developing
and measuring the effectiveness of transportation demand management programs, and other
transportation planning efforts. There are several other potentially valuable uses for the data
including:
o Land use decisions/ planning
o Economic development
o Public safety/ emergency response
o Emergency/ disaster preparedness
o Regional Water Quality Control Plant compliance
o Business marketing/ outreach
City of Palo Alto Page 3
o Integration of data
o Coordination of staff processes/ improvements to business experiences
On February 24, 2014, the Council unanimously approved a Council Colleague’s Memo directing
staff to return to Council in short order with a plan for a business registry program that is
online, simple to use, and cost recovery in nature (i.e. not meant to generate additional
revenue for the City). The Council specifically pointed out the need for the information,
especially as it relates to “number of employees, types of businesses, and other information
that would be valuable for effective planning purpose”. The Colleague’s Memo is provided in
Attachment 1.
Although there has never been a business license or registry requirement for businesses
operating in Palo Alto, there are other similar permit requirements in place. These depend on
the type of business conducted. Most notably, the City requires a one-time Certificate of Use
(known colloquially as a Use & Occupancy Certificate or U&O-Attachment 2). Section 16.04.1 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Codeii requires that a Certificate of Use be obtained by any business
occupying or planning to occupy any commercial space (including portions of a building). The
current fee for the Certificate of Use is $413iii.
By definition, home-based, or “transitory” (i.e., businesses operating in Palo Alto, but not based
out of commercial property here, e.g. construction contractors, real-estate professionals,
landscapers, painters, or other businesses based in other cities) are not required to submit a
Certificate of Use. Therefore, in phase one a BRC would not be required for these companies.
Staff would explore the option of potentially enhancing the BRC program requirement for these
companies in phase two.
There are two types of applicants for a Certificate of Use:
1. Businesses planning on doing tenant improvements that require other permits
2. Businesses occupying the space as-is, or without any improvements requiring
permits.
For both types of applicants, the Certificate of Use approval process typically includes a zoning
use, building code, and fire safety compliance check from the Planning & Community
Environment, Building, and Fire Departments. Also, any hazardous materials used or located
on-site as part of the business need to be disclosed within the document and are subject to
further approvals by the Fire Department Hazardous Materials Inspectors. The main distinction
City of Palo Alto Page 4
is that for type 1 (above), the Certificate of Use would be approved concurrently with other
permits, and in type 2, the Certificate of Use would be approved as a stand-alone document.
In most cases, the zoning use, and building/ fire compliances checks that constitute a Certificate
of Use are not complex and are completed “over-the-counter” by Development Center staff.
Unless there is some complexity related to zoning or building compliance that requires more
detailed research, the Certificate of Use is typically approved by these front counter staff. Fire
safety inspections are typically completed by the Fire Inspectors in-the-field as a follow up
activity after the Certificate of Use has been issued.
Although the Certificate of Use does collect some data about companies, it is not
comprehensive, and is only related to zoning and building code compliance. Further, the data is
not currently compiled in any database, and therefore is not integrated into our existing permit
management system in any coordinated manner.
There are several other challenges related to the current Certificate of Use program. For
example, unless a company is involved in a tenant improvement requiring City permits, or
proactive in reaching out to the City’s Development Center or Office of Economic Development,
they may not know that a Certificate of Use is required. Further, the process currently requires
a business to apply in-person at the development center with a paper form.
As of today, enforcement of the “Certificate of Use” requirement has not been proactive.
Compliance is ensured prior to the issuance of any other Development Center permits or as
part of any visitations by the Fire Department during the normal course of their inspections. It is
estimated that many businesses currently operate in Palo Alto commercial spaces without the
required certificate.
Staff researched and spoke to several other cities in California that had either a business
registry or license tax for experiential data regarding the implementation and administration of
their systems. The City of Glendale was most illuminating as they recently went through an
update of their system that was very similar to what Staff is proposing.
Discussion
Phase One: Replacing Certificate of Use with Business Registry Certificate Program
Staff recommends that the current one-time Certificate of Use process be replaced with an
annually updated Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Program. The BRC program will allow staff
City of Palo Alto Page 5
to include the one-time elements of the former Certificate of Use process (e.g. zoning, fire &
building compliance) but also include the elements of the Council-directed ongoing data
collection and management, creating one City process for business registration/ compliance
checks. Further, staff is seeking the resources to create on online “portal” for businesses to
easily create/ access their account, input their data, and make payments. This portal will
improve the customer experience allow for seamless integration of the data into the City’s
current permit management system (Accela).
By fully integrating several departmental processes into one coordinated system, staff will
develop a much more streamlined customer experience. Replacing “Certificate of Use” process
with “BRC” will also allow for the key data requested by Council to be updated online on an
annual basis by the business owner or manager for a nominal fee.
The Certificate of Use is currently required by code for any business operating from a
commercial space. The one-time fee is $413. The staff approach would be to attach a data
collection component (questionnaire) to our existing process (preliminary questions included as
Attachment 3), and require only that piece to be updated annually. Staff would need to target
three distinct groups:
1. Those currently in compliance with a Certificate of Use (approximately 2,000 businesses)
2. Those currently operating a business without a Certificate of Use (estimated at 1,000
businesses)
3. New Businesses to Palo Alto
For group 1 (above), the business would need to visit the online site, create a profile, and fill
out the questionnaire/ upload their Certificate of Use. No additional building or zoning
compliance check would need to be completed, since the Certificate of Use is already on file.
The data would automatically be entered into the back end of the City’s permit management
system, and the BRC would be immediately downloadable as a PDF or similar file type. By
entering their email address, the system would automatically alert them to update their data
on an annual basis. The fees paid would be nominal (cost-recovery), and are anticipated to be
in the $35-$75 range per year. These fees are intended to cover collection costs, system costs,
and some level of data analysis.
Groups 2 and 3 (above) would need to visit the online site, create a profile which includes both
a building/zoning compliance check and the questionnaire. Similar to the current process,
Planning & Community Environment, Building, and Fire staff would need to approve the
compliance check components of their application prior to issuance of the BRC. These would
typically be simple checks, but could trigger more complex/ in-person inspections (much like
today) if there are zoning, hazardous materials, or building issues that need to be researched.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
The anticipated initial fee would remain at $413. Once issued, they will be alerted by email to
log into the online portal and download their BRC. From there, they will simply need to update
the questionnaire on an annual basis (target: $35-$75/ year), and would automatically be
reminded via the email system.
Development of Web-Based Tool
In order to make the process as simple as possible for businesses, and to prevent an influx of
thousands of business people into the Development Center, staff recommends that the BRC be
a mainly “on-line” program. It must allow for companies to interface with every aspect of the
BRC process online. This includes creating a business profile, signing up for a BRC, an affidavit
stating the facts presented are true, and the ability to make payment. It must seamlessly
integrate with the City’s existing permit management system (Accela). Staff anticipates
creating a Kiosk at the Development Center for businesses to sign up online.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Marketing Plan
The City maintains or has access to several lists of businesses. Staff is seeking resources from
Council to obtain the additional lists. They would need to be compiled and analyzed to create
three lists of businesses:
1. Those currently operating in commercial space and compliant with a Certificate of Use
2. Those currently operating in commercial space without a Certificate of Use
3. Businesses in Palo Alto not operating from commercial space in the City
Lists number 1 and 2 (above) would be used for the purposes of outreach/ marketing during
Phase 1, while list #3 will be useful in informing Phase 2 of the program.
Staff anticipates the need for many channels of outreach to inform the business community
about the requirements of the new BRC. These would include direct mail and email to the lists
developed (above), door-to-door outreach, online and printed collateral, and a partnership with
the business community groups such as the Owners of Commercial Property, the Palo Alto
Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business & Professional Association, and the California
Avenue Business Association. Staff will develop a plan and return to Council for input/
additional resources prior to the program launch.
Application Form
A new electronic (i.e. fillable online) BRC form would need to be developed as part of Phase 1.
It would include elements of the current Certificate of Use, and include a questionnaire. Staff
has compiled a preliminary list of questions based on input from multiple City departments. It is
included to this report as Attachment 3.
Fee Structure
As noted above, the initial fee would depend on whether a business is currently in compliance
with the City’s Certificate of Use requirement. If currently compliant, the target fee would be
$35-$75 on an annual basis. If a business does not have a valid Certificate of Use, they are not
in compliance with the City’s current regulations. Therefore, they are not technically allowed to
operate business in Palo Alto. Staff recommends that businesses not currently holding a
Certificate of Use be given a grace period of 120 days to comply with the new BRC process at
the cost of the current Certificate of Use fee of $413. Further, Staff recommends that the initial
fee remain at the cost of the existing Certificate of Use ($413) for new businesses applying
under the new BRC program for FY 2015. To ensure full cost recovery, any changes to the fees
will be presented to the City Council as part of the annual approval of the Municipal Fee
Schedule.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
In Phase 1, businesses not occupying or planning to occupy commercial space in Palo Alto
would not be subject to the BRC. This includes transitory businesses, home-based businesses,
virtual offices and other businesses that do not today require a Certificate of Use per the City’s
Municipal Code. Businesses that employ 1099 employees or agents, such as real estate
brokerage firms would only be required to complete one BRC per location. Staff recommends
that these types of businesses be evaluated for inclusion in the BRC during Phase 2.
Ordinance Update
Staff will work with the City Attorney’s Office to draft an ordinance and return to Council prior
to implementation of the BRC to modify the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add Section 4.60 which
will require a BRC as a replacement/ enhancement of the Certificate of Use (Current provision
in contained in Chapter 16.04 of the Code).
Initial Outreach
Given the accelerated timeline to return to Council, Staff has had a limited ability to interface
with the business community regarding the approach outlined in this report. Staff did report on
the concept at a special meeting of the Chamber of Commerce on March 27th, 2014, and in
some follow up meetings with the Chamber and other business groups. The fact that the BRC
concept only focuses on business operating in commercial spaces, and attempts to combine
with another, less understood process, was generally well received. There is a fair amount of
confusion about the current Certificate of Use process and the BRC was understood as a global
process that was more easily understood.
It was noted that a multifaceted outreach effort will be necessary to educate the business
community about the BRC and that it would be a good chance for collaboration between the
City and the Chamber/ other business organizations.
There were some concerns from the business community about what information collected by
the City would be public. In general Staff’s goal is to collect data that would not only be used by
the City, but could also be made publicly available for third party use. However, in recognition
that some businesses have raised privacy concerns regarding certain information, staff intends
to do more outreach with businesses to better understand their concerns. Staff has committed
to having conversations with the businesses to explore mechanisms for keeping certain data
confidential.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Other concerns expressed were that it would be difficult to enforce the BRC given the rapid
nature of change in the commercial properties. Also, there is some concern that the BRC would
set the stage for a revenue generating Business License Tax.
Staff is committed to significantly more outreach to include as part of the development and
eventual implementation of the BRC.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Implementation
Prior to implementation, staff intends to return to Council with results of the outreach/
stakeholder engagement, as well as the final drafts of the application and an overview of the
online portal/ process. It is anticipated that this would be concurrent with the ordinance
updates (noted above), and occur in late Fall 2014.
Enforcement
Phase 1 would be focused mainly on developing the system, outreach, and stakeholder
engagement. Initial enforcement will rely mainly on existing staff such as the Fire Department
(as they conduct their regular fire-safety system inspections) as well as on the coordination of
other city permits (e.g. an encroachment, tenant improvement, or other permit would not be
approved without a valid BRC). Businesses would be required to post their BRC in plain sight, so
a simple system could be developed to create spot-checks for businesses in Phase 1 without
additional resources needed.
Although enforcement would not be the focus for Phase 1, there would be penalties
established for non-compliance. These penalties would be significant, up to and including
administrative fees and the prohibition of occupancy. Staff would focus on communicating
these penalties to businesses in Phase 1 in hopes that the severity of the penalties would
induce more compliance to the BRC.
Operational Reality/ Exception to Initial BRC
In developing the framework for the BRC, staff notes that a wrinkle exists in the system that
must be addressed in order to prevent unnecessary permit issuance delays. When a building or
space is being improved for occupancy by a new tenant, often times the architect or other
project manager only has a conceptual understanding of the business planning to occupy the
space. In fact, for new emerging companies, sometimes key data such as number of employees
on site might be conceptual or not known.
In order to prevent unnecessary permit issuance delays related to an incomplete BRC
application, staff recommends that the architect or project manager representing the new
tenant be allowed to provide his/her “best approximation” for the BRC forms in year 1. The
business would be responsible in year 2 for renewing their BRC and including the actual
information/ signing the affidavit.
Next Steps
o Development of Marketing Plan
Initial Database Creation/ Analysis
Online/ Print Communications
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Stakeholder Engagement
o Outreach/ Stakeholder Input
Chamber
BID
Transitory Businesses
o Development of web-based interface
o Return to Council/ Fall 2014
Ordinance Updates
Results of Outreach
Marketing Plan/ return for input/ resources
o Program Launch December 31, 2014
o Develop Phase 2
Explore addition of non-commercial space businesses
Explore enhanced enforcement.
Resource Impact
Staff anticipates several one-time start- up costs, as well as ongoing program costs related to
the development of the tool, staff training, outreach, and program marketing. In order to
develop the web-based interface that seamlessly integrates with the City’s permit management
system (Accela), the city will need to expend approximately $125,000. This cost will be partially
covered through the Development Center Blueprint Tech Enhancement CIP project. To manage
the staff/ customer training, business community outreach, and program marketing expenses,
staff anticipates another $150-$250,000 in one-time needs. Although the general fund would
need to bear these costs initially, staff anticipates that the fees collected would ultimately
offset these initial expenses and create a revenue source that would be directed to the ongoing
costs (estimated at approximately $200,000- $300,000/year, but dependent upon enforcement
technique and level of enforcement). During Fiscal Year 2014, start-up costs, including
outreach, training, and program/ technology development is not expected to exceed $35,000.
Staff recommends that these start-up costs be funded from the Council Contingency Fund.
Therefore, this report includes a recommendation to transfer $35,000 from the City Council
Contingency to the City Manager’s budget. If this transfer is approved, the remaining balance
in the City Council Contingency will be $117,000.
As part of the presentation of the outreach plan and the approval of the ordinance scheduled
for fall 2014, staff will bring forward a Budget Amendment Ordinance to cover necessary
expenditures.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Policy Implications
This is consistent with Council Direction on 2/24/14, and will be developed to be cost recovery.
The data made available through this business registry will be helpful in achieving many of the
programs outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Environmental Review
Implementation of a BRC is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Colleagues Memo - Business Registry (PDF)
Certificate of Use Permit Application (PDF)
BRC-Sample Questions_April 2014 (DOCX)
i Based on staff outreach, the following cities and towns do not currently have a
business license or registry fee:
1) Town of Moraga (confirmed with Town)
2) City of Westlake Village (confirmed with City)
3) City of Calabasas (confirmed with City)
4) City of Orinda (left confirmation message)
5) City of Laguna Niguel (confirmed with City)
6) City of Lafayette (confirmed via website)
7) City of Diamond Bar (not confirmed)
8) City of Industry (confirmed via website)
9) Town of Truckee (confirmed with City)
10) City of Aliso Viejo (not confirmed)
11) City of Dana Point (not confirmed)
12) City of Laguna Hills (not confirmed)
13) City of Laguna Woods (not confirmed)
14) City of Lake Forest (not confirmed)
15) City of Mission Viejo (confirmed with City)
16) City of Rancho Santa Margarita (not confirmed)
ii 16.04.100 Section 111.1 of Division II amended – Use and occupancy.
Section 111.1 of Division II of the California Building Code is amended to read:
111.1 Use and occupancy. No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change
in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be
made, until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided
herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation
of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.
Exception: Certificates of occupancy are not required for work exempt from permits under
Section 105.2 and:
1. Group R - Division 3 occupancies
2. Group U occupancies
City of Palo Alto Page 14
iii The Certificate of Use is $277, the Fire Departments Use & Occupancy Inspection is $135, and there is a $1 SB
1186 state mandated fee for each certificate issued.
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
February 24, 2014 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 4493)
DATE: February 24, 2014
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS BERMAN, BURT,
HOLMAN, AND KLEIN REGARDING CREATION OF A PALO ALTO BUSINESS
REGISTRY
Goal:
Palo Alto needs a Business Registry as soon as possible to answer such basic questions as how
many people work in Palo Alto and for what types of businesses. We should implement a
Registry in 2014.
Background and Discussion:
Impacts of commercial development and activity, such as traffic and parking impacts, are at the
forefront of community concerns. The City Council made addressing these issues a council priority
in 2013 and again in 2014. However, the City lacks adequate, reliable, and updated data to analyze
the issues, structure best policies or programs and to measure their effects.
Palo Alto is one of the few cities in the region without a business registry or a business license.
Most cities rely on these tools for obtaining and analyzing critical information about the
characteristics of businesses in their communities for purposes such as informing zoning decisions
and public safety planning and service response.
In addition, the Council has committed to developing a strong Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program in 2014 to reduce the traffic and parking impacts in our community.
Good data is essential to design a sound program, establish baselines and monitor progress.
Recommendation:
We recommend that Council direct Staff to return to Council not later than the end of March with a
proposal for a business registry which would include:
An online registry to reduce costs, accelerate implementation and provide for efficient data
analysis.
Fees limited to cost recovery.
February 24, 2014 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 4493)
A simplified, low cost questionnaire for very small businesses and exemption from
registration for home based businesses.
Questions designed to obtain information on the number of employees, types of businesses
and other information that would be valuable for effective planning purposes.
Staff Impact:
The City Manager and the City Attorney have reviewed this Memorandum and have the following
comments:
Effective implementation and enforcement methods for collecting and updating data will be
important. Staff will evaluate using existing software programs first as means to keep
implementation costs down.
CITY OF PALO ALTO - BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION
285 HAMILTON AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94301
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
PURSUANT TO PAMC SECTION 16.04.120 & UBC SECTION 109
Application Number ________________________________________ Date _________________________
Business Name ___________________________________________ Applicant______________________
Street Address ____________________________________________ Suite or Bldg # _________________
Business Operator _________________________________________ Phone # ______________________
Mailing Address __________________________________________________________________________
Description of the proposed business __________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
Square Footage of Building / Space________ / ________ Floor/s 1 2 3 4 5 other______
Property Owner ___________________________ Address ______________________________________
Are any tenant improvements currently proposed? Yes _______ No _______
(If yes, a building permit application must be submitted)
Is the storage or use of hazardous materials proposed? Yes _______ No _______
(if yes, the HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CHECKLIST must be completed and attached)
NOTE:
1. A one-time fee of $381.00 is required for the processing of this application, which must be submitted in person to the Building Inspection Division at
the Palo Alto Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, 1st floor. If the application is approved subsequent to Building and Fire Department
inspections, an official certificate to be posted at the premises will be issued and mailed to the business operator at the address above.
2. If the proposed business is considered a use intensification with regard to required parking, a site plan of on-site parking may be required to verify
parking compliance.
3. All business signs for exterior building modifications must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). For information regarding the
ARB process, please contact the Planning Division at (650) 329-2441.
4. A permit is required for alterations to the building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical systems. For information on necessary permits, please
contact the Building Inspection Division at (650) 329-2496.
______________________________
Applicant Signature
-FOR OFFICE USE ONLY-
Receipt # _______________________
Zone District: _________ Permitted or Conditional use (circle one) CUP # (if applicable)____________
Previous Proposed
Use Classification (Zoning): _____________________________ _______________________________
Occupancy Class (Bldg): _____________________________ _______________________________
Maximum Occupancy Load: _____________________________
Review/Inspection Comments: _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Department Approvals:
Planning Division (329-2441): by ______________________________ date_______________
Fire Department (329-2184): by_______________________________ date_______________
Occupancy Approved (Building Division): by_______________________________ date_______________
(329-2496)
Certification of Occupancy Supplement
and Hazardous Materials Checklist
Palo Alto Fire Department
250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: 650-329-2184 Fax: 650-3276951
e-Mail: Fire@cityofpaloalto.org
Instructions: Please fill out this application and submit the form along with Building Inspection Division's Application for
Certificate of Occupancy. You may submit this form in person, by mail, by fax or e-mail to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
Business Name:
Street Address:
Primary Emergency Contact Secondary Emergency Contact
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
Evening Phone: Evening Phone:
Cell Phone: Cell Phone:
Pager: Pager:
Has keys (Y/N) Has keys (Y/N)
Please provide the following facility information: If yes, provide the location of the device or control panel
Knox Box Yes No
Standpipe Yes No
Fire Alarm Yes No
Fire Sprinkler System Yes No
How Many Floors Up Down
Hazardous Materials Questionnaire
Hazardous Materials are items such as gaoline, diesel, antifreeze, waste oils, solvents, liquefied petroleum gases (LPG),
compressed gases, medical gases, acids, bases, oxidizers, radioactive materials, cryogens and water reactive chemicals.
Does the operation of this facility involve the use or storage of hazardous materials? Yes No
Does this facility currently have a Hazardous Materials Storage permit? Yes No
Will This Project:
- Involve a closure of present Hazardous Material Storage Facilities? Yes No
- Involve the storage/use of hazardous materials? Yes No
- Generate a hazardous materials waste stream? Yes No
- Involve the aggregate quantity of any one chemical in quantities greater than
200 cubic feet, 55 gallons or 500 lbs? Yes No
- Involve EPA listed Extremely Hazardous Substances? Yes No
- Require the installation or removal of aboveground or underground storage tanks or sumps? Yes No
- Involve Hazmat related improvements such as fume hoods and Storage cabinets? Yes No
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information presented is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief. Intentional exclusion of any relevant information may be punishable under provisions set forth in Palo Alto Municipal
Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.48.
Signature Print Your Name Title Company Name
Date Phone Number
09/2010
Business Registry Certificate
Sample Questions
Business Name, Owner, Address, Mailing Address (if different), email, phone
Emergency Contact Info
Interest in becoming a City partner for emergency preparedness (space, supplies, volunteers, others)
Type of Ownership
Business type
SIC Code
Federal Tax ID #
Sellers Permit #
Square footage occupied on site
Start date in Palo Alto
Number of workers onsite (including employees and contractors)
Number of Employees living in Palo Alto
Number of Employees within 20 miles
Does your company provide on-site employee parking?
Does your company have a transportation demand management program?
Would you like more information about alternative commute options for your employees?
Does the business have a county health permit?
Does the business store hazardous materials or generate hazardous wastes
Does the business discharge process wastewater down the sewer (such as from laboratories, chemical
neutralization, machining fluid, etc.). If yes, does the facility already have a wastewater discharge
permit?
Does the business perform automobile repairs?
Does the business work with plastic pellets or generate plastic particle waste
Sell tobacco products?
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
AGENDA DATE: April 29, 2014
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
ID#: 4619
AGENDA ITEM: #12
SUBJECT: Approval of Staff Recommended Framework for Development of a
Business Registry Certificate Ordinance & Fee Program as a Replacement/
Enhancement of the City's Current Use Certificate Program to be
Implemented by December 31, 2014
On Packet Page 336 in the numbered section bullet #1, the approximate number of businesses
with a Certificate of use was mis-stated. It should read between 3000-5000.
THOMAS FEHRENBACH
Economic Development Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4462)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
Summary Title: El Camino Real Sidewalk Ordinance
Title: Public Hearing - Council Adoption of an Ordinance Modifying: (1)
Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to: (a) Address
ΏΎ͋͏ϲ̳ΠΝ ΥΎ͋ϋ ̳Χ͋ ϦΎΠ͋ΎΧ Ώ͏ῢ̳́Νρ (Ώ͏ῢ̳́Ν ̳Χ͋ ΏϦΎΠ͋-ϋή͟ ͯΎΧ͏
Standards, and Context Based Design Criteria) Along El Camino Real, and (b)
Reduce the Allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN Zoned Sites Where Dwelling
Units are Permitted at 20 Units Per Acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to
Adjust the Definition of Lot Area and !͋͋ ̳ D͏͙ΎΧΎϋΎήΧ ͙ήν ΏE͙͙͏́ϋΎϱ͏
ΏΎ͋͏ϲ̳ΠΝ͟Ή EΧϱΎνήΧΦ͏Χϋ̳Π !ρρ͏ρρΦ͏ΧϋΈ EϷ͏Φκϋ ͙νήΦ ϋ͏ κνήϱΎρΎήΧρ ή͙ EΊ!
per Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) (THIS ITEM
WAS CONTINUED BY COUNCIL MOTION ON APRIL 21, 2014 TO JUNE 2, 2014)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
On April 21, Council continued this item to the June 2, 2014 Council meeting. This report,
prepared for the April 29, 2014 Council meeting, is being provided in advance to allow Council
an additional month of review.
Staff recommends that Council take one of the following actions:
(1) Adopt the proposed ordinance included as Attachment A,
(2) Defer adoption of the ordinance until the issues it addresses can be reviewed in a
broader context during the Comprehensive Plan Update, as recommended by the
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), or
(3) Adopt a modified ordinance reflecting the !rchitectural Review oard (!R)’s
recommendation to omit changes to density (Floor !rea Ratio or “F!R”) and permit
effective sidewalk widths of nine feet where appropriate in front of retail uses.
Executive Summary
In April 2013, the City Council requested that staff work with the PTC to prepare a draft
City of Palo Alto Page 1
ordinance(s) for its consideration that would increase sidewalk widths along major
thoroughfares in the City. In January 2014, the City Council also requested that staff work on
an ordinance to reduce the FAR for a limited number of sites that are zoned Neighborhood
Commercial (CN) and allow for residential densities of 20 dwelling units per acre due to their
listing on the housing inventory. This FAR change was envisioned as a way to encourage
smaller dwelling unit sizes.
ecause Palo !lto’s major thoroughfares are not homogeneous, and there is no “one size fits
all” approach that can be used to address sidewalk widths City-wide, Staff approached this task
by focusing first on El Camino Real. The attached draft ordinance would modify development
standards in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters 18.16 and 18.04, making a number of
adjustments aimed at increasing the effective sidewalk width along El Camino Real. The
ordinance would also reduce the FAR of 32 properties that are zoned Commercial
Neighborhood (CN) if the owners choose to build out at residential densities of 20 units per
acre rather than 15 units per acre.
Staff has received input from property owners and others over the last several months, and the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the PTC have each considered the draft ordinance on
multiple occasions and provided their recommendations. The community input and the
recommendations are briefly described in this report and documented further in the
attachments.
Background
In April 2013, the Council gave direction to staff following discussion of a ouncil olleagues’
memo regarding sidewalk widths. The ouncil’s direction was for the staff, !R, and PT to
“review sidewalks widths and how buildings address the street with a focus on El amino Real/
and return to Council with suggested zoning amendments that implement the vision expressed
in the Grand Boulevard Plan, and revise the South El Camino Guidelines and zoning as
appropriate to make them consistent with this vision.” The ouncil’s direction also requested
that other thoroughfares “be addressed in this context, as Staff feels is appropriate at this
time.”
In July, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) met to jointly study the sidewalk width issue and highlighted areas for further
discussion or subcommittee work. The Council’s meeting minutes and Colleagues’ Memo were
included as attachments to the July 31, 2013 PTC/ARB meeting document, and are available at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/35274. Other attachments include
a list of El Camino Real projects constructed between 2003-2010, lane configurations from the
2003 El Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan, the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) vision
and principles, Bike Plan sections, and more.
On January 13, 2014, Council approved a housing density increase from 15 to 20 units per acre
for CN-zoned housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element. This action
City of Palo Alto Page 2
implemented a program in the ity’s Housing Element and responded to a provision in State
law stating that sites meeting a “default density” of 20 dwelling units per acre are “deemed
appropriate to accommodate” low income housing. However the Council was concerned about
the change, and adopted a motion requesting staff and the PTC to consider reducing the FAR so
as to achieve smaller unit sizes. The Council motion also requested consideration of the retail
proportion of the FAR, including ground floor retail requirements.
Staff began work on a draft ordinance in early 2014 and quickly realized that addressing
sidewalk widths along all major thoroughfares would be infeasible, because conditions along
the thoroughfares vary so greatly. As a result, the draft ordinance and community discussions
have focused on El Camino Real. Staff also realized that increasing the FAR requirement for
ground floor retail use along El amino Real (as implied in the ouncil’s January 2014 motion)
would be infeasible if new projects are required to meet the ity’s current parking standards.
On February 20 and March 20, 2014, the ARB conducted public hearings to discuss staff’s draft
ordinance and the issues involved. On February 26 and April 9, 2014, the PTC conducted
hearings on this topic. Minutes from these meetings are attached, along with the staff report
from the April 9, 2014 PTC meeting. The !R and PT’s recommendations are included in the
Discussion section below.
Discussion
The discussion below provides a brief summary of major provisions of the ordinance, a
summary of the ARB and Planning Commission recommendations, and a brief summary of the
community input to date.
Ordinance Summary
The attached draft ordinance would modify Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16,
Neighborhood, Community and Services Commercial Districts, Sections 18.60.060 (Tables 3 and
4) and 18.60.090 (Context-Based Design Criteria), and Chapter 18.04, Definitions.
The modifications would add a definition of effective sidewalk width (PAMC Section 18.04.030,
item #50) and modify the development standards for front yard setbacks (18.16.060(a) and (b))
in an attempt to achieve greater effective sidewalk widths for properties fronting on ECR. The
new front yard setback standards would apply to new development along the corridor (i.e.
existing buildings would not be affected), and provide for flexibility based on context, including
“land use, adjacent and nearby properties, existing building setbacks, proposed or adjacent
building design, lot size and similar consideration.” In other words, the ity could impose
setbacks up to 10 feet on new development in order to achieve an effective sidewalk width of
18 feet if appropriate. However, where there are adjacent buildings with different setbacks,
extremely small lots, or other site conditions that warrant lesser setbacks, the City could
require setbacks of only 4 feet, for an effective sidewalk width of 12 feet. The current code
requires an effective sidewalk of 12 feet.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
It should also be noted that the standards cannot and do not require the dedication of land for
sidewalk purposes, only that a setback be provided. !s an “effective sidewalk,” the setback
could include furnishings, plantings (including street trees), and building columns supporting
upper floors of the building, provided the recessed/shaded area provides “a comfortable clear
width for pedestrian access.” The City would review the design of the setback in conjunction
with the rest of the building. !lso, the ordinance would modify the definition of “lot area
(PAMC Section 18.04.030, item #85) such that greater setbacks would not result in a smaller lot
size for purposes of calculating FAR.
The draft ordinance would also modify the “build-to-line” development standard that requires
all new development to have a percentage of its building frontage along the line. (The intent of
this “build to line” is to encourage pedestrian-oriented development and avoid surface parking
lots in front of the buildings; it also creates what urban designers call a consistent “street wall”
that helps to define the edge of a wide boulevard like ECR.) The modifications would eliminate
the build-to requirement for frontages not on El Camino Real, clarify that Stanford Shopping
Center and Town and Country Center properties are not subject to the requirement, add a
build-to requirement for frontages along ECR that are zoned Community Commercial (CC and
CC2), and allow flexibility so that the requirement can be met by upper floors when the ground
floor is set back. Several of these changes are intended to eliminate the need for Design
Enhancement Exceptions (DEE), whereby applicants request relief from the build-to-line
standard.
Finally, as indicated earlier, the ordinance would affect the building density (FAR) of properties
that are zoned CN and allowed residential densities of 20 dwelling units per acre because of
their inclusion in the ity’s inventory of housing sites. Specifically, the ordinance would give
property owners of these sites along ECR the option of building at 15 du/ac and a residential
FAR of 0.5:1 (total FAR of 1.0:1) or building at 20 du/ac and a residential density of 0.4 (total
FAR of 0.8:1).
ARB & PTC Recommendations
On April 9, 2014, the PTC recommended that Council not adopt the proposed ordinance, and
instead, incorporate the discussion of sidewalk width, with building height and density, and
other development standards, as part of the Our Palo Alto (Comprehensive Plan) discussion, to
realize the Grand Boulevard Initiative. The staff report and minutes for the April 9, 2014 PTC
meeting are attached (Attachment E). Minutes and the staff report for the February 26, 2014
PTC meeting are also attached (Attachment D).
On March 20, 2014, the ARB recommended that Council adopt a modified ordinance,
eliminating the floor area reduction provision of the ordinance for new developments
proposing 20 units per acre on CN-zoned sites in the housing inventory, and modifying the
minimum setback requirement to allow a minimum nine foot effective sidewalk for ground
floor retail uses on small lots, under specific conditions. The March 20, 2014 ARB meeting
minutes are attached (Attachment F), as are minutes from the ARB meeting of February 20,
City of Palo Alto Page 4
2014 (Attachment G).
Community Input
On April 1, 2014, staff conducted an outreach meeting with affected El Camino Real property
owners and business owners. Correspondence from these owners is provided within the public
correspondence in Attachment C. The ARB and PTC also heard from property owners and
others raising a number of concerns including, but not limited to, the following:
Concerns that the decrease in FAR for CN zoned properties in the housing inventory will
make affordable housing infeasible;
Concerns that increasing setbacks will make redevelopment of small parcels infeasible,
potentially forcing lot consolidation;
Concerns that increasing setbacks will harm the viability of retail uses along ECR;
oncerns that increasing setbacks could be considered a “taking” of property;
Concerns that ECR will never be a hospitable place for pedestrians;
Suggestions that the requirement for greater setbacks be paired with additional height
or relaxed requirements for ground floor retail.
Observations & Next Steps
Throughout the process of developing the draft ordinance, staff has observed a general lack of
information and understanding about the Grand oulevard Initiative and how Palo !lto’s local
ordinances do or don’t respond to that regional vision. This represents an opportunity that can
be seized by the Comprehensive Plan update process, or in a separate endeavor. As a first
step, staff has arranged a public presentation and discussion with the PTC about the Grand
Boulevard Initiative at their meeting of May 14, 2014. The following is a link to the video
section of the Grand Boulevard Initiative web site, for people who are unable to attend the
presentation: http://www.grandboulevard.net/library/videos.html.
Even if our vision for ER were clear, the !R and PT’s recommendation indicate that some
find it difficult to consider one building standard like setbacks or “build-to” lines in the absence
of a broader analysis of other building standards, parcel sizes, and land uses. A comprehensive
code review like this would be resource-intensive, however staff would welcome the City
ouncil’s identification of this as an important next step after the omprehensive Plan Update,
as well as ouncils’ direction on any intermediate next steps.
Resource Impact
The proposed ordinance affects development standards and would not require an expenditure
of City funds.
Environmental Review
The proposed ordinance would make minor adjustments to existing development standards
and is considered exempt from the provisions of CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305
(Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations).
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: PAHC letter to PTC re CN district changes (PDF)
Attachment C: Public Correspondence (PDF)
Attachment D: PTC Staff Report and Minutes of February 26, 2014 (PDF)
Attachment E: PTC Staff Report and Draft Minutes of April 9, 2014 (PDF)
Attachment F: ARB Minutes of March 20, 2014 (DOC)
Attachment G: ARB Meeting Item 4 on 2 20 14 (DOC)
City of Palo Alto Page 6
NOT YET APPROVED
ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.04.030
(Definitions) and 18.16.060 (Development Standards for CN, CC, and CS Districts)
and 18.60.090 (Context-Based Design Criteria of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code To Modify the Build To Requirements, Encourage Wider
Sidewalks and Decrease FAR on CN Sites Where Dwelling Units Are Permitted to
Exceed 15 Units Per Acre
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. Recently new developments have been built, particularly along El Camino and
Alma Street, that are inconsistent with local and regional visions for vibrant boulevards.
B. Recent developments have generated consternation in the community and a
strong negative reaction by members of the public as to how close the buildings are to the
street, how they loom over the roadway and how the buildings turn their backs on the public
right of way due to inadequate setbacks and building articulation and openings to reduce the
building mass.
C. The Grand Boulevard Initiative, a vision developed by cities and agencies along
El Camino Real, recommends an 18-foot sidewalk width. Palo Alto currently has a 12-foot
“effective sidewalk” width requirement for new buildings
D. As new developments are occurring on El Camino Boulevard there is a unique
opportunity to redefine the existing streetscape in order to bring it closer in line with
Comprehensive Plan polices and the Grand Boulevard Initiative.
E. Improving the walkability of this corridor with strong, interesting, appealing
building frontage furthers the goals of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Grand Boulevard
Initiative
F. The Grand Boulevard Initiative and El Camino Real Guidelines encourage
“reinforcement of the importance and definition of the street with front-placed buildings that
provide a presence in scale with El Camino Real.”
SECTION 2. Section 18.040.030 Definitions (a)(50) (reserved) and (a)(85) (Lot Area) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
(50) “Effective Sidewalk Width” means the width from face of curb (facing the street) to
building face at the ground floor level, inclusive of furnishings, plantings (including street trees), and
building columns (as long as such columns are set back at least nine feet from the curb) where the
ground floor wall plane is set back significantly from the curb to provide recessed/shaded sidewalk area,
1
140328 jb 0131172-C
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 4. Section PAMC Sections 18.16.090 (b) (2) (H), (b) (3) (E) and (b) (3) (F)
(Context Based Design Criteria) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are hereby
amended to read as follows:
(2) Street Building Facades
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and
the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity
through design elements such as:
A. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create
strong, direct relationships with the street (Figure 2-1);
Figure 2-1
B. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other
architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass (Figure 2-2);
Figure 2-2 (dimensions to be amended prior to Council)
10
140328 jb 0131172-C
NOT YET APPROVED
C. Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is
in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger
buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian
scale;
D. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not
walled-off or oriented exclusively inward;
E. Elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies
that are visible to people on the street;
F. All exposed sides of a building designed with the same level of care and integrity;
G. Reinforcing the definition and importance of the street with building mass; and
H. Upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. The ground floor
may be set back farther than the upper floors when a greater first floor setback is established to
provide a wider sidewalk.
(3) Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks
through elements such as:
11
140328 jb 0131172-C
NOT YET APPROVED
A. Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as
entries, bays, and balconies (Figure 3-1);
B. Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down
the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest (Figure 3-1);
C. Corner buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important intersections
and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles (Figure 3-1);
Figure 3-1 (dimensions to be amended prior to Council)
D. Building facades articulated with a building base, body and roof or parapet edge
(Figure 3-2);
Figure 3-2 (dimensions to be amended following Council action)
E. Buildings set back from the property line to create an effective 12'-18’ sidewalk on El
Camino Real, 8'-12’ elsewhere (Figure 3-4). The width of the sidewalk shall be dependent on
context including property’s land use, adjacent and nearby properties’ existing building
12
140328 jb 0131172-C
NOT YET APPROVED
setbacks, proposed or adjacent and nearby building design, lot size and similar considerations.
The comfortable pedestrian clear width can be designed in a “meandering” fashion.
Figure 3-3 (dimensions to be amended following Council action)
F. A majority of the building frontage located within 0 to 10’ of the street property line
at the setback line (Figure 3-3) along El Camino Real. Properties subject to a special setback
shall follow that setback. On El Camino Real, placement of building frontage shall be based on
context including property’s land use, adjacent and nearby properties’ existing building
setbacks, proposed or adjacent and nearby building design, lot size and similar considerations.
Figure 3-4 (dimensions to be amended following Council action)
G. No side setback for midblock properties, allowing for a continuous street facade,
except when abutting low density residential (Figure 3-3).
SECTION 5. CEQA. This action is categorically exempt (per Section 15305 (Class 5) of
the CEQA Guidelines) from the provisions of CEQA as they comprise minor alterations to land
use limitations and can be seen to have no significant environmental impacts.
13
140328 jb 0131172-C
____________________________ ____________________________
____________________________
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
14
140328 jb 0131172-C
Ellner, Robin
From: Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 5:45 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Dump "Build-to-line"
Commissioners,
Though I was unable to attend the April 9th meeting, I hope you will approve the proposed ordinance
requiring building set-backs of at least 15 feet. 18 feet would be better.
Arcades, pillars would be fine. We live with the consequences of build-to-line every day down in south Palo
Alto. It’s ugly and uninviting, even to vehicle traffic. And the sidewalks themselves, already at the curb rather than set off by a planting strip, are so narrow and full of impediments such as signs, transformers, and streetlight posts that two can’t even walk abreast along El Camino down here.
Hoping for some room for people walking, or even just going to a bus,
Linnea Wickstrom
450 Monroe Drive Palo Alto
1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4448)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 2/26/2014
Summary Title: Code Changes: CC, CS and CN Zones Build-To Line; FAR limit
on CN housing inventory sites; and Lot Ar
Title: Review and Recommendation of an Ordinance modifying: (1) Chapters
18.16 and 18.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address
building setbacks (the “build-to” line standard) in the CN and CS District and
(b) reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling
units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to
adjust the definition of Lot Area in order to encourage wider sidewalks.
From: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and discuss
the concepts for a draft ordinance (Attachment A):
(1) Addressing the build-to-line requirement for sites within the CN and CS zone districts
found in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16, Section 18.60.060, to clarify
that:
a. Buildings may be placed farther back than: (a) the required 12 feet from the curb
along El Camino Real and (b) the required 8 feet from the curb along other
thoroughfares; and
b. To allow more flexibility in how much of the front building wall must be located
at the setback line, with respect to the rules for building wall filling 50%
(particularly, as applied to large parcels with potentially long building walls at the
setback line).
(2) Addressing the Context Based Design Criteria Considerations and Findings found in
PAMC Section 18.60.090 (b), item (2) Street Building Facades, to modify sub-item (H)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
upper floor placement, and item (3) Massing and Setbacks, to modify sub-items (E) and
(F); specifically:
a. (2)(H): currently calls for upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the
neighborhood; add that the ground floor may be set back farther than the upper
floors when a greater first floor setback is established to provide a wider
sidewalk;
b. (3)(E): currently calls for a 12 foot sidewalk width on El Camino Real and an 8
feet sidewalk width elsewhere; to note that an increased width may be
̢ΩΩάΝΩάͽ̢κ̾ ̢̯ΰ̺̾ ΝΖ ̰ΝΖκ̾Ϧκ͵ ͰͽϠ̾Ζ ̢ ̺̾ΰͽά̺̾ ΰͽ̺̾ϡ̢ΏΌ ϡͽ̺κͺ ά̢ΖͰ̾ Ν͈ ͺϭϮ-18
͈̾̾κ ΝΖ EΏ C̢ΕͽΖΝ ̢Ζ̺ 8 κΝ ϭϮ ͈̾̾κ ̾Ώΰ̾ϡͺ̾ά̾͛Ͷ ̢Ζ̺
c. (3)(F): currently calls for a majority of the building frontage located (exactly) at
the front and side setback lines (to achieve a continuous street façade at the
build-to-line); to build in flexibility based upon context, so that the majority of the
front building wall is placed within (specified setback such as 20 feet) of the front
property line (unless subject to special setback).
(3) Reducing the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are
permitted at 20 units per acre, also in Section 18.60.060 of Chapter 18.16; and
(4) Modifying the definition of lot area, in PAMC Chapter 18.04, Section 18.04.030, to
encourage provision of wider sidewalks.
Executive Summary
The Planning and Transportation Commission is asked to provide feedback on the key elements
of a draft ordinance that would impact front building setbacks, the design review criteria,
allowable floor area and lot size definition for properties located within certain commercial
corridors of Palo Alto. Staff anticipates this discussion will take place over two meetings. In the
first meeting, staff requests the PTC to provide feedback on the key design issues identified in
numbers 1 and 2 above. In the second meeting, staff will bring back a more refined ordinance
based on feedback received by the PTC. These changes would primarily affect certain properties
in the Commercial Neighborhood and Commercial Service zoning districts. This draft ordinance
is a result of several separate, but related Council actions. In addition, the Architectural Review
Board and Planning and Transportation Commission have had related discussions over the last
several years. A summary of these past meetings and other details can be found in this report.
A version of this ordinance will be ultimately considered for approval by the Council.
Background
City of Palo Alto Page 2
City Council Direction on Sidewalks
On ApιΊΜ 15 2013 ΪϢΣ̽ΊΜ ͽ̯ϭ͋ ͇Ίι͋̽χΊΪΣ χΪ νχ̯͕͕ ͕ΪΜΜΪϮΊΣͽ ͇Ίν̽ϢννΊΪΣ Ϊ͕ ̯ ΪϢΣ̽ΊΜ ΪΜΜ̯͋ͽϢ͋ν͛
ͱ͋Ϊ ι͋ͽ̯ι͇ΊΣͽ νΊ͇͋Ϯ̯ΜΙ ϮΊ͇χ·ν΅ Α·͋ ΪΜΜ̯͋ͽϢ͋ν͛ ͱ͋Ϊ ̯Σ͇ ͇Ίν̽ϢννΊΪΣ ͇͋ν̽ιΊ̼͋ ν͋ϭ͋ι̯Μ
issues, including:
ϢΊΜ͇ΊΣͽν ͞χϢιΣΊΣͽ χ·͋Ίι ̼̯̽Ιν͟ ΪΣ ζϢ̼ΜΊ̽ ιΊͽ·χν Ϊ͕ Ϯ̯ϴ ͇Ϣ͋ to inadequate setbacks and
lack of building articulation and openings that would better reduce building mass;
·Ίͽ·χ Ϊ͕ Ϯ̯ϴ ϮΊ͇χ· ̯χ 12 ͕͋͋χ (χ·͋ ι͋θϢΊι͇͋ ͕͕͋͋̽͞χΊϭ͋ νΊ͇͋Ϯ̯ΜΙ͟ ν͋χ̼̯̽Ι Ί΅͋΅ ͕ιΪ ̽Ϣι̼
face to building face) is not wide enough; and
Grand Boulevard Initiative recommended 18 feet sidewalk inclusive of an eight foot
wide walking zone, a four-͕ΪΪχ ϮΊ͇͋ ͞νζΊΜΜ ΪϢχ͟ ϹΪΣ͋ (̯͇Ζ̯̽͋Σχ χΪ χ·͋ ̼ϢΊΜ͇ΊΣͽ ͕̯̽͋) ̯Σ͇
a six-͕ΪΪχ ϮΊ͇͋ ̯͋͞ΣΊχϴ͟ ϹΪΣ͋΅ Α·͋ ΜΊΣΙ χΪ χ·͋ Gι̯Σ͇ ΪϢΜ͋ϭ̯ι͇ ͜ΣΊχΊ̯χΊϭ͋ Ίν
http://www.grandboulevard.net
ΪϢΣ̽ΊΜ ϭΪχ͇͋ ϢΣ̯ΣΊΪϢνΜϴ ̯ν ͕ΪΜΜΪϮν΄ ͞χ̯͕͕ χ·͋ ΄Α ̯Σ͇ !· (ν·̯ΜΜ) ι͋ϭΊ͋Ϯ νΊ͇͋Ϯ̯ΜΙ ϮΊ͇χ·ν
and how buildings address the street, with a focus on El Camino Real and with reference to
Grand Boulevard Design Guidelines, and return to Council with suggested zoning amendments
that implement the vision expressed in the Grand Boulevard Plan, and revise the South El
Camino Real Guidelines and zoning as appropriate to make them consistent with this vision.
Other major thoroughfares, including but not limited to Alma, Downtown, California Avenue
̯Σ͇ ·̯ιΜ͋νχΪΣ ν·ΪϢΜ͇ ̼͋ ̯͇͇ι͋νν͇͋ ΊΣ χ·Ίν ̽ΪΣχ͋ϳχ ̯ν νχ̯͕͕ ͕͋͋Μν Ίν ̯ζζιΪζιΊ̯χ͋ ̯χ χ·Ίν χΊ͋΅͟
City Council Direction on Floor Area
On January 13, 2014, Council took action to implement a program in the 2007-14 Housing
Element to increase the allowable density on Housing Inventory sites in the CN zone from 15 to
20 units. As part of this action, Council directed staff to also examine a modest corresponding
reduction of overall floor area ratio (FAR) for those CN-zoned housing sites appearing on the
Housing Inventory. (This affects approximately 32 CN zoned sites on El Camino). One of these
sites is 3339 ECR, which is zoned both CS and CN but included in the 32 CN zoned sites.)
As a secondary issue, Council directed staff to also study reducing FAR on all CN and CS parcels.
The total number of CN zoned parcels is 135, including CN, CN(GF)(P), CN(L) and CN( R) parcels
as well as property parcels not includiΣͽ ̯͞Ίι ζ̯ι̽͋Μ ̽ΪΣ͇ΪΊΣΊϢν΅͟ Α·͋ χΪχ̯Μ ΣϢ̼͋ι Ϊ͕
zoned parcels in Palo Also is 149, including CS, CS(H), CS (AD), CS (AS1), CS(D), and CS(L) parcels
̯ν Ϯ͋ΜΜ ̯ν ζιΪζ͋ιχϴ ζ̯ι̽͋Μν ΣΪχ ΊΣ̽ΜϢ͇ΊΣͽ ̯͞Ίι ζ̯ι̽͋Μ ̽ΪΣ͇ΪΊΣΊϢν΅͟ GΊϭ͋Σ χ·͋ ͋ϳχ͋ΣνΊϭ͋
noticing and outreach involved on this secondary issue, staff will examine this on a separate
track.
Joint Planning & Transportation Commission and ARB Meeting (2013)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
On July 31, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Architectural Review
Board (ARB) jointly studied the sidewalk width issue and highlighted areas for further discussion
Ϊι ΖΪΊΣχ νϢ̼̽ΪΊχχ͋͋ ϮΪιΙ΅ Α·͋ ι͋ζΪιχ ͕Ϊι χ·͋ ΄Α/!· ΖΪΊΣχ ͋͋χΊΣͽ νχ̯χ͇͋ ͞χ·͋ ζϢιζΪν͋ Ϊ͕
this session is to study the issue and highlight areas for further discussion or joint
subcommittee work, before staff returns with proposal(s) for consideration by both bodies
ν͋ζ̯ι̯χ͋Μϴ Ϊι ΊΣ ̯ ν͋̽ΪΣ͇ ΖΪΊΣχ ͋͋χΊΣͽ΅͟ Α·͋ νχ̯͕͕ ι͋ζΪιχ ̯Σ͇ ̯χχ̯̽·͋Σχν ζι͋ζ̯ι͇͋ ͕Ϊι χ·͋ ͧϢΜϴ
31, 2013 joint retreat of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and PTC and meeting minutes
are available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/35274
!·͛ν 2012 χ·ιΪϢͽ· 2014 E͕͕Ϊιχν
ARB retreats were held in May 2013 and March 2012, and a study session was held in
November 2010, following Council direction for staff to revise certain aspects of the South El
Camino Real Design Guidelines. At that time, Council gave authorization for limited consultant
use and specifically suggested consideration of the following:
setbacks for different streets,
land uses,
height step backs,
break-up building length, and
Retail frontage.
In addition, following the ARB/PTC joint meeting, the ARB had divided into two teams to study
El Camino Real development. The goal was to understand actual conditions and study the
potential for greater building setbacks and sidewalk widths, with respect to the nodes and
corridors cited in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The ARB met on January 30,
2014, to present their findings, and discuss the effort to bring forth this ordinance.
On February 20, 2014, the ARB held a noticed public hearing. There was one public speaker
who commented on sidewalk use and floor area ratio. The attached draft ordinance was
provided at places. The ARB provided comments on five concepts/questions asked in the
report. A member of the ARB will attend the Commission meeting to convey a summary of the
!·͛ν ͇Ίν̽ϢννΊΪΣ ̯ΣνϮ͋ι θϢ͋νχΊΪΣν ̯Σ͇ χ·͋Σ ̼ιΊng back guidance from the PTC to refine the
concepts for a final version of the ordinance. Staff has briefly summarized the February 20th
discussion below.
Sidewalk Width: The ARB supports a 9 to 15-foot sidewalk width (curb to building). The nine-
foot sidewalk would be for retail uses with display windows. The ARB cited that a 15-foot wide
sidewalk along El Camino Real was recommended in the rail corridor study, and the 15-foot
City of Palo Alto Page 4
setback required in the South of Forest Area plan for mixed use buildings in the RT zone district.
The 15 foot wide section provided by consultant Bruce Fukuji (previously shared in the July 31,
2013 PTC/ARB report) was referenced. The ARB does not support a requirement for a
continuous width of 18 feet along El Camino Real, given that it is a highway, though the board
acknowledged that in certain locations, a much deeper sidewalk is nice (citing the plaza at Café
Barrone in Menlo Park). The ARB suggested the City retain a consultant to provide visual
examples of sidewalks and concepts for amenities to enliven the area in front of buildings. The
ARB noted that visual aids would help Council act on an ordinance.
Lot Area Definition: The ARB supports the proposed lot area definition change to allow
applicants to provide additional sidewalk width on private property and not deduct the area
removed from private use from the lot area available for calculating building square footage.
However, the ARB does not consider this an incentive (only additional floor area would be an
incentive).
Variables for Criteria on Wider Sidewalks: The ARB suggests including land use among the
criteria – to determine on a project by project basis whether additional sidewalk width is
needed – ̯ΜΜΪϮΊΣͽ ͇Ίν̽ι͋χΊΪΣ ͕Ϊι !· ͇͋χ͋ιΊΣ̯χΊΪΣ΅ ! ̼ϢΊΜ͇ΊΣͽ͛ν Μ̯nd use and front wall
articulation would affect how far back a building would be located. A building with ground floor
retail with display retail windows can be located closer to the sidewalk, whereas retail with a
big, windowless wall (Alma Plaza mixed use building was cited) should be located farther from
street, with more landscaping. A building with office or residential use at the ground floor
would also be better located farther back from the sidewalk, with additional planting.
Building Front Wall: The ARB suggested the City either remove the build-to-line requirement
and allow the ARB to determine appropriate setback in each case, or retain the build-to-line
requirement and allow exceptions for different land uses. The ARB is in favor of encouraging or
allowing building overhangs on upper floors extending to the build-to-line to meet the 50%
building frontage requirement, and allowing the ground floor to be set back further to provide a
wider sidewalk. The ARB also noted there is a height relationship that should be included in the
discussion.
Street Trees: Street trees should be encouraged as part of sidewalk landscaping.
Although the ARB is not required by the Municipal Code to recommend changes to the
Municipal Code, it is appropriate in this case given these past ARB discussions about sidewalk
width and street setbacks, and about the El Camino Real Design Guidelines Update.
El Camino Real Development and DEEs for Relief from Build-To-Line
At the July 31, 2013 ARB/PTC meeting, staff presented photos and a list of El Camino Real (ECR)
properties redeveloped since the South El Camino Real Guidelines were in effect, constructed
City of Palo Alto Page 5
2002-2013 (Attachment D). There have been several Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE)
requested and approved since the 2005 Zoning Code update, to allow a greater setback than
the Build to Line regulation prescribed or to allow less than the required percentage of building
placed at the build-to-line. The Build-to-Line regulations of Chapter 18.16 followed the
recommendations of the 2002 SECRDG. There were other DEEs requested and approved for
mixed use projects (some are listed in Attachment D) to encroach into a 25 foot setback
requirement in place prior to the 2005 Zoning Code Update but following the 2002 SECRDG
publication.
!ζζιΪϭ͇͋ E· ζιΪΖ͋̽χν χ·̯χ Ϯ͋ι͋Σ͛χ ̽ΪΣνχιϢ̽χ͇͋ ζιΊΪι χΪ 2013 ̯Σ͇ χ·͋ι͕͋Ϊι͋ ΣΪχ ΪΣ χ·͋ ΜΊνχ
include:
1845 ECR (mixed use on small lot; build-to-line DEE, and DEE for smaller-than-minimum
ground floor retail area (.06 where .15 required))
711 ECR (The Clemente Hotel – met build-to line),
180 ECR (Bloomingdales – CC zone where no build-to-line requirement),
180 ECR (Flemings Steakhouse – CC zone where no build-to-line requirement),
2209 ECR (mixed-use on small corner lot – met build-to-line), and
3159 ECR (mixed-use – build-to-line DEE for side street, ECR met build-to-line).
Recently proposed major projects include 2500 El Camino Real (Mayfield DA mixed use, not in
the CN or CS zone), 3225 El Camino Real (preliminary ARB only to date, for a mixed-use project
on the Foot Locker site), and 3877 ECR (preliminary ARB only to date, for a mixed-use project
on the former Compadres site).
͋ΜΪϮ ̯ι͋ Ϊχ·͋ι ζιΪΖ͋̽χν χ·̯χ Ϯ͋ι͋ ΣΪχ ΜΪ̯̽χ͇͋ ̯ΜΪΣͽ EΜ ̯ΊΣΪ ·̯͋Μ ̼Ϣχ ͇Ϣ͋ χΪ χ·͋ ζιΪζ͋ιχΊ͋ν͛
location in CN or CS zone, requested DEEs for relief from the build-to-line requirement to
achieve greater front setbacks:
2995 Middlefield Road (CN zone, yoga center, constructed), and
441 Page Mill Road (CS(D) zone, Site and Design Review application on file)
Discussion
BackgιΪϢΣ͇ ΪΣ ͞ϢΊΜ͇ ΑΪ͟ ͫΊΣ͋ν
South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (SECRDG)
City of Palo Alto Page 6
The Build-to line concept was first introduced in the SECRDG, and then incorporated into the
͇͋ϭ͋ΜΪζ͋Σχ νχ̯Σ͇̯ι͇ν χ̯̼Μ͋ν ΊΣ ·̯ζχ͋ι 18΅16΅ !̽̽Ϊι͇ΊΣͽ χΪ χ·͋ E·DG ̼͞ϢΊΜ͇ΊΣͽν ν·ΪϢld be
built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street; the building
mass/façade is built up to the setback line continuously, except for articulation such as
doorways, recessed window bays, small plazas, driveways and small parking areas to the sides
Ϊ͕ ̼ϢΊΜ͇ΊΣͽν΅͟ Α·͋ ͽϢΊ͇͋ΜΊΣ͋ν ΣΪχ͋ χ·̯χ ΊΣ ΣΪ͇͋ ̯ι̯͋ν ̯ ΊΣΊϢ Ϊ͕ 75% Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ͕ιΪΣχ̯ͽ͋ Ϣνχ
be comprised of building mass built up to the build-to/setback line, and in corridor areas, a
minimum of 50% of the frontage must be comprised of building mass built up to the build-
to/setback line. The guidelines further describe that, on corner parcels in nodes, 50% of side
street property frontage should have building mass at setback line, and corner parcels
corridors, building mass for 1/3 the property frontage located at the setback.
Chapter 18.16 Tables 3 and 4
In Chapter 18.16, this guideline was translated into code requirement for building mass along
50% of frontage at the build-to-line (zero to ten feet) and 33% of the side street frontage to be
building mass located at the setback line (Tables 3 note 7 and Table 4 note 1 cite that the build
to-line is not applicable to CC district properties). Some properties were able to achieve a 75%
of frontage building mass along El Camino Real per the SECRDG, beyond the minimum 50% of
frontage building mass. Some properties along other arterials, Middlefield and El Camino Real,
were not able to achieve the 50% requirement, and DEEs were requested in those cases.
Draft Ordinance Approach
The Development Standards for CN and CS zones are contained in Tables 3 and 4 of Chapter
18.16 (Attachment A).a
Build-To Line
Α·͋ι͋ ̯ι͋ χϮΪ ̯ζζιΪ̯̽·͋ν ͕Ϊι ̯͇͇ι͋ννΊΣͽ ΪϢΣ̽ΊΜ͛ν ͇Ίι͋̽χΊΪΣ χΪ ι͋-examine sidewalk widths and
buildings facing the street:
(1) Eliminate the build-to line requirement, which is required for all CN and CS zoned
parcels, and address potential consequences deletion of build-to line requirement could
bring up by adjusting the context based criteria, or otherwise modify this, or
(2) Rename the build-to-ΜΊΣ͋ ι͋θϢΊι͋͋Σχ ̯͞ϳΊϢ ͕ιΪΣχ ν͋χ̼̯̽Ι͟ ̯Σ͇ ̽Ίχ͋ ̯ νζ͋̽Ί͕Ί̽
distance such as 10 feet from property line (unless specific lengths of a roadway would
benefit from a wider sidewalk, or where there is a special setback, typically 24 feet
wide); aloΣͽ ϮΊχ· χ·Ίν ̽ΪΣ̽͋ζχ ̯ ̽ΪΣ̽͋ζχ ͕Ϊι ζΜ̯̽͋͋Σχ Ϊ͕ ̯ ζ͋ι̽͋Σχ̯ͽ͋ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ·̼ϢΊΜ͇ΊΣͽ
͕ιΪΣχ̯ͽ͋͛ ϮΊχ·ΊΣ χ·͋ ͕Ίινχ 10 ͕͋͋χ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ζιΪζ͋ιχϴ͛ν ͇͋ζχ·΅ Α·͋ ̽ΪΣ̽͋ζχ Ίν χ·̯χ Ί͕ ̯ 19͛
sidewalk width is desired on El Camino Real in certain, specified segments, but the
City of Palo Alto Page 7
existing right of way width is only 9 feet, a percentage (50 to 75%) of the building wall
would need to be placed at the 10 foot setback line.
Staff favors the second approach because having some building frontage is good urban design,
complies with the Grand Boulevard initiative and is an important policy design principle of the
South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (SECRDG).
In addition, staff recommends amending Section 18.16 to provide additional flexibility in
achieving the original design principles while encouraging wider sidewalk widths in certain
areas and avoiding the strict application of build to lines on wider lots. The majority of the
̼ϢΊΜ͇ΊΣͽ ϮΪϢΜ͇ νχΊΜΜ ̼͋ Ί͇̯͋ΜΜϴ ΜΪ̯̽χ͇͋ ϮΊχ·ΊΣ χ·͋ ͕Ίινχ 20 ͕͋͋χ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ζιΪζ͋ιχϴ χΪ ̯ϭΪΊ͇ ͞ΊννΊΣͽ
χ͋͋χ·͟ ͋ϭen if the build-to-line requirement were eliminated. The possible changes to
18.16.090 are:
(̼)(2)H΄ ̯͇͇ ͋͞ϳ̽͋ζχ Ϯ·͋ι͋ ̯ ͽι̯͋χ͋ι ͕Ίινχ ͕ΜΪΪι ν͋χ̼̯̽Ι Ίν ζιΪϭΊ͇͇͋ ͕Ϊι ̯ ϮΊ͇͋ι
νΊ͇͋Ϯ̯ΜΙ͟. Criteria suggests upper floor be set back for context; however, along El
Camino and other arterials, particularly for small parcels, suggest first floor could have a
greater setback for a wider sidewalk and second floor could overhang (still within
private property though) to recapture lost floor area – and shade/weather cover for
pedestrians.
(̼)(3)E΄ ͞12 χΪ 17 ͕ΪΪχ νΊ͇͋Ϯ̯ΜΙ ΪΣ EΜ ̯ΊΣΪ ·̯͋Μ ̯Σ͇ 8 χΪ 12 ͕͋͋χ ͋Μν͋Ϯ·͋ι͋ ζϢινϢ̯Σχ
χΪ ̽ΪΣχ͋ϳχ͟. Provides a minimum width and a width range for ARB flexibility based on
context.
(3)F: A majority of the building frontage located (sχιΊΙ͋) ̯͞χ χ·͋ ν͋χ̼̯̽Ι ΜΊΣ͋͟ (̯Σ͇
ι͋ζΜ̯̽͋ ϮΊχ·) ͞ϮΊχ·ΊΣ 20 ͕͋͋χ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ͕ιΪΣχ ζιΪζ͋ιχϴ ΜΊΣ͋ ϢΣΜ͋νν χ·͋ ζιΪζ͋ιχϴ Ίν νϢ̼Ζ͋̽χ χΪ
̯ νζ͋̽Ί̯Μ ν͋χ̼̯̽Ι͟. χ̯͕͕ ΣΪχ͋ ΪΣ χ·Ίν Ϯ̯ν΄ Α·͋ ΊΣχ͋Σχ Ϯ̯ν χΪ ΣΪχ ·̯ϭ͋ ͞ΊννΊΣͽ χ͋͋χ·͟
along the ECR frontage – but the teeth should not have to all be in the same plane;
should allow building to be primarily forward on the lot. Feedback is needed on whether
20 feet is the correct width.
Lot Area
With certain projects, property owners have cooperated with the City in dedicating additional
νΊ͇͋Ϯ̯ΜΙ ιΊͽ·χ Ϊ͕ Ϯ̯ϴ΅ HΪϮ͋ϭ͋ι ϮΊχ· ν̯ΜΜ͋ι ΜΪχν ̯Σ͇ ΊΣ̽ι̯͋νΊΣͽ Μ͋ͽ̯Μ ̽ΪΣνχι̯ΊΣχν ΪΣ ̽ΊχΊ͋ν͛
abilities to require dedications, staff anticipates these voluntary dedications will become more
difficult. Therefore, staff is recommending an incentive based program to encourage voluntary
sidewalk dedications. Staff is recommending modifying the Lot Area definition found in Chapter
18.04, to clarify that greater building setbacks provided to increase the public right of way will
not reduce the lot area for the purpose of calculating allowable floor area.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Additional Issues
Actual Conditions
Additional study of actual conditions, setback potential and sidewalk sections along major
thoroughfares may be needed related to additional code modifications prescribing sidewalk
width and setbacks for properties within the City also zoned CN, CC and CS. It will be helpful to
·̯ϭ͋ ̯ νχϢ͇ϴ Ϊ͕ ̯͋ΣΊχΊ͋ν ϮΊχ·ΊΣ χ·͋ ͕͕͋͋̽͞χΊϭ͋ νΊ͇͋Ϯ̯ΜΙ ϮΊ͇χ·͟΅
One source to reference for past sidewalk width concepts is the Downtown Urban Design
GϢΊ͇͋ Ϯ·͋ι͋ χ·͋ι͋ ̯ι͋ ·͇͋νΊι̯̼Μ͋ νχι͋͋χν̯̽ζ͋ ͋ϳ̯ζΜ͋ν͛ ͕Ϊι ͇Ί͕͕͋ι͋Σχ Μ̯Σ͇ Ϣν͋ν ̯Σ͇ χι̯ΣνΊχΊΪΣν
̼͋χϮ͋͋Σ χ·͋ Ϣν͋ν΅ ͜χ ̯ϴ ̼͋ ·͋Μζ͕ϢΜ χΪ ·̯ϭ͋ νχϢ͇Ί͋ν ͕Ϊι ̯͋̽· EΜ ̯ΊΣΪ ·̯͋Μ ·ν͋ͽ͋Σχ͛ ̯Σ͇
those of other CS and CN zoned commercial arterials, such as Middlefield, San Antonio, and
Alma.
Setbacks by Land Use
As to building setbacks, the ARB had previously discussed differing ground floor setbacks per
Land Use type (e.g. face of building for hotel or residential use on the ground floor must be set
back 25 feet from curb, versus face of building for retail storefront at 15 feet from curb). The
study of building form will need further discussion, as greater ground floor setbacks would have
a relationship to upper floor setbacks and incentivizing different land uses. For this, staff will be
discussing an additional consultant effort and citizen participation in upcoming outreach
meetings.
At the recent retreat, ARB members noted that a 12-foot sidewalk width is still desirable where
fronting uses (such as hotels) do not warrant a sidewalk greater than 12 feet, but that they are
studying the possibilities for 16 foot, 17 foot and 19 foot wide sidewalks. The Grand Boulevard
Initiative concept is 18 feet from curb to building face.
Second Floor Overhang Concept
At the retreat, the ARB noted the concept of a first floor greater setback and a second floor
overhang which could compensate for lost ground floor area, as well as expanding the range of
sidewalk width. The ARB discussed the concept of the upper floor(s) extending forward when
ground floor front wall is set farther back, in order to help developers to provide sidewalks
wider than the required 12 feet. A suggestion was made to add an ARB finding regarding the
interface between building and curb and reθϢΊιΊΣͽ ̯ ΊΣΊϢ ·̽Μ̯͋ι ϮΊ͇χ·͛ ͕Ϊι Ϯ̯ΜΙΊΣͽ (Ϯ·͋ι͋
the clear width need not be straight but could meander).
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Street Trees
The ARB expressed concern about location of trees at the curb line conflicting with Caltrans
requirements for clearance, and suggested looking at rectangular tree grates (sized 4 feet by 8
feet) to encourage tree growth. Conflicts between street trees and utility easements can also
be problematic to achieving vertical landscaping within the effective sidewalk width; Public
Works policy considers trees to be structures when utility easements are involved, and do not
allow trees to be installed in those locations due to maintenance issues.
Outreach and Further Study
Staff is considering holding outreach meetings, inviting property owners in particular, the week
of March 1, 2014.
Timeline
February 20, 2014: ARB public hearing to discuss and refine code change concepts
February 26, 2014: PTC public hearing of draft ordinance
March 1-5: Outreach Meetings, CN and CS property owners
March 6, 2014: ARB follow-up meeting as needed regarding sidewalk width
March 12, 2014: PTC follow-up meeting as needed
March 17-27, 2014: Additional discussions with property owners
April 21, 2014: City Council first reading
May 5, 2014: City Council second reading
Resource Impact
No consultant was used to develop concepts for this draft ordinance. Consultant use is
anticipated for further study of increasing sidewalk width requirements throughout in Palo Alto.
Environmental Review
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per section 15305.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment B: February 20, 2014 ARB staff report (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 February 26, 2014 4 EXCERPT 6
7 Planning and Transportation Commission review of a Draft Ordinance modifying - (1) 8 Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address building setbacks (the 9 “build-to” line standard and context-based design criteria) in the CN and CS District and (b)
reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 11 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area in order to 12 encourage wider sidewalks. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA 13 per section 15305. (Amy French – amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org) 14
Acting Chair Keller: So the next agenda item is Agenda Item Number 3 and this is for the 16 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review of a draft ordinance modifying Chapter 17 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address building setbacks (the “build-to” 18 line standard and context-based design criteria) in the CN and CS District and (b) reduce the 19 allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20
units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area to encourage 21 wider sidewalks. So do we have, by the way I don’t see any comments for the members of the 22 public so if you want to speak on that please submit a card and let’s start out with a staff 23 report. 24
Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Thank you and good evening once again. I will give a short 26 intro and then turn it over to our Chief Planning Official. This item is here before you tonight as 27 a result of a couple different Council actions and directions that almost went back, one of them 28 went back almost a year ago. The first one had to do, it was a colleagues’ memo related to 29 sidewalk width on El Camino that had somewhat of a more expanded definition of what they
would like to do, but the main point of it was to take a look and increase sidewalk widths along 31 the El Camino. 32 33 The second part of it and you’ll see all the separate motions in here, another more immediate 34 need is related to the Housing Element and places that were on, properties that were on our housing inventory list. We took those from a 15 unit per acre to a 20 unit per acre and that 36 was approved as part of our Housing Element process. After that approval the Council looked, 37 asked us to look into reducing FAR on those sites. As we are going through this process we 38 realized that there was a number of other things that could be done to make the code more 39 sound and we included some of those. For tonight’s action though staff, and Amy will go more
into this, would like the end result to be a Planning Commission recommendation on at least 41 and specifically focused on the El Camino aspects of it and FAR reduction aspects of it. And 42 what we would propose is that later this month, potentially later this month or in late March we 43 have a joint meeting with the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB also reviewed these 44 ordinances and had a number of good suggestions. They also suggested that the Planning
Commission and the ARB meet. So staff concurs that’s a good idea; however, given the Council 46 direction related to the El Camino sidewalk and as well as the FAR reduction we would like to 47 see some type of recommendation specifically related to that to the Council tonight to come out 48 of the Commission and then we could later talk about other nuances of the code at a later 49 meeting. So I’ll turn it over to our Chief Planning Official.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2 3
4
5
6
7 8 9
10
11
12
13 14 15 16
17 18 19
20
21 22
23
24
25
26 27 28 29 30 31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. So you’ve
read the agenda, which correctly notes that it’s Chapter 18.16 of the PAMC that we are going to
address tonight as well as Chapter 18.04. There was a bit of a typo on the attached ordinance,
Attachment A; just wanted to call that out.
So what we, Aaron covered what the Council had done recently about the housing, so that’s
covered. The reduction, a modest reduction of FAR on those CN zoned housing sites and there
are approximately 32 of those sites along El Camino Real. As far as the sidewalk width the
Council’s concern was how buildings address the street. Some of that is dealt with already in
the context based design criteria, which was derived from the El Camino Real Design
Guidelines. So that is actually in the zoning code once again.
The vision that was being looked at with the Grand Boulevard was an eight foot walking zone, a
six foot amenity zone, and then they had an additional four feet as a spill out area. So what
that would have required an 18 foot sidewalk would be a 10 foot setback on the private
property, the building to the right of way and so that’s the question that the ARB has been
wrestling with, looking at the various options there. And then of course at some point revising the South El Camino Real Guidelines to be consistent with the zoning that we’re kind of trying
to focus on here is to get the low hanging fruit, which we think is the sidewalk width; the build
to line, kind of address that head on.
The Council had noted something about other thoroughfares in their Motion back in April. And
those other thoroughfares are not CN and CS zoned the exception of Charleston Road, so we
believe that further study is needed and perhaps outreach that those other streets have some different characters than El Camino Real and different, it’s not necessarily a regional roadway as
is the El Camino Real. So again we’re focused on CN and CS districts. The Chapter 18.16 does
also have the CC district, which is a zone that is also on California Avenue. But again we’re
pretty much focused on sidewalk width on El Camino and addressing the building setback as
well as the definition of lot area. And the reason we have the definition of lot area is because
lot area has an impact on how much floor area can be in a building. Ok so we just are focused
on that tonight as well and that’s in 18.04 in the attachment.
So looking at the slide I have up there the floor area, the proposal is a .8 FAR for mixed-use
and that would be .4 residential and .4 non-residential. Those are for those housing sites
where they propose a greater than 15 development units per acre. Ok, so then the sidewalk and building frontage the ordinance our goals here are again, increase the El Camino Real
sidewalk width beyond what’s required now, which is 12 feet. Twelve feet is currently required,
which requires the property owners to set their buildings back and provide sidewalk basically
four feet onto their private property. That’s what currently is required. We wanted to clarify or
modify the build to line requirements. This is the requirement that says you have to put 50
percent of your building right there at the zero setback or whatever setback to make that
twelve foot effective sidewalk.
And so again we feel that we will have additional study at a later date for other thoroughfares
besides the El Camino Real. The El Camino Real is really the focus, that’s where we started and
the Council did acknowledge that that’s the focus at this time. Again effective sidewalk width is
not a definition in Chapter 10.04. It is described and illustrated in the context based guidelines
in Chapter 18.16, but one concept is to actually formally put a definition of that that would say
it’s from curb to building face and it’s inclusive of plantings and furnishings. That’s what we
have been dealing with as effective sidewalk width. The other definition change is lot area.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1 2
3
4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23 24
25
26
27
28 29
30 31 32
33 34
35 36
37
38 39 40
41
42
43 44
45
46 47
48
49
50
Again it’s to say that if they do dedicate their private property, and we’re talking about more
than four feet at this point, that that area would not be deducted from what they’re calling lot
area for the purpose of calculating how much floor area they can put on their site at whatever
floor. Ok, and then one question is, is that something the lot area that we want to consider
broadening to other zones beyond the CS and CN? So CD, in other words, we have some
projects downtown where they did make a wider, a setback and that is walkable. Perhaps that
lot area definition we can use that in beyond El Camino.
The next one, the build to standard, it’s the build to line and there was discussion about
possibly eliminating that standard, but what we want to still preserve is some kind of
presentation to the street that doesn’t involve too much back and forth from building to building
with those setbacks. So what is the appropriate setback? This is what the ARB’s been
wrestling with. Is it worth having a build to line and having exceptions such as we’ve been
seeing coming through the process exceptions for allowing greater setback or are there other
things we can do? So there are special factors such as land use and lot size that the ARB is
looking at. When you have a very large parcel you’re going to have a longer building wall and
so that’s a consideration.
So then the concept of do you do a build to line standard or do you do an average setback?
This is a concept. One phrase that could be considered is where there’s let’s say on El Camino
put it out there 15 feet if you do a 15 foot effective sidewalk on El Camino then that would
mean you’re going to place the building front wall at 7 feet from the front property line. Seven
feet of private property dedicated plus the eight feet right of way that’s currently there.
The other concept is again going back to that build to line and what are we trying to achieve, consideration of a maximum setback. Are you going to have buildings setback farther than 10
feet from the front? That would be an 18 foot. There are places along El Camino that make
sense to have a city center, a kind of a Cafe Borrone effect with plazas, etcetera. So how far
back do we want that to go? And what’s the concern about placing it farther forward? One of
those concerns is parking. Well, there’s a context based guideline that says don’t put parking in
front of the building. So we’ve already got that in our zoning code, that says don’t put parking
in front of the building, but there are circumstances where that might be a place that it has to
go from a feasibility standpoint. So, but any case we could consider adding to the tables, Table
3 and 4, something about parking is prohibited in the front yard or something along those lines
like it says in the context based design criteria, which is what I have up next.
The concept of the upper floors, currently the context based design criteria says the upper
floors shall be setback. Well, there might be a place where we want to have the first floor
setback to allow for the walking and then the upper floors set forward; the colonnade effect,
the arcade. We might want to have some flexibility for that and I have an example here in
Redwood City. The measurement from the curb to the columns is nine in some places to the
white columns and then it goes back a bit further in the distance there to 10 or 11 feet and
then the front wall of the building beyond that arcade is about I believe 19 feet. There are some opportunities there to consider some flexibility. Ok? This is then the context based
criteria that talks about we had started to approach it as a range. When we discussed the
range with the ARB their recommendation came back as a 9 foot to 15 foot range. Ok? So if
we’re thinking of nine feet on thoroughfares elsewhere what we have is eight feet required now
other than El Camino in the CN/CS and we have a 12 foot required now. ARB’s recommending
take that to 15 rather than going to 18 feet as in the Grand Boulevard, ok? And then the other
concept is an average building frontage. So thinking about you have this seven feet. If you’re
going to do fifteen feet then the seven feet from the property line to the building could that be
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14 15
16
17 18
19 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 28 29
30
31
32
33 34 35 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 46 47 48
49
an average setback rather than 50 percent of the building has to be at the seven feet. You
might look at it that way.
One thing I should say about 15 feet. It was discussed at the joint meeting back in July with
ARB and Planning Commission. It is, has been employed elsewhere. One place is the Rail
Corridor Study. Another place is the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) RT zone that’s near
downtown here. And then also Menlo Park has a 15 foot standard that they’ve implemented
with their Specific Plan. So that concludes the presentation. There’s some pocket slides in the
back if anyone needs additional information. We’ve got some other images, maybe I’ll roll to
those and let those hang around. Again here’s the Grand Boulevard and here’s a concept for 15
feet that our consultant had generated some time before. Now Randy Popp is here to present
as well the ARB’s discussion and we’re here for questions.
Acting Chair Keller: Do you want to add anything to that Board Member Popp, ARB Board
Member Popp?
Randy Popp, ARB Board Member: Good evening, Randy Popp here representing the ARB. First I want to thank the Council for pushing this issue. I think it’s important for us to be discussing
this and Amy you’ve done a great job, you and your staff articulating the specifics of our
discussion here. I do want to reiterate a couple of the major points.
First of all in terms of the width that 9 to 15 foot dimension that Amy has illustrated for you is
really a range. We really like to see that as a range. And the goal here would be to allow
flexibility and to promote a varied character in the environment along the El Camino corridor. This idea that 15 feet is nervous about creating a number, right? A very specific number that
everybody feels like they need to hold to. Each project is different. We looked at the entire
length of El Camino, we studied the different lot sizes, different lot dimensions; there is no one
size fits all solution here. And so it’s important to have some flexibility for design. And this idea
that at very wide lots, the Menlo Center is a great example of this in Menlo Park where Cafe
Borrone exists, that places really can recess to a greater degree and still promote fantastic life
right at the street front with a building that still has some nice presence. And with that we
think that it is critical that we engage a consultant to develop some diagrammatic examples of
suggestions in a number of different situations for different lot sizes, different usable widths,
placement of accessories and plantings, etcetera so that people really understand clearly the
intent and then can launch from that point.
In regard to the lot area where we are suggesting that the sidewalk width be extended over
private property it’s important to understand that the ARB felt strongly that there be no
reduction in FAR, but we did not see this in any way as an incentive. We felt that this was
really just maintaining the rights of people and again we’re trying to encourage here is the right
kind of redevelopment and get people to take down the buildings that are unpleasant and don’t
meet the standards that we’re trying to achieve and encourage the right kind of growth. So
we’re not suggesting adding area, but we certainly are suggesting that there be a way to maintain all of the rights that you would have even with the extension of the sidewalk width.
In regard to the build to line and I think the big question here is why a variance in the build to
line and I don’t mean a variance in the wrong sense of the word here, variability in the build to
line. This is what the ARB is for. We can look at each individual project. We can look at them
as they come, we can study this, we can evaluate whether people have got the right amount of
building frontage close mass far away tiered back, whatever the solutions are, but on a project
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34 35 36 37
38 39
40
41 42
43 44
45
46 47 48
49
50
by project basis. And again the idea here is to promote some varied character along this
corridor.
The last thing that I want to just quickly address is the inclusion of a discussion about trees.
And one of the things that are very clear in my discussions with Dave Dockter and certainly as
you drive along El Camino you can see this. The location of trees relative to a curb is really
critical, particularly with respect for the building’s placement in terms of the canopy. And if the
building is too close to the trees the canopy cannot grow properly. It gets misshapen. We hold
the buildings back in the right way at the right places, get the right rhythm it really can be an
elegant boulevard and it will really help to further this concept of something magnificent as you
cruise through Palo Alto. Again, this is something that we all felt should very much be a part of
the diagrams the consultant develops. Quick summary, if you have other questions I’ll hang
around for a little while here if there are any other questions I can answer. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you very much. And we have one speaker from the public. Since we
don’t have many people here you’ll have five minutes.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Herb Borock.
Herb Borock: Good evening Acting Chair Keller and Commissioners. On the question of the
sidewalk setback first I mean I don’t believe that the objections that we’ve heard from the
community about a number of projects are primarily due to the amount of floor area and the
decisions that the Council has made to allow that amount of floor area to fit on a site and the
real problem that needs to be addressed are the decisions that the Council’s made both in adopting Planned Community (PC) zone districts in some cases and in the past the problem of
changing what can be built on a site in a particular zone district both in terms of its allowable
floor area and its setbacks. Fifteen years ago staff reports from the Planning Division had
histories of how we got to where we are, but the previous City Manager felt that that shouldn’t
be there, all you should get essentially would be a sentence saying what would happen if you
voted yes or you voted no on a proposal. And that’s essentially the culture that we have now.
In terms of trying to find the proper setback on a State Highway, El Camino, as if it’s going to
be a place that people are going to be spending lots of time walking along I don’t think reflects
either what El Camino Real is now or what it can possibly be in the future. There’s also a
question which was discussed at the ARB of the difference between a public sidewalk and a wide area that can be appropriated for private use by businesses. A number of years ago at
the start of a Council vacation the administrator in the Planning Department whose skills are in
utility resource planning, he, that’s where he works now, sent out an interpretation that was
signed by the then Director of Planning Mr. Emslie that said they changed their interpretation,
people can put tables and chairs on the sidewalks on University Avenue essentially at will,
completely ignoring the past policy that if they are increasing the number of seating that they
have then that has to be reflected in payments for parking. And so now we don’t have as wide a sidewalk we used to have on University Avenue because they’re occupied by tables and
chairs. So a number of members of the ARB when they were talking about a 9 to 15 foot
sidewalk were talking about a 9 to 15 foot sidewalk so that a portion of it could be occupied by
the private business. It’s called a sidewalk and as Council Member Rosenbaum indicated when
people were talking about the sit-lie ordinance, it’s not a place for sitting and laying it’s a place
for walking. It’s not a place for business to take place; it’s a place for people to walk. If you
really want a wide enough sidewalk to get that kind of feel where people would want to walk on it.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19 20 21
22
23
24
25
26 27 28 29 30 31 32
33
34
35 36 37
38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 47
48
49
50
In regard to the other part of the proposal from Council on the amount of floor area for sites on
El Camino that are reflected in the Housing Inventory Sites for the requirement for meeting the
State’s Housing Density Bonus Law, under that law because of the size of the City that we have
we have to have sites with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and we have some sites that
are 15 units maximum. And so we had to agree to make those 20, but when that proposal was
approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in California it
was based upon what the current zoning regulations are for those sites. So there are two
things: one I don’t know if you can do it at all, the second is maybe the only way you can do it
is if you reduce the FAR for everything in those zone districts so that when a developer comes
in and wants to take advantage of the incentives and concessions that include increasing the
floor area by a certain amount, I believe the Council finally agreed the maximum was 25
percent, they get the ability to use that bonus. But by saying first that we get approval from
the State to get a certain site approved for a bonus and then say we’re taking away the base,
I’m not sure that that’s even legal. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So let’s bring that back to the Commission. Who wants to lead
us off? Commissioner Alcheck.
Commissioner Alcheck: I think this is an extraordinary idea the Grand Boulevard. It’s a vision
that I have a hard time visualizing because maybe the fact that I grew up in this neighborhood,
I grew up in Los Altos. Maybe just having grown up off the El Camino it’s just hard to imagine
it any other way that it is. And my, when I think of El Camino it does not bring any sort of
warm and fuzzy feelings. It’s just… so the notion that the City is sort of considering something
much more visionary I think is awesome and I have a lot of faith in the direction that we have received from the ARB being specialists in the field of architecture.
With regard to sort of providing the flexibility of a range of setbacks that allow that hopefully
will help us avoid something that’s too monotonous it’s hard to imagine what’s the hotel, is it
the Plaza? The Crown Plaza on El Camino? It’s sort of hard to imagine, you see that hotel it’s
so set back and has this huge parking lot. Last time we had this meeting we talked about how
a lot of sites aren’t even that deep. So if we create this setback what are we doing to these
lots? Are we destroying their sort of feasibility because we’re making them too narrow or
whatever? Too shallow, thank you. You can see that without a very well-articulated plan,
there’s not ever going to be a visionary result for the Grand Boulevard. You’re going to have
hotels with 400 car parking lots and they’re just distant. I don’t know what the, do we have a name for the site on the corner of Page Mill that has like a movie theatre in it and it’s a bunch
of office buildings?
Ms. French: That’s Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino.
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so Palo Alto Square is another sort of site that just seems so
inaccessible from the street and then right across the street is sort of a retail front. It just seems so opposite. You would want your, I would hope that this boulevard plan would
articulate an opportunity for people to really create a uniform sort of feel on the El Camino that
encouraged walkable retail. I mean it’s hard to imagine, but who knows? El Camino could be
like a monorail one day and we’re all walking off of it, right? And it’s the only place to put that
monorail and so everybody’s sort of accessing it. We have no idea, but it’s certainly, it’s
suffered from I guess a lack of vision. And so I like the idea of creating a framework that is
both suggestive but flexible. Not, it’s hard to imagine that we know the right answer right now
for the whole, the whole street. And so I like the idea of there being sort of a range of
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 13
14 15
16 17 18
19
20 21
22 23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37
38 39
40
41
42 43
44
45
46 47
48
49
50
setbacks that sort of create maybe spaces where you can walk underneath an overhang. That
actually seems like an excellent idea, the arcade. You see a lot of that in sort of major
metropolitan, I shouldn’t say major, in metropolitan areas in Europe where they sort of focus a
lot more on the notion of walkable boulevards if you will. And we sort of don’t, we have them
as main streets, but they seem to have them everywhere. So this sort of notion that you have
the arcade as one option and then the plaza as another potential option I think that’s great.
And so I think having a Cafe Borrone style, what did you call it? The Palo Alto Plaza, that’s
what that property is called?
Ms. French: The Palo Alto Square is the movie theatre.
Commissioner Alcheck: So I know this, so it’s, I mean just this notion of having plazas next to
arcades sounds fantastic because it’s a diversity of approaches and so especially since this is,
this is a hard to envision vision I would support the idea that we created a flexibility in the
approach, but still articulated this notion of yeah, this needs to be walkable and this needs to,
there needs to be much more space than we normally require from… in our building code on
the sidewalk.
I think that’s an interesting idea the idea of sort of the FAR, the area you’re taking away you’re
going to allow somewhere else in the building. I’m a really strong advocate for height. I think
we have a very negative view about it and we have, we have there are limitations that sort of
guide us in our approach to height whether it’s our current restrictions or daylight planes and I
think we should explore flexibility there too on the Grand Boulevard especially since you’re
talking about taking something away. So I like this.
Acting Chair Keller: Why don’t we do Commissioner King next?
Commissioner King: Ok, thank you for the report. So I guess I’m just I’m trying to, the agenda
item seems there’s a little bit of a license to ramble in here and maybe that’s what we’re
supposed to do. There’s not a goal, we’re not supposed to try and draft any, we’re not trying
to draft any wording ordinance, we’re just supposed to give you feedback, is that our goal?
And fairly limited to El Camino Real?
Ms. French: Feedback is great. We do have a draft ordinance that could be tweaked if there
was some kind of straw poll to provide guidance for the next step that we could come back with.
Commissioner King: Ok, so at a minimum though you’re just looking for how, our response to
these, the items that you’ve delineated here restricted to El Camino Real?
Mr. Aknin: I would like to add that if you did have a recommendation that you would like to
make related to the El Camino specifically and a recommendation related to the FAR reductions we would like that because we would at least like to take that portion of the ordinance on to
the Council as soon as possible and then bring back the other points for further discussion with
the Planning Commission as well as the ARB.
Commissioner King: Ok and it seems it just in my mind a bit of a challenge. One, we’re not a
design, you know, as Commissioner Alcheck mentioned really ARB are the ones who are the
design experts. So I would, I if you said, “Oh, Carl, please write us up an ordinance right now,”
I would feel that that is over my head. So I’m going to limit myself. Now Commissioner Keller
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1 2
3
4 5
6
7
8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32 33 34
35 36 37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 47
48
49
50
he might be the man to do that, but in any event so I’m going to limit myself to just addressing
and asking some questions.
So and when I will, I’ll just go right to kind of down the list. One of the things that is an
interesting thing about the, I totally understand and in concept agree with the fact that if the
building developers agree to widen the sidewalk at the expense of their lot line or setting back
their building and therefore they’re giving up space there that we would allow the same FAR.
However, on the other hand as you do see then if that same once the building is developed and
now the lessee is in there and then they say, “Oh, and we want to put tables out here,” then
they’re effectively getting an enhancement. I know there’s somewhere in here I couldn’t find
the wording again, but we’re not looking to give them an enhancement, but in fact by default or
in practice it could be an enhancement. Then they’re going to take back that floor area so
they’ll both get the FAR created by maintaining the lot size and then they’re going to take back
that sidewalk area for commercial use. And so maybe if you want to address that now, one
how is that, am I missing something? It seems… and then two, if in fact that is a risk, how do
we handle that? Do we say, “Oh, we’re going to count obviously exterior space,” well, actually
I’m not a restaurateur, I don’t know. Is it more favorable per square foot? Do they make more money by having outdoor seating for that amount of space or is it less favorable? And so then
is there a way we use an adder or subtractor for that space outside relative to the interior FAR?
Mr. Aknin: So I wouldn’t even take, I mean my opinion we wouldn’t even take it to the financial
analysis standpoint. I think is, do we want outdoor dining is something that we want as a
community? As far as we incorporate into our land use decisions or is it something that we
don’t want? I think outdoor dining in a climate like Palo Alto is a pretty popular thing and even though restaurants might be making additional revenue related to that, still it is a, it seems to
be a pretty popular amenity for Palo Alto residents as well as people who visit Palo Alto to eat.
So I think in general if our policies encourage that that would be consistent with what people
have wanted to see in the past.
Commissioner King: Well and I, ok, so there are the commercial profitability and numbers
aspects, but then there’s also the ok, well every one of those tables is going to when we’re
talking about transit, parking is an issue, every one of those tables that’s seated outside in an
area that we’re calling, that we’re adding to the base FAR is another car that’s coming in and
parking. I mean it’s also dollars to the community, but that we obviously don’t have unlimited,
give people unlimited FAR so it seems to me that you’re going to both add people, parking there, and then the FAR that’s being retained for the building itself, the interior portion, that’s
filled with people. And so you’re really adding more load to the transportation systems at a
minimum. Again I’m not sure about your point, the fairness of it’s something we want to
encourage, but you are giving a bonus to the developer relative to having lot lines at the street
where they currently are or the sidewalk and you’re then adding traffic, people traffic, which in
general is car traffic. Am I missing something?
Mr. Aknin: No, I think you’re, yeah, I think you have some good points there. I think the
overall traffic impact of tables I guess it depends how big it is, right? I mean if you have a few
tables out there there’s not going to be a huge traffic impact. If you have something like Cafe
Borrone where there’s dozens of tables out there there’s going to be a larger traffic impact. But
I think that’s something that we’d probably have to look at independently as part of the overall
development approval process, but I hear you what your point is on that.
Commissioner King: Ok.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3 4
5
6
7 8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23 24 25 26
27
28 29
30
31 32
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42
43
44
45 46 47
48
49 50
Ms. French: Can I add something as well? So if it’s truly right of way, dedicated right of way
there’s a process that requires an encroachment permit. We also have the ARB process for
looking at the style of tables they’re putting out there to make sure they’re up to City
standards. The other thing is, we find a lot of times the seasonal when it’s sunny folks may be
sitting outside. In the winter or rainy they go inside. So it’s sometimes of the year you’ll have
seating in both areas, maybe it’s a really popular restaurant, but, we’ve been having this 12
foot setback for years now where they’re dedicated, they have a 4 foot additional sidewalk and
so we haven’t found it to be a problem with the 4 feet. So an additional three feet on top of
that I don’t know that it’s, we haven’t seen a lot of seating. We’d like to see seating. I think
it’s in our context space guideline that that’s encouraged to enliven the street, vibrant retail.
That’s part of the vibrant retail.
Commissioner King: Got it. Ok, well I would just say I have concern that then we’re, because
basically we’re saying thank you for the sidewalk, for increasing the sidewalk for the benefit of
the public and so for that we’re allowing you to maintain your FAR in the interior spaces and
then they’re saying, “Oh, that’s great,” and then they’re taking that sidewalk back for their
private uses. And it may be great and vibrant, but I just, I’m seeing that the, I have concerns about that.
Ms. French: The other thing about that, we wouldn’t have permanent covering over that so it
would not be considered lot area or lot coverage or FAR.
Commissioner King: Well and that’s my exact point. Is that they, but they use it for commercial
generation of revenues, it really is a public space. Just as we’ve had this issue with some of the
PC’s where they are public spaces, but during lunch hour or when they want to seat people for
dinner they’re not public spaces and so I, I just have a real concern over that. So we can move
on, we can discuss it as it moves down the road, but that is a concern.
Mr. Aknin: The one thing I would add to that is what cities typically do, the cities all up and
down the, actually cities all over the country, is they would issue some type of encroachment
permit to go within that area if it was considered public right of way then there would be some
charge associated with that encroachment permit as well as conditions or performance
standards that that restaurant would have to make. So that’s kind of the typical industry
standard of the way that you do it. I mean obviously we see sidewalk dining everywhere in the
country and that’s a typical process that someone would go through.
Commissioner King: Ok, but I will add the natives with the pitchforks and torches are on
parking and growth, appropriate or not or not liking growth is that we are really adding, we’re
growing where currently the FAR’s do not support growing. And as a sidelight and I know I’m,
should be out of time here, I’m stuck on one subject is if we really believe we’re this green city
and that we want to support environmental stewardship all those outdoor restaurants they, I
mean you could not have a cartoon more showing global warming than having those heaters that just heat the outdoors. I mean that is the definition of global warming, having a heater
trying to heat the outdoor ambient environment. And so I’m not going to tackle that, but I do
have concerns. I don’t know if anybody’s done any math on hey, just how much what is that
the equivalent of miles driven all our outdoor restaurants, which is becoming more and more
common.
Acting Chair Keller: Can I, before you address that I think Board Member Popp wanted to
address some of your issues with respect to the issue of setback.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8 9
10
11
12
13 14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22 23
24 25
26 27 28 29
30
31
32 33
34 35 36 37
38 39
40
41
42
43
44 45
46 47 48
49
50
Board Member Popp: Thank you so much for the opportunity. Commissioner King I think the
thing that I wanted to just mention, first of all I think your points are great about FAR and what
that means to a developer. I don’t want to get into the aspects of the finances of it. ARB is
about character and quality. And in regard to that what I would describe is that this 15 foot
goal for setback is really an aesthetic goal. And it can incorporate objects such as tables and
chairs and all these things, but our intent really is to get the building face, the mass of the
building away from the street in a way that gives you a visual sense of a certain width as you
move down this boulevard. And having street life, and having chairs and tables, and having
whatever might occur out there is part and parcel of what will make that character and the
interest really vibrant in that street. And so I would certainly leave it to you guys to figure out
how we manage the financial benefits of what that might be and what a developer might get
from that, but I can tell you that the ARB is very much in favor of maintaining a certain width.
It’s very usable, but that additional couple of feet, few feet, whatever it might be that might
give space for tables and chairs could be terrifically valuable to the public overall in terms of
how that space feels. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Commissioner King you wanted to… you want to address the question that you had already?
Commissioner King: Yeah, so I guess my feedback would be I would say that you don’t give
them the extra. I see it I say, well you get to retain rights to that strip of sidewalk for your
commercial uses with your building, but you do not get the, but it counts as FAR that you’re
not, it’s still, because it is useful space for the building. So I don’t know exactly how that would
translate into the draft, but I don’t think I see it that they’re getting an enhancement when we may not want that.
Ms. French: I would weigh in on that. Just land use could be a critical piece of this, is a critical
piece. We’re just looking at it as if it’s all restaurants, but when you have a 15 foot requirement
let’s say and you have an office there, which is allowed in the CS zone. If you have personal
services something like that, you’re not going to have people going out and drying their
pedicure in front in the chairs.
Commissioner King: So in that case I would say that it’s tied to whether the public has full 24
hour access subject to curfews or whatever there are, 24 hour access to that space, the
additional sidewalk space or whether the business has the right to use that for their commercial purposes. Ok. Thanks, and then I’ll just take another minute just to flip through the other
items.
So in general I think it’s great to have the flexibility. Obviously we’ve all seen the buildings
people don’t like when they’re the unintended consequences of this; the buildings moved up to
the front has happened so I’m fully in favor of the general concept. And then what are you
trying regarding then the FAR change? So you’ve presented some things that look like dropping it to .8. What do you want from us? To me that sounds like a good idea. I think the general
idea is we’re allowing more units, but then we want them to be smaller residential units is the
goal. And so I’m in general favor of that.
Mr. Aknin: That’s correct. So I mean that’s what we would like your Motion to move forward
with that portion of it.
Commissioner King: Ok.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 15
16 17 18
19
20
21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29 30 31 32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39
40
41
42 43 44
45
46 47 48
49
50
Mr. Aknin: Eventually, not right now.
Commissioner King: Understood. Ok, ok, well then I’m done and will look forward to someone
else who might want to craft the Motion. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, so in general I like what I see here. I think supporting the Grand
Boulevard makes a lot of sense and I think in general I think this is headed in the right
direction. So I think I head that there are 32 projects affected or could be affected? Maybe
you could clarify?
Ms. French: That’s with, sorry, CN housing site’s FAR reduction. That’s specific to that piece of
the ordinance. The others, you know there are many more sites on El Camino that would be
affected by the sidewalk width and build to line.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, and will all of these projects that will be affected are they going to be notified or will the property owners like, you know, be alerted as to some of these things
going on?
Ms. French: I’ll let Assistant Director Aknin address the Housing Element piece with the floor
area. I know that it was stated in the Council meeting that that was a direction and I imagine
that those housing sites property owners were very much aware of that process.
Mr. Aknin: We’ll notify any of those property owners before the Council meeting.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, that makes sense. I think it’s important that they know. Ok, and
then my other point here is I think there’s many ways to accomplish what’s being done here.
I’ve heard Acting Chair Keller also mention that perhaps one way of doing this also is to say,
“Well, there’s no parking in front” and so I guess I’m just thinking about the mechanics and
what is the best ways in terms of mechanics to vote on something like this. I was wondering if
staff had some thoughts about the pros and cons of different ways of accomplishing this, this
goal?
Ms. French: Sure. In the context based guidelines currently there’s a statement about this. It’s called, one of the guidelines, I think it’s Guideline 6 is parking design. And so this is the place
where and it’s in the zoning code so it is a pretty much a requirement. It’s a context based
design criteria and I’m looking for the quote from there, but it is a legitimate way of providing
direction to applicants to state that we don’t have parking lots in front of buildings per the
context based guidelines. We do provide these guidelines to applicants prior to them coming
into the process. It could be strengthened with an out and out prohibition in the table, Tables 3
and 4, if that’s a desire to make it crystal clear, but the context based guidelines do provide some flexibility on this point. It talks about feasibility. There might be a situation where, there
might be a situation with a historic building or something where it’s an existing parking lot out
front. I don’t know. There’s some potential need for flexibility there, but the majority of cases
especially a new building we would want to look to have the parking in the rear and we’ve done
that with all of the projects that have come through since the adoption of the El Camino Real
Guidelines is to have that condition.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18 19
20 21 22
23
24
25 26
27
28 29
30
31
32 33 34
35 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 47
48
49
50
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So first of all thank you to the Council for referring this to us
and to the staff and to the ARB for having analyzed the issues and also for our joint meeting
where we discussed these and were able to consider the issues. So the first thing I want to talk
about is the FAR. So firstly, it does make sense from my point of view not to penalize the
developers who have essentially had that land and then they’re giving that setback to the City
that their land area for the purposes of counting FAR should include the area that they’re
dedicating to the City. And I think that that is a reasonable general rule because I think that
there have been people who have, developers who have avoided dedicating additional land to
the City for that or for example some of the special setbacks on the sides of streets in
downtown because of the loss of FAR and I think that that is a fairness issue. But there’s a
wrinkle here that hasn’t come up and that wrinkle has to do with arcades. So when you have a
setback and then you have an arcade, which means you sort of come out from that setback
further forward and then what happens is they decide to put tables under that arcade you lose
a lot of the visual sense of the space because it’s taken up by people and tables. Now that may
be a good thing and may be a bad thing, but in some sense what it addresses is the issue of if
you have arcades and you’re contemplating the ability of having tables then the issue of how open that is and how high the arcade is, is it a one story arcade, is it a two story arcade
depending on the height of the building? That may appropriately address the issue and still
give that open feel even if there are tables in there, but essentially if you have tables in there
the effective sidewalk width, the logical effective sidewalk width is somewhat narrowed with an
arcade and tables. So it’s that interaction that I’m mostly concerned about.
Ms. French: I’ll jump in there. With the Redwood City example I think that’s what the ARB was commenting on. If you have a range on El Camino of 9 to 15 feet that’s a perfect example.
You still have the 9 foot walkable between the curb and the columns and then you have
another in that case it was 19 feet back to the front wall under that arcade. So there could be
reasons to have less than 15 feet let’s say if it’s a situation such as the arcade.
Acting Chair Keller: Yeah, particularly if the arcade is sufficiently open and attractive and has a
high enough or whatever so that you actually have the visual thing there. Ok the next thing
I’m going to on a roll here with respect to FAR I think that there’s something ironic about
reducing the FAR for CN zone for 20 when 20 dwelling units per acre is allowed and not
reducing it for the situation when 15 dwelling units per acre is allowed. And it seems to me in
general that the limit to how many dwelling units you can put in is primarily FAR and parking. And that’s the first thing.
The second thing about that is that when you have the increase for the Housing Bonus Density
Law that will affect situations that are in the Housing Inventory Element as well as not in the
Housing Inventory List. And so it seems to me that in either case there should be a reduction.
So I would be in favor of applying the CN reduction across the board and having that when it
comes back to us noticed appropriately so that that change could be made particularly since the bonus applies on either case, so I’m not sure that the bonus only applies in El Camino 20. I’m
wondering if staff has any comment about that?
Mr. Aknin: I mean at this point I would say we would stick to our original recommendation
because that was the direction given to us by the City Council. I think it makes sense because
there was additional incentive given for the, on the Housing Inventory and we needed
something to balance that. We haven’t analyzed what the potential impact could be for more
widespread look at that and we probably want additional community outreach before it happens
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8 9
10
11
12
13
14 15
16
17 18 19 20
21 22
23
24 25
26
27
28 29 30 31 32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42 43
44
45
46 47
48 49 50
as well as additional Council input. But right now we’re focused on what the Council direction
was and that was specifically related to the houses, the properties in the Housing Inventory.
Acting Chair Keller: I think that’s fair enough. I just wanted to point that out. And when this
comes back to us we could also look at the CS zone. And when we look at the CS zone for
hotels we might also want to incorporate some of the degree of retail in hotels. I think that
some of the hotels that have been along El Camino you get a hotel, you get no retail, it sort of
doesn’t enliven the street in that way and so if we had for example if the hotel had a restaurant
and that restaurant was open to the public that would be fine. But if the hotel doesn’t have a
restaurant and there’s nothing open to the public it’s sort of deadens the street. So I think that
that’s not helpful.
So then there was a discussion about the nature of the setback on El Camino Real. And so I’m
going to suggest first of all the idea that we don’t have a build to requirement and that instead
there’s an explicit limit that you have no parking in front. So we have a setback requirement I
want to talk about in a moment, but in terms of the build to requirement essentially the if
there’s no parking allowed there if the developer wants to set it back further and the developer has a reason for doing that it’s, then let them. Economically the desire for most developers is
to push it as far to the street as they can because of how they can fit the massing in the
building. So essentially if the developer has an aesthetic, a good reason for not having the
building come up to the sidewalk we shouldn’t require a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE)
or require a variance. It’s a reasonable thing and I think that it actually adds visual interest to
El Camino to actually have more varying frontage and it allows for planting more trees and
things like that. So I would suggest eliminating the build to line and replacing that with an explicit prohibition against parking in the front of the building. And I’m wondering if staff can
comment and then ARB Member Popp can comment on that and then if we can have a straw
poll among the Commission?
Ms. French: Yeah, I’m happy to. I mean I, conceptually the concept I understand it. There
may be a case where we want to consider a maximum setback, I don’t know. It hasn’t been
fully studied that way, but I understand the concept. And our ARB member is here and I know
you’ve said perhaps there’s a reason to weigh in, so.
Board Member Popp: Yeah, tough discussion, right? Whether we should force someone to
meet a certain criteria when there’s such a wide variety in choices and lots and options for what people might build, and it’s hard to predict what would be right and would fit all of these
different sites. But again I think this is an area where the ARB comes into play and it’s our role
to help assess whether buildings are placed properly on the site. Is the setback enough? Is it
too much? Is the building massing appropriate? The thing we want to avoid is this concept of
missing teeth. Right, that as you drive down El Camino there’s some big gap that just looks
wrong.
I want to be clear in saying that and I’ll carefully use this as an example, right? We, this is not
us and it’s not what we want to be, but if you look at something like the Champs-Élysées, right,
where there’s this incredibly consistent pattern of building after building and these beautiful
wide sidewalks and people strolling and dining happening outside, it’s elegant and it’s
wonderful, but it’s not what we’re trying to achieve here. Right? There are these visions for
what Grand Boulevards might be and again I want to really reinforce the ARB’s position that
variation and really high quality character are what we’re trying to achieve here. And the
variability that might be present in treating one site differently than another, again this idea
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12
13
14 15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 28 29
30
31
32
33
34 35 36
37
38 39
40
41
42
43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50
that we should get a consultant to come and put together some concepts for different types of
sites so that people have an idea about what we are looking for so that when they come
forward with a proposal they have the best chance of success and they’ve got the best
guidance that we can give them and then they bring it forward and we have a discussion and
we take these one at a time as they come.
Acting Chair Keller: So to operationalize the question from my point of view does the build to
line help you or hinder you? And if we got rid of that and replaced it with a parking, no parking
requirement, which I assume people would do anyway, they wouldn’t put parking in the front
and the reason I’m doing that is so that you don’t set the building back and put parking in the
front so that has to go with it. I’m wondering whether your normal process of having a good
design review whether that would be satisfactory in that environment.
Board Member Popp: So there are five of us. I would tell you my opinion since I don’t have all
the others here to speak for it and feel free to chime in if you recall something from the hearing
that I don’t remember clearly, but I think there are two separate issues. And requiring no
parking in the front setback can be one issue and a second issue can be whether or not we have a build to line. And I welcome your discussion and your thoughts about that, but again
my opinion here is that it’s important to try to describe some goals and to promote variation
within the guidelines so that people can come forward with the best possible concept for each
individual site. And completely eliminating the guidelines makes for a tough discussion in my
opinion. It makes it hard for us to talk to an applicant about what is or is not appropriate.
Design is subjective and even within the Board we have agreement and disagreement about these types of things. I think that the expectation I have is that there is some range of
appropriate build to line and whether it’s an average or whether it’s some forward some
backward a certain number that we try and give I’d rather the DEE’s or these other devices that
people come forward for an exception are the really the exception and not the rule. What’s
happening now is that every project that we’re looking at is coming forward with some type of
a DEE because it just doesn’t work. Perhaps someone from staff can remind me, 3159 El
Camino?
Ms. French: Yes.
Board Member Popp: Is the Equinox site?
Ms. French: Yes.
Board Member Popp: And this is, I want to just bring this forward as a, what I consider to be a
very nice example of thoughtful design and careful planning and a successful project moving
through the process. 3159 El Camino is the Equinox site and they had done a very elegant job
of holding the building back, creating a portion that approaches the street so it holds the street edge nicely, that there’s an arcade area where it’s appropriate and where the uses really
encourage that within the buildings. So I think there’s an idea that there’s a restaurant in there
and there are spaces that do all these things, but there are nodes along El Camino where these
types of things are appropriate and there are places where you just wouldn’t want to have that.
And so giving some guidance about what is appropriate is very valid in my opinion.
Acting Chair Keller: Ok, thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
9
10
11 12
13
14 15 16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23
24 25
26
27 28 29
30 31
32
33
34 35 36 37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44 45 46 47
48
Board Member Popp: Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Does any staff also want to weigh in?
Ms. French: Well I was just checking my notes about what was said at the ARB to confirm what
Randy said. So the ARB did kind of discuss either deleting the build to requirement and just
allowing the ARB to determine the appropriate setback and percentage at the front in each case
because we have different land uses and large and small lots so to acknowledge that and make
that a valid choice or retain the build to line requirement and then have reasons why exceptions
to that are allowed. Again, different land uses. If you have a hotel for instance or residential
then that’s a reason to not come forward and to have more landscaping between the sidewalk
and the building or a building that has less articulation because of the use, less retail display
windows, that building could go back further. So you could get a little bit more specific if you
wanted or again you could just leave it up to the ARB to make that judgment on a case to case
basis. I think the main thing is the missing teeth and making sure that we’re still holding that
building line and not having to go through a DEE per se each time somebody wants to do
something less than right at the setback line or for percentage of the building frontage. I mean that’s where we get into some trouble.
Acting Chair Keller: So perhaps, when would this come back to us and would there be an
opportunity for the ARB to have a meeting in between (interrupted)
Ms. French: Yes.
Acting Chair Keller: So that they could review and sort of add feedback to this potential?
Ms. French: We are looking at March 26th if that works for all to have some kind of a, if a joint
meeting is desired. I know and Aaron had said and our Director is asking that we kind of move forward and maybe some other things get talked about, but that’s kind of in reserve as a joint
meeting if needed. The ARB is planning on meeting next on March 20th to hopefully bring back
what the PTC had to say about it and have another discussion at the ARB on March 20th.
Acting Chair Keller: Well I don’t want to push this too far forward, but I’m wondering if the ARB
meets on March 20th would there be an opportunity from that to incorporate things for our
meeting on the 26th?
Ms. French: Sure, the noticing process is still in the same chapters. We tweak things certain
ways. I think the only thing that’s, if there’s something that comes up at the ARB on the 20th
and we need to do some sort of outreach we might want to get some cards out and notices for
something like that.
Acting Chair Keller: And also I’m not, this is separate from the issue of what the setback would
be because we’d have, in other words there’s a setback and the build to line so I’m suggesting
replacing the build to line by parking in front of the building. So I’m wondering and any
Commissioner want to weigh in quickly on the issue of whether to replace, whether to eliminate
the set, the build to line, give the discussion to the ARB, but have the proviso that you can’t have parking in the setback area? Commissioner King.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
9
10 11
12
13 14
15 16 17 18
19
20
21
22 23 24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34 35 36
37
38 39
40 41
42
43
44
45
46 47
48
49
50
Commissioner King: Yea, thank you. Based on Board Member Popp’s comments I hesitate to
and the reading of the minutes from their meeting, I hesitate to flip that back over without a
more thorough understanding, which I do not possess.
Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner Alcheck?
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, no I don’t think that I would support that. At least not one at the
expense of the other and I want to add another thing. Another sort of element here, which is
that and it’s too bad Director Gitelman isn’t here because there’s this sidewalk in Napa that’s
boulevard like that’s associated with a new development that they did sort of in the I guess
southern quadrant of Napa like just when you’re coming in across the little river. God, I don’t
know anything about Napa. But anyway there’s this little sidewalk and they have when Board
Member Popp was talking about sort of the use of the sidewalk and how it’s not really about the
commercial or financial sort of viability of the sidewalk and which tenants are likely to use it or
which tenants are not likely to use it because people don’t necessarily build space specific for
service or retail when they’re doing ground floor service and retail they sort of they build it for
all comers, right? But anyway, in this sort of notion there’s this section of sidewalk in Napa where they have this floor sculpture and it’s essentially the cha-cha-cha dance, like the
footwork of the cha-cha-cha dance on the sidewalk right in the middle of your walking area.
And so like the one foot is 1 and there’s 2 and there’s 3 and there’s 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and
then the person that faces you they’re feet are also like that. So if you both step on foot space
and you get, you all get what I’m saying? Anyways, my point is I was sitting at a restaurant
like right next to that and I swear to you for the whole hour and 15 minutes that I was at this
restaurant not a single group that walked past this foot thing didn’t try it. Right? So you see all these people are doing this and I thought like, God, you know whoever thought of that they will
never know how appreciated; how profound an impact they had on my dinner. Because it was
just, it was amazing. And it was, it did create life on a street.
I will argue that there is no life on El Camino. I’ve never walked down El Camino, ever. I don’t
think I’ve ever parked on El Camino. One time maybe I stopped at Mike’s Bikes and even that
was sort of scary because I couldn’t get out of my car. It is not what it, it certainly not what it
could be and I don’t think we’re going to get there by being too restrictive because it’ll just sort
of discourage maybe the thoughtful development we’d like to see. So I think the notion of
increasing flexibility certainly we don’t, not every single part of our El Camino, Palo Alto’s El
Camino has to be walkable, right? There should be, we should be focusing on the low hanging fruit. There should be, I’m fully confident that the ARB will be able to identify the right projects
that you know what? We really want to see more X from you. We think that this setback
should be a little farther back because you’re right next to X and Y and Z and this is starting to
look like a nice little walkable area and we should encourage that in the redevelopment. And I
think that’s really the key; encouraging redevelopment of assets there that are no longer
appealing. So, so again I don’t think I would support the notion of just eliminating the build to
line and then having or the setback, I guess it’s the maximum? I think that having the, having a setback range is more effective at articulating the vision idea than solely saying we don’t want
parking in the front.
And I want to say one other thing. I’m hoping that the ARB will handle the issues related to the
height of the arcades and the depth of the arcades and we won’t really ever deal with it. And I
think we shouldn’t consider the use of this is sort of in response to Commissioner King’s
comments. I’m not sure really we should be weighing into consideration whether a potential
tenant would use outdoor space into whether the developer who’s investing a tremendous
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15 16
17 18
19
20
21
22 23 24
25
26
27 28 29
30 31 32
33
34 35 36 37 38 39
40
41 42
43
44
45
46 47
48 49
50
amount of money into rehabilitating an asset or even reinvesting, redeveloping an asset. We’ve
all had conversations about encouraging ground floor retail, ground floor service, ground floor
restaurants and the like and I think you’re talking about a decision that they would have to
make so far in advance about how they would use their floor area that you would be maybe
encouraging people to shy away from restaurants because immediately if there was a potential
for using space for tables they’d be like “No, no, no, no restaurants. We’ll just be retail here
because we want that space on the fifth floor.” And so every time we create sort of a… they
are going to find a way to make, to get the space they want and it may be, the result may be
no restaurants for a quarter mile and maybe that’s something we didn’t really want because the
dollar per square foot of the space is so valuable that they’re just saying no to it. So it’s
important.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka do you want to weigh in?
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Sure. I think a lot of interesting points by my fellow Commissioners.
I also I’m not sure about the proposal. I think it would be good to get the ARB’s take on it, but
I did have some other thoughts. It’s been awhile since I’ve been at the Champs-Élysées in Paris, but last time I went there it was kind of like a freeway in the middle. I mean there’s like
a lot of cars, it’s not like very slow moving traffic, it’s a fairly wide boulevard and so I was
thinking at least car wise it’s not that different from El Camino except that El Camino’s a lot
shabbier, not nearly as exciting, some serious redevelopment probably should happen. I also
don’t have many fond memories walking along El Camino. But I for one would love to see
something grand like that. A true Grand Boulevard. Something that people would walk down
and go “Wow.” I don’t know if it’s possible and we’re pretty far from that right now, but I think having things that help facilitate that is actually a good thing.
Because I’ve been thinking also like when I drive down El Camino and it’s kind of surprising
there’s still like vacant lots or there’s still places where there’s incredible underutilization of
actual land and so I think Commissioner Alcheck is right that we do need to encourage or have
things to encourage redevelopment. I think that’s probably one of the biggest issues on El
Camino, but I think generally I still like what this, direction where this, you know trying to have
wider sidewalks, trying to make it more walkable, but I do think we should, you know we are a
fairly high end city and I think we should have higher sights and I don’t think it’s unreasonable
for us to try to shoot for Champs-Élysées. I think that’s something that we should try to do.
Thanks.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I’m just going to encourage the ARB to think about this issue
and weigh in at your next meeting and see which way makes sense and whether an approach
like this would increase your flexibility or cause more problems than would otherwise be. This
is separate from the issue of setbacks and I am, I would actually at least for El Camino like to
be a little bit more directive and suggest something along the lines of a minimum setback from
the curb of being 12 feet, arcades being allowed within that setback, and an average setback from the curb being in a range 15 feet to something maybe a little more than that depending
on the nature of that. And obviously the average setback only counts where you have building.
If you have a driveway the average setback is not to the rear, that space doesn’t count. And so
I’m wondering if Board Member Popp would like to weigh in on that notion? We’re trying to
make it worth your while to actually have come to the meeting.
Board Member Popp: No, it’s good. I’m glad I showed up. So specifically you’re looking for
some feedback about the idea of average setback?
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 16
17 18
19
20
21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30 31
32
33 34
35 36 37 38
39
40 41
42
43
44 45
46 47
48
49
50
Acting Chair Keller: The idea of a minimum setback at an average that’s somewhat greater than
that and realize that that could be modified by virtue of the arcade.
Board Member Popp: So I would say squarely minimum setback, yes. Right, important to say
we need at least X square feet in some cases, might go up to 15 feet is what we’re suggesting,
maybe even more. I think again the issue here is that there are so many different types of
sites along El Camino. Staff was great, they produced all these maps for us and we were able
to look at all these things. We each took different sections and studied. There’s no one size
fits all certainly and I really I don’t think even establishing an average setback would be
beneficial. I think that’s too restrictive. I think what we need to do is really take this side by
side, state some goals, identify some concepts, and say tell us what is right for this site and we
provide feedback as the ARB to help assess whether or not it’s appropriate in its context.
Acting Chair Keller: If you had the tool of being able to deal with minimum setback and a
minimum average setback and in terms of flexibility on that as an alternative to a fixed build to
line, would that be helpful?
Board Member Popp: Yes, I think it would.
Acting Chair Keller: So maybe that’s something to consider in the mix?
Board Member Popp: Yeah, absolutely. And I’ll give as an example we were just presented with
one of the sites along Alma where currently there’s a special setback along Alma. There’s these
garages that are in the front setback right now. Really the very first building has come forward. Say we want to knock down that old decrepit thing and build a new building that was
completely within the envelope of what’s allowed in zoning, but the ARB pushed back on the
applicant and said it’s about the context and although by right you should be allowed to have
this height and this certain setback and build it the way you described it, it’s just not right
because you’re the first one out of the gate. And if there were others around you this would be
a perfectly compatible and appropriate solution, but because there aren’t others that are
developed yet it’s challenging for us to move it forward. And I think that’s exactly the case
here as well where there, the hope is that these unpleasant structures that are along El Camino
come down and we get buildings that are farther back and we get sidewalks that are pleasant.
It becomes this really nice space and all of a sudden it becomes some place that you would
want to go for a walk or you’d feel safe parking your car and getting out, but until we get a momentum about this I think we’re going to need some flexibility in order to incorporate these
projects in and around other things that are there. We’re not going to just start out with the
accelerator at 100 miles an hour. We need to ramp up into this a little bit.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I hope we don’t accelerate to 100 miles an hour on a 35 mile
an hour street limit street, sorry.
Board Member Popp: Point taken.
Acting Chair Keller: Anybody else want to weigh in on anything else? Yes.
Ms. French: Could I just because if I might you did say minimum setback of 12 feet. In our
Tables 3 and 4 there is a minimum setback and the way it’s phrased is zero to ten feet. If you
put it at zero that’s when you’re trying to, you’re right at the, you’re doing the eight foot right
at the property line. If you’re doing the 10 feet that’s going to be 18 feet, ok, really. So if
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9 10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23 24 25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33 34
35 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 47
48 49
you’re looking at a 12 foot effective sidewalk requirement, which is currently what we have on
El Camino, that’s really a four foot setback from the front property line to the building rather
than a 12 foot setback. You know its terminology.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I’m really referring to a 12 foot effective sidewalk width and a
setback appropriately related to that. Thanks for the correction. Anybody else on the
Commission wish to weigh in before? Yes, Commissioner Alcheck.
Commissioner Alcheck: Do we, I’m just curious do we know what the Champs-Élysées setback
is? Just out of curiosity? Because I was in Paris like maybe a year and a half ago and I thought
it felt like 50 feet.
Ms. French: You know I think this is kind of funny I guess. I heard at the July 31st meeting I
thought I heard Eduardo say he was going to do his research on the Champs-Élysées. I don’t
know if that happened. Does anyone know if he went and did the research? Because he’s not
here. Yeah, we can look that up and be ready at the next meeting.
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m, I’m looking at pictures from my trip so you know, but I mean I,
we’re far away from (interrupted)
Ms. French: Must be a dimension.
Commissioner Alcheck: I feel like the size of El Camino is the setback on the Champs-Élysées it
was, you could literally have a marching band stand next to each other and still be on the
sidewalk, but it would be interesting in my opinion and I think we said this last time. I think I
said this last time, but I’m not 100 percent sure to see what other cities are doing and what
they’re in this context especially since this Grand Boulevard is actually not just our idea. I think
there are other cities on the El Camino that are contemplating this. So I’m almost positive I
made this point last time, I’ll have to go through the notes, but I feel like it would be very
informative to sort of see what are they doing in Redwood City about this, in Mountain View,
and then what do others, what’s happening in Brooklyn and in Tel Aviv and how do they
compare to this idea?
Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner King.
Commissioner King: Thank you. Yes, so I did have a question of staff and Board Member Popp.
What input have the local practicing design development professionals had into these changes?
Have you spoken to them, do they feel this would make things easier, better, harder, more
expensive?
Ms. French: Randy Popp’s here representing the ARB and certainly this conversation has been
going on for a while in retreats and such and Randy’s connected with other architects and as are the ARB so I’m sure there’s been some informal conversations, but we have not had any
formal outreach outside of the retreats and public hearings that we’ve had to date.
Mr. Aknin: The one thing I would add is that regionally there have been a lot of architects and
developers engaged in the Grand Boulevard principles not necessarily in Palo Alto, but
throughout the peninsula. And I think what developers want more than anything is certainty.
So to the extent that we can provide certainly through this ordinance because there isn’t much
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9 10 11
12
13 14
15
16 17 18 19
20
21 22
23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30
31
32
33 34 35 36 37
38 39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46 47 48
49
50
certainty right now in Palo Alto given the current dynamic, as much as we could work through
these issues and provide some certainty in our code I think it would be looked upon favorably.
Commissioner King: And so you’re saying that this provides more certainty then currently exists.
Is that correct?
Mr. Aknin: Correct, yes because right now we have the Council direction that has gone forward
and hasn’t reached a conclusion yet.
Commissioner King: I understand. So it may be, ok. So it may be more uncertain than existing
ordinance, but it’s more certain than what the, the fact that there’s in play right now so they
don’t like the fact that it’s in play (interrupted)
Mr. Aknin: Correct.
Commissioner King: They want a faster resolution, but it may end up providing less flexibility to
them.
Mr. Aknin: Yeah, even if I think even something that provides a little less flexibility in the end
but certain is better than something that’s uncertain.
Commissioner King: Got it. Ok, thank you.
Board Member Popp: The fact that we’re presented with the choice to evaluate a DEE time and time and time again is very challenging. As an architect who has done projects like this I can
tell you that when you are not clear you get to, it’s a gating item in your project and you cannot
move forward until you get the yes that you need to get or the no so you know which way to
go and it can come at enormous cost just enormous cost to have to wait like that on a project.
So anything we can do to streamline the process and to remove unknowns and barriers in the
approvals is helpful not just to applicants, but also to those of us who are tasked with reviewing
the projects.
Commissioner King: And then I’ll ask a general question. When you described the situation
which the applicant came to you with a project which was on paper met all of our criteria and
yet they, the ARB said, “Well yeah it does, but we don’t want to approve that.” I assume you have the power to actually tell them they can’t build that building even though it fits our
criteria? Is that correct?
Board Member Popp: And I’m going to ask staff to clarify this for me, but my understanding is
that we make a recommendation to the Planning Director and the Director issues direction to
the applicant in regard to approval or not.
Ms. French: I think in this case they’re and I don’t want to get too far into it because if for
instance they ask for a variance to allow something in the special setback because the context
is that way, that could potentially come to the Planning Commission. So you could end up
getting involved with that one, so (interrupted)
Commissioner King: Ok, yeah let’s just we’ll cancel that.
Ms. French: Yeah.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4 5
6 7 8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23 24
25
26 27 28 29
30
31
32
33 34
35 36 37
38 39
40
41 42
43 44
45
46 47
48
49 50
Commissioner King: Cara will smile when I cancel that I’m sure. Ok, great. Thank you. That’s
all, the only questions I had.
Acting Chair Keller: Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka do you want to add anything? So I’m going to
close by basically suggesting something to think about. And so firstly what’s interesting about
this is that we were specifically directed by the City Council to make El Camino wider and a
greater effective sidewalk. And I’m not convinced that the ordinance as presented to us does
that because it could be a 12 foot sidewalk, effective sidewalk and it appears that that could
satisfy the ordinance. And so effectively I’m not sure I see an actual change in what is
required, per se. Because it does give a range of 12 to 18 foot and 12 foot is within that range
and 12 foot is what we require now. So it doesn’t necessarily create that.
So what I would suggest that we consider as an alternative and I’m not here to make this a
Motion, but I’d like the ARB to consider it is first of all a minimum setback from the curb of 12
feet. Secondly, an average, a minimum average setback from the curb of 15 feet, sorry, an
average setback from the curb of a range of 15 to 18 feet, no build to line requirement and no
parking in front of the building. So that’s something to play with. And by having an average setback in the range of 15 to 18 feet, that basically does provide the effectiveness of something
close enough to the sidewalk to be usable. It also gives a minimum of; since the minimum of
the average is 15 feet it means that you do effectively have the buildings further back by at
least 3 feet on the average. I would exclude from that calculation places where there is no
building, so for example a driveway or whatever to the back doesn’t count. So an average
setback from the curb, an average setback from the curb, average effective sidewalk width of
being at least 15, between 15 and 18 feet. I’m just suggesting that as a way of dealing with the issue. And if there’s no, are there any other comments about that? Commissioner King.
Commissioner King: Are you asking for comments on your specific comment or? Oh, no I do
not.
Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Any other comments people wish to add before I guess we’ll need a
Motion. But is there any other comments before we make a Motion?
Commissioner King: Well that’s sort of my question, the Motion. So in staff’s goal if we were to
say we move to recommend to Council Items 1 through 4, is that the direction you’re hoping
for?
Ms. French: Well it’s certainly a direction. I think again we’ve identified that we are going back
to ARB on the 20th. We heard Acting Chair Keller’s request and that’s what the ARB was
requesting to get some guidance, some alternatives perhaps to the ordinance and then the next
meeting that we see you for we would; we could capture this in a revised draft ordinance as an
alternative. Yeah, certainly if you wanted to do a straw poll on what you wanted to see with
respect to this ordinance you could do that.
Commissioner King: Ok. So what I’m hearing is it’s not really that helpful. You’re certainly not
going to go home mad if we don’t refer this, these items as written here to Council?
Mr. Aknin: No, we wouldn’t go home mad. What we were hoping for… yes, we have thick skin.
I think in general what we were looking for coming into here was some type of Motion related
to Numbers 1 through 4 that’s specifically about El Camino Real. So we would say move
forward, you know, the Motion, move forward as staff’s recommended for Motions 1 through 4
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3 4 5
6 7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21 22
23 24
25
26
27 28 29
30
31
32 33
34
35 36
37
38
39
40
41 42
43
44 45
46 47
48
49
50
as they relate to El Camino Real because we had a broader scope initially. Now if there is
something, for instance Acting Chair Keller’s recommendations that could slightly modify these,
that would be fine as well too. But we would like 1 through 4 moved forward as specifically and
specifically focused on El Camino. There’s no huge heartbreak if it doesn’t happen, we could
have another follow-up meeting, but that’s what we would like to see.
Commissioner King: Ok. Well I will so move that we move, recommend to Council and we’re
not actually asking for action because we don’t have an ordinance, correct? So we’re just
review or…
Mr. Aknin: There is an ordinance.
Ms. French: Attachment A, but it needs some cleaning that ordinance that’s there. So it’s as to
be modified, but the concept of going wider than 12 feet, perhaps the 15 feet as a target if
that’s what I’m hearing. We’d like to have ARB look at one more time.
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: If I could clarify? The ordinance is there for guidance in case you wanted to get into more detail. I think at this point it’s more helpful for
staff to just have the guiding principles and then we will go back to the ordinance to
incorporate your guiding principles and move it on to the Council.
MOTION
Commissioner King: Ok so a Motion could be to support staff in further advancement of these items as they relate as Items 1 through 4 as they relate to, specifically to the El Camino Real
corridor. Ok. And then I would add for discussion that I would ask relative to Item 4 that we
ask staff for further study as to whether the additional sidewalk width provided by applicants
shall be dedicated for public use or whether applicant may retain for private or restricted use
that sidewalk area.
Acting Chair Keller: So is that your Motion? Or?
Commissioner King: That is my Motion.
Acting Chair Keller: So can you get, I have to write it down so you’re basically moving staff recommendation? Your microphone.
Commissioner King: Supporting staff’s further study of Items 1 through 4 specific to their
application in the El Camino Real corridor. And then I’m adding that we ask staff for the rider
on there that I mentioned.
Acting Chair Keller: And could you give me the wording of that?
Commissioner King: Yep. That we ask staff for further study as to whether the additional
sidewalk width provided by applicants shall be dedicated for public use or whether it may be
retained for private or restricted use by the applicant.
Acting Chair Keller: Ok. If you could say it a little slower, I’ve got to write this down because
I’ve got to give it to the staff tomorrow morning. So ask staff for further study of?
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14 15
16 17 18
19
20 21
22 23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32 33
34 35 36 37
38 39
40 41
42
43
44 45
46 47
48
49 50
Commissioner King: As to whether the additional sidewalk.
Acting Chair Keller: As to whether the additional…
Commissioner King: Sidewalk width provided.
Acting Chair Keller: Sidewalk width provided.
Commissioner King: By applicants shall be dedicated for public use or may be retained for
private or restricted use by the applicant.
Acting Chair Keller: Or can be retained for private use by applicant?
Commissioner King: May be, yeah, may be retained for private or restricted use by the
applicant.
SECOND
Acting Chair Keller: Ok, I’ll second that. Ok. Do you want to speak to your Motion?
Commissioner King: No.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1
Acting Chair Keller: Ok. Hold on a second. I’d like to make a friendly amendment if I may?
And the friendly amendment is to add to this to ask the staff and ARB to consider the potential
for a combination of minimum setback and average setback so that’s the first amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 ACCEPTED
Commissioner King: I accept that.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2
Acting Chair Keller: And the second friendly amendment I have to offer is that the ARB consider whether in conjunction with that consideration there’s a potential for eliminating the build to
requirement provided that there’s no parking in front of the building.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 ACCEPTED
Commissioner King: I accept that.
Acting Chair Keller: Ok. So I think we’ve beat this to death enough. Are there any other
amendments? Commissioner Alcheck.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3
Commissioner Alcheck: I think it wasn’t really present in our discussion here today, but I don’t
think you can have a conversation about setback for many of the parcels on El Camino without
having a discussion about height and I think my friendly amendment would be to suggest that
staff also add a concept related to increasing height in conjunction, increasing the flexibility
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2 3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 17 18 19
20
21
22 23
24 25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32 33
34 35 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 45
46 47
48
49
50
with respect to height in conjunction with these “range” of setbacks. I know we talked a little
bit about floor area and sort of reallocating that, but I think it would also make sense to talk
about height and so that’s my friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 FAILED
Commissioner King: I’m going to reject that, not because I think it’s necessarily a bad idea, but
because I would like to use this opportunity as a straw poll to see if we want to incorporate
that.
Commissioner Alcheck: Sure.
Commissioner King: Ok. So let’s consider it an unfriendly amendment.
UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1, SECOND
Acting Chair Keller: Ok, that’s considered an unfriendly amendment. Does anybody with to second that unfriendly amendment? So we have an amendment by Commissioner Alcheck,
second by Commissioner, by Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. And could you give me the wording of
your?
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I mean this is all sort of loose. We’re just suggesting the further
study of concepts. So it would be adding the concept of increasing height to the suggested…
look, they’re going to build an ordinance out of these idea concepts. So one of the concepts is the setback. The second concept would be increased height as a result of increased setback.
Acting Chair Keller: So let me ask a clarifying question to your motion?
Commissioner Alcheck: I think any specificity that you’re looking for here is going to be lost on
me because the whole point is, is that what we’re really asking them to do is spend some more
time thinking about something?
Acting Chair Keller: Well let me ask my question and then you can figure out whether it will be
lost on you. I don’t think so. My question is whether your intention is to initiate a study of
height that will take place in the next month before this new ordinance comes back to us or whether your idea of initiating a study on height is of longer term and not as part of this rush
ordinance that we were asked to for this Council?
Commissioner Alcheck: So let me put it to you this way. If I asked the staff to look into the
setbacks that other cities along El Camino are considering with respect to the Grand Boulevard
and what other Grand Boulevard locales are considering would you feel uninformed if you didn’t
also know what the height limits were in those areas? Wouldn’t you feel like you were literally looking at just one half of an equation? So my point is, is that this is such an integral part of
the discussion, the height, that to not have a bullet, to not have one of our approaches to this
Grand Boulevard include flexibility with respect to height needs to be addressed.
Acting Chair Keller: So you’re suggesting that a consideration of height be made within this
ordinance in this cycle?
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m saying (interrupted)
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2 3
4 5
6
7
8 9 10
11 12
13
14 15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37
38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 47
48 49
50
Acting Chair Keller: That’s what I’m trying to clarify.
Commissioner Alcheck: Absolutely.
Acting Chair Keller: I think the staff wants to under, I think the staff needs to know whether
your intention is to consider height with respect to the cycle we’re going to have this come back
to us in a month or so or whether your initiating a long (interrupted)
Commissioner Alcheck: No. I’m… look, I’m perfectly… I think we’ve had a number of
discussions about the Grand Boulevard that if City Council reviewed our minutes they would be
very well informed about what we think. So I’m not suggesting they come back to us. I’m
suggesting that they add that concept to the discussion and take it to the, I’m very comfortable
sending this right back up. We were asked to sort of increase the sidewalk. These are some
ways to accomplish that and I think the discussion that we’ve had has been informed. And so
(interrupted)
Acting Chair Keller: Can I ask (interrupted)
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m going to support the Motion, but I would have been more
supportive of a Motion that just sort of pushed this process along. They are going to go back to
the ARB for sort of a consult, but I don’t think they need to come back to us, but (interrupted)
Acting Chair Keller: Well let me ask this of staff. Is it the expectation, your expectation that
after the ordinance is drafted, after the ARB that this does come back to the Commission?
Ms. French: Yes, I think we, you know, certainly what’s in front of us today has some additional
changes so ideally we get the final product that we think is going to Council to you so for your
full vote. And it would be nice to have the rest of the Commission (interrupted)
Mr. Aknin: Well, actually I’ll add one correction to that. We, what we’re asking for now is we
would clean up as directed by you and we would bring the ordinance to the Council without
checking back to the Planning Commission. However, there’s these greater issues, which I
definitely think we need to address like height, like a number of other urban design type issues
that we need to work through thru our entire code, actually not our entire code, but specifically
focused portions of our code that we do need to come back to the Commission as well as the ARB with other the next few months. But for this one specific ordinance we weren’t intending
to come back to you.
Commissioner Alcheck: Just to clarify my position I would’ve supported a Motion more sincerely
that moved this process along, but since we’re sort of asking for a lot more study I’m tacking on
this notion that height be considered. But if there was a way for me to propose a Motion that
moved this process to the ARB for their tweaking of this, the issue that’s in front of us and then
to the City Council for sort of a discussion of how they want to make this a reality and then in
theory a second Motion that brought these topics up to us for further study session I would
support that more than, but I don’t want to fight this the majority here. So.
Acting Chair Keller: So, what I’m trying, ok, what I understand that you’re saying is that, correct
me if I’m wrong, I think you’re saying the height should be considered by the ARB in their
review process? Or what are you suggesting? What is the text of your amendment?
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37 38 39
40
41
42 43
44 45 46 47
48
49
Commissioner Alcheck: I would suggest that concepts be developed related to increasing height
as a result of increasing setbacks.
Acting Chair Keller: And is there a timeframe? I mean is this something that you’re expecting to
be in the ordinance in a month from now?
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not amending a Motion.
Acting Chair Keller: No, I don’t (interrupted)
Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t know.
Acting Chair Keller: I think it’s interesting to say are you expecting this to come back when this
goes before us and goes to Council?
Commissioner Alcheck: I didn’t, I was hopeful that we would be able to have a Motion that
went straight… I was hopeful that we would be able to move this process along, but since my sense is that the mover has suggested that he would like to hear more on the topics that he
requested further study, which I think was the way he started his Motion I am suggesting that
we add this topic for further study to the topics he’s asking for further study on. So the
assumption here is that the mover and seconder have, would like this to come before us at
least one more time before the ordinance is designed. My personal opinion is the ordinance
just be moved along, but since we’re going it looks like the route of further study the timeframe
is the same timeframe that our mover and our seconder need for further study of all these
topics.
Mr. Aknin: Through the Chair?
Acting Chair Keller: Yeah.
Mr. Aknin: One question. I did not understand your Motion to say come back to us again
before we go to the Council. Is that what you were saying?
Commissioner King: Well, (interrupted)
Mr. Aknin: That wasn’t the staff’s recommendation so.
Commissioner King: Yeah and this is why humans speak to each other because there’s
sometimes lack of clarity. So I used the words “further study,” which I fully understand that
Commissioner Alcheck took to mean, took the words for what they say. In reality upon
reflection I realize what I really meant was for discussion as you move this forward.
Mr. Aknin: Ok, that’s what I was thinking.
Commissioner King: That I would not want it to get to Council without having people discuss,
“Hey, how are we going to treat this?” because I believe this is an important consideration. I’m
not saying I don’t know what the right answers is, but I think it’s important consideration that
people think through the topic which I have (interrupted)
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1 2
3
4 5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12
13 14 15
16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24 25
26 27
28 29
30
31 32
33
34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42 43
44 45
46 47
48
49
50
Mr. Aknin: We would put further analysis in for and a recommendation in before we went to
Council.
Acting Chair Keller: So then I take your Motion as that. You’re recommending that this not
come back to the PTC, but that perhaps we be told about it at the next meeting as to what the,
what was decided for the ARB?
Commissioner King: Exactly.
Mr. Aknin: And we’re going to have a joint meeting with the ARB and the PTC coming up and I
think these greater issues are something that we have to talk about during that meeting.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So I’m not going to support the unfriendly amendment
precisely because I don’t think it should be in this quick process for going to the Council. And I
(interrupted)
Commissioner Alcheck: Are you still seconding the Motion as it is now? Is that how you (interrupted)
Acting Chair Keller: I seconded the original Motion.
Commissioner Alcheck: But are you, as…
Acting Chair Keller: I’m, there’s an amendment on the floor, it’s an unfriendly amendment (interrupted)
Commissioner Alcheck: No, I know, but the Motion was sort of re-clarified so are you still in
support of that?
Acting Chair Keller: I’m fine with the Motion as it is stated. That it’s not coming back. Ok,
that’s fine. In any event what I’m saying is that I don’t think that the consideration
(interrupted)
UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 WITHDRAWN
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m withdrawing my amendment though because…
Acting Chair Keller: Ok, you’re withdrawing your amendment?
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, because now the discussion isn’t coming back to us in which case
I’m pretty sure they’re going to have that discussion anyway. So I’m withdrawing the
amendment because I have full faith that the ARB and the City Council will have a discussion about height when they talk about this so I’m withdrawing that Motion.
Acting Chair Keller: Ok. I’ll actually (interrupted)
Commissioner Alcheck: Amendment, sorry.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I’ll actually indicate that I think that a discussion about
increasing heights in this City is a larger discussion that should not be put as part of this
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8
9
10
11 12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21 22
23
24
25 26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33 34 35 36
37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48
49
ordinance and if there’s a consideration of height it needs to be a broad based discussion not
buried in a Motion, not buried in an ordinance that’s really a quick fix. So I would not support
that moving forward. So I don’t agree with that and I’m not sure if anybody else wants to
weigh in?
Commissioner Alcheck: It’s withdrawn.
Acting Chair Keller: I’m just, I understand it’s withdrawn, but since the idea has been presented
I’m indicating my disagreement with it. Anybody else wish to weigh in?
Ms. French: I’m going to weigh in because the ARB has already had a discussion about how
height should be a part of it so they would probably have that discussion again on the 20th.
You know whether that gets incorporated in this we haven’t put it in here and we probably
won’t; however, it’s in the record that will go to the Council in the minutes so they will see
that’s it’s a consideration that is related to this. It is just isn’t in the ordinance.
Acting Chair Keller: Great, thank you. Unless there’s anything else? Any other comments? Anybody? Then I’ll call the question. All in favor of the Motion as amended, which is to move
the support staff in further study of the El Camino, the South El Camino Design Guidelines, is
that right? What’s (interrupted)
Ms. French: That’s an adjunct. That’s a related project, but it’s not this. This is the ordinance
going forward.
Acting Chair Keller: So we recommend that the PTC has reviewed and discussed the contents of
the draft ordinance and recommends points one through four as decided by, as indicated in the
staff report with the additional provisions of 1) ask staff for further study as to whether the
addition of sidewalk width provided by the applicant should be dedicated to public use or may
be returned for private or restricted use by the applicant; 2) consider the combination of
minimum setback and average setback as a way of accomplishing increased setbacks as desired
by the Council; and 3) consider the combination of eliminating build to lines and no parking in
the front as a way of accomplishing the goal along with that. Yes?
Commissioner King: I believe you missed the words specific to El Camino Real, items 1 through
4 specific to El Camino Real.
Acting Chair Keller: Items 1, 2, and 3 are specific to El Camino Real, yes.
Commissioner King: Ok. Ok.
Acting Chair Keller: Alright?
Commissioner King: Is that accurate for staff? And the word, you said the word “returned” by
the applicant relative to my addition, but it should be “retained.” You may have just been
misreading it and will correct it, but it is will the sidewalk use be retained by the applicant.
Acting Chair Keller: Oh right. I wrote down retained. Thank you. Retained by the applicant.
Yes? What? Sure, go ahead. Commissioner Alcheck has a question of Cara.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18 19 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29 30
31
32
33
34 35 36 37
Commissioner Alcheck: So I am just curious from your perspective is there a component of this
setback that’s required? So let’s say we increase the size of the setback. Does that have any
effect on the designation of that area of land as public or private?
Ms. Silver: It depends on how the ordinance is framed. If it’s framed in terms of an effective
sidewalk width then it really doesn’t matter if it’s public or private. If we want to encourage an
actual public dedication of the private property for exclusive right of way use then of course it
becomes public property and there’s some other related issues associated with requiring an
additional dedication of sidewalk for properties that already have a sidewalk in front of them.
So I think it is, I think it’s an issue. It’s certainly involved in the mix.
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I just I’m only asking that question because I think I’m a little bit
confused about your first addition to the set. And not, I actually don’t even, I don’t think it’s
time well spent to sort of figure it out. I think I’m going to support the Motion, but I think it’s a
little, I’m a little unclear what you’re going for with your first addition, but we can talk about
that later.
Acting Chair Keller: Anything else? Ok, all in favor say aye (Aye). All opposed? The Motion
carries unanimously. Motion made by Commissioner King and seconded by Acting Vice-Chair,
Acting Chair Keller and with amendments.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-2, Chair Michael and Commissioner Martinez absent)
Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner King, second by Acting Chair Keller, as amended by Acting Chair Keller with concurrence of Commissioner King to support staff
recommendation of the four items in the staff report with the following items relating to El
Camino Real, suggested for further study:
1. Whether the additional sidewalk width provided by the applicants shall be dedicated for
public use or may be retained for private or restricted use.
2. Consider the combination of minimum effective sidewalk width of 12 feet and a larger
average effective width of 15 to 18 feet should be adopted for El Camino Real (not
counting driveways, etc., where there is no building).
3. Consider the combination of #2 plus eliminating the build-to requirements and adding a
no-parking requirement in the front of buildings for El Camino Real.
Passed unanimously 4-2 with Chair Michael and Commissioner Martinez absent.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4565)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/9/2014
Summary Title: El Camino Real Sidewalk Ordinance
Title: Recommendation of a Draft Ordinance modifying: (1) Chapter 18.16 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address sidewalk width and
building setbacks (setback and “build-to” line standards, and context based
design criteria) along El Camino Real, and (b) reduce the allowable Floor Area
Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per
acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area and add
a definition for “Effective Sidewalk”; Environmental !ssessment: Exempt
from the provisions of CEQA per section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations).
From: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
recommend that Council adopt the draft ordinance (Attachment A) relating to setbacks for new
buildings on El Camino Real and adjusting design review criteria to promote a more walkable
and comfortable urban environment. The ordinance modifies Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
Chapters 18.04 (Definitions) and 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial
Districts (CN, CC, CS Zones), particularly for properties along El Camino Real.
Executive Summary
The Council has directed staff to evaluate the urban streetscape of all major thoroughfares.
Staff is doing this in two phases. The first phase focuses on El Camino Boulevard. The draft
ordinance focuses on properties fronting El Camino Real and synthesizes the comments
received to date from the ARB and PTC. The ordinance addresses front building setbacks and
sidewalk width, design review criteria, allowable floor area and definitions of lot size and
effective sidewalk for properties located along El Camino Real in Palo Alto. The ordinance also
deletes the current build-to requirement for non-El Camino Real fronting properties, and
City of Palo Alto Page 1
deletes the 33% build to requirement for building faces of side streets that intersect with El
Camino Real.
The second phase will be to study standards for building setbacks, heights and sidewalks,
particularly buildings along other thoroughfares. The joint meeting of the ARB and PTC,
originally noticed for March 26, 2014, was postponed due to the lack of a quorum. Staff will
schedule the joint meeting to a date following the Council review of the draft ordinance to
discuss these issues. The study session will also discuss the purpose of the existing special
setbacks on those thoroughfares and possible incentives for public use of sidewalk across
private property.
Contents of the current draft ordinance are summarized:
Effective Sidewalk Width: The ordinance includes a definition for “Effective Sidewalk
Width”. The definition would be placed in P!M Section 18.04.030(a), using #50
(Reserved). The purpose is to ensure a common understanding of this phrase, currently
described in the context based guidelines of PAMC 18.16.090, as the width between the
face of curb to the building face, inclusive of furnishings and plantings. The building face
is also the build-to-line. On El Camino Real, the build-to-line has been 12 feet from curb
face to building face since adoption of the 2005 zoning code.
The definition clarifies that the ground floor building wall is the critical “building face”
from which to measure the effective sidewalk width. The definition allows building
columns of an arcade to be included in the width, as long as these columns are set back
at least nine feet from the curb face. The definition also references a comfortable clear
width for pedestrians.
Lot Area: The ordinance amends PAMC Section 18.04.030(a) definition #85 “Lot !rea”
to state “any private property area dedicated to and accepted by the ity for public use
as a sidewalk, shall be included in lot area.” This change would allow for the calculation
of allowable building floor area to be based upon the current size of the lot, even if
sidewalk area is provided via dedication of private property for a public sidewalk.
Front Yard and Build-to-Line: The ordinance amends these development standards and
associated footnotes, found in Tables 3 and 4 of PAMC 18.16.060 Development
Standards. These changes are designed to:
(1) eliminate the need for Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) requests for
development that is setback from the current build-to-line, and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
(2) allow the City to carefully consider, on a case by case basis, placement of
building elements based on land use, adjacent and nearby building context, building
design, lot size and modified context based design criteria.
(3) continue to “reinforce the importance and definition of the street with front-
placed buildings that provide a presence in scale with El amino Real” advocated by
both the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines.
Front Yard:
The ordinance table now has a separate row with the front setback standard for El
Camino Real properties. The setback requirement is stated as a range of “four to ten
feet as measured from the property line to the ground floor building wall to create a 12’
to 18’ effective sidewalk width, depending on context”. The second statement is “upper
floors may have a zero setback, depending on context”. The three footnotes related to
this zoning standard confirm that:
o no parking is allowed in the first ten feet of property line,
o front yards on El Camino are not subject to the landscape screening
requirement, and
o what is included in context, which is “land use, adjacent and nearby properties’
existing building setbacks, proposed or adjacent building design, lot size and
similar considerations.”
Allowances Based on Context: The ordinance states the setback to the ground floor wall
is a minimum four feet to ten feet. Staff added the phrase “depending on context” to
allow for context-based consideration during the review process. The ARB would be able
to recommend the desirable setback at both the ground floor and upper floors. The
Director would be able to make a decision based upon this recommendation, on a case
by case basis. Staff added a footnote (new Footnote #8) to both Tables to clarify what is
meant by the term ‘context.’ Staff also added a new footnote (Footnote #10) on Table 4
to repeat the Table 3 footnote (existing Footnote #1) prohibiting parking and loading
spaces on the first 10 feet of the property.
Build-to-Line: The ordinance modifies this standard to clarify its applicability only to El
Camino Real fronting properties. This change involves:
Implementing the build-to restriction on CC-zoned El Camino Real properties
(approximately 33 properties);
Lifting the restriction from all non-El Camino Real fronting properties in the CN
and CS zones that have previously been subject to the build-to-line standard.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
This includes lifting the restriction of 33% build-to-line on building frontages on
side streets meeting El Camino Real;
Clarifying that required 50% percentage of building frontage can:
a. Be located on upper floors if the ground floor is set back farther, and
b. Be within a placement range rather than all on one line, and
c. Be a flexible percentage, given context based design criteria and context
including land use, adjacent and nearby building context, lot size and
building design for each project.
Floor Area Ratio: The ordinance amends Table 4, Footnote #9 to reduce the allowable
Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites, where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per
acre, also in Section 18.16.060 of Chapter 18.16.
Context Based Design Criteria: The ordinance amends PAMC Section 18.16.090, Context
Based Design Criteria Considerations and Findings, (b), item (2), Street Building Facades,
and item (3) Massing and Setbacks:
o upper floor placement, (2)(H): This criteria currently calls for upper floors set
back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood; Amend to add that the
ground floor may be set back farther than the upper floors when a greater first
floor setback is established to provide a wider sidewalk;
o building set back, (3)(E): This criteria currently cites a 12 foot sidewalk width on
El Camino Real and an 8 feet sidewalk width elsewhere; Amend to note that an
increased width may be appropriate depending on context, clarifying the
meaning of context, and cite the effective sidewalk width range is now 12-18 feet
on El Camino and 8 to 12 feet elsewhere;
o majority of building frontage, (3)(F): This criteria currently calls for a majority of
the building frontage located (exactly) at the front and side setback lines (to
achieve a continuous street façade at the build-to-line); Amend to note
placement within zero to ten feet of street property line on El Camino Real, and
based on context, defining the meaning of context, and to reference the
applicability of any special setback.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Background
ARB Consideration
ARB Hearing March 20, 2014
The ARB report (without attachments) is provided as Attachment D. Written comments from
the public, and draft action minutes are also provided as Attachment E.
Four members of the public spoke during the hearing regarding the item; three spoke regarding
the hardship of a setback increase. Several speakers expressed concern about smaller lots,
noting that it may prompt the owners of small properties to sell their land to developers, who
would then merge properties and make a larger building. One speaker stated concern about
the loss of ground floor retail space located close to the sidewalk. One speaker stated that retail
space on the second floor would not make up for the loss of ground floor space, and noted that
it is hard for stores to retain business on El Camino Real. Speakers and several ARB members
noted that, in many places, El Camino Real is not desirable for walking. The fourth speaker,
from Palo Alto Housing Corporation, requested that Council consider retaining the existing FAR
standard, or even increasing the maximum FAR for housing sites, citing concessions as a valued
tool for affordable housing and use of this tool for FAR was not desirable.
The ARB provided the following input:
1. The ARB voted "not in favor" of the FAR reduction for CN zoned housing element listed
sites with mixed use projects above 15 units per acre;
2. Effective sidewalk width definition: The ARB asked staff to clarify it is the "width from
face of curb (facing the street) to building" and delete the word "structural" (referring to
columns);
3. Build-to Lines, Table 3: The ARB asked staff to add to the fourth bullet "adjacent building
and nearby context" and fix the inadvertent omission (add the fourth bullet from Table
4 build-to-lines standard that states, "front wall can be placed within a range of 0'-10'
from property line (8' - 18' from face of curb);"
City of Palo Alto Page 5
4. Clarify, in Table 3 Footnote #2, that the front yards of El Camino Real fronting properties
are not subject to the landscaped screening requirement;
5. Add into the context based design criteria the concept of the "meandering" pedestrian
clear width; and
6. Add a noted that Stanford Shopping Center and Town and Country Center properties
are not subject to the build-to-line standard.
The attached ordinance incorporates the !R’s suggestions, though it does not specifically state
that retail windows could be located as close as nine feet from the face of curb, which was the
!R’s preference. The ordinance states that a minimum ground floor setback of four feet from
El Camino Real property line is required, but that context consideration will be employed.
ARB Hearing February 20, 2014
The PTC staff report of February 26, 2014 (Attachment B) summarized the February 20th ARB
public hearing. At that time, the ARB had expressed its preference for a minimum 9 foot
effective sidewalk (distance from curb face to some building elements such as columns, or to
the ground floor wall only if the ground floor land use were retail) and an effective setback
range of 9 to 15 feet (from curb face to ground floor of building). The ARB cited some
opportunities along El Camino Real for greater than a 15 feet setback, to achieve the Grand
Boulevard Initiative concept of 18 feet from curb to building face. The ARB had noted it would
be best to determine setback on a project by project basis, based on criteria such as land use,
lot size, and building design.
Verbatim meeting minutes of both the February 20th (Attachment F) and March 20th ARB
discussions will be transmitted to Council.
PTC Consideration
PTC Hearing February 26, 2014
The PTC held a public hearing and heard testimony from one individual and an ARB
representative, and excerpt verbatim minutes were provided to the ARB and are attached
(Attachment C). The PTC supported (on a 4-0-2 vote) staff’s recommendation on staff report
items one through three as relates to the El Camino Real corridor. The PTC asked staff to
further study item 4, prior to presenting the ordinance to City Council, as to whether the
additional sidewalk width provided on private property should be dedicated for public use or be
retained for private/restricted use.
The PTC also asked that staff and the ARB consider:
Eliminating the “build-to-line” standard-
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Establishing a minimum 12 foot setback (curb to building) along El Camino Real;
Establishing an average setback of 15 to 18 feet (curb to building) along El Camino Real;
Prohibiting parking facilities within the required front yard setback. The attached
ordinance adds the parking and loading space prohibition within the first 10 feet of the
property depth to the Mixed Use Projects Table (Table 4); this prohibition is already
included as Footnote #1 of Table 3 (Nonresidential projects). Footnote 1 of Table 3
states,
“No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in
the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard.”
Since the ouncil’s direction was to consider an 18 foot sidewalk/setback, and a 10 foot
building setback would yield an 18 foot wide effective sidewalk (curb to building face),
the current language in Table 3 already addresses this for non-residential projects (as
does Context Based Guideline #6, requiring parking to be located behind buildings,
below grade or where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low
walls, etc.)
The ARB representative informed the PTC that the ARB:
Recommends an effective sidewalk width (curb to building face) ranging from 9 feet to
15 feet, with some opportunities along El Camino Real for greater than a 15 foot
setback, based on criteria such as lot size, building design and land use;
Believes a minimum 12 foot setback plus 15 foot average setback would be too
restrictive;
Supports the change to the lot area definition, so that no reduction in FAR results from
the use of private property for increased sidewalk width (maintaining FAR rights);
Supports eliminating the build-to-line, in favor of reviewing projects on a case by case
basis to determine appropriate massing and setbacks;
Supports “varied” and “high quality” character along El Camino Real, comprised of both
aesthetic and street-life character.
Acknowledges one size (one regulation) does not fit all land uses, and suggests use of a
consultant to provide concepts for different sized sites;
Encourages furthering the El Camino Real street tree canopy concept contained in the
original El Camino Real Guidelines; to show on diagrams.
Community Outreach
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Staff mailed notice cards to owners of properties fronting El Camino Real for this meeting; the
cards also invited them to the April 1, 2014 outreach meeting. Staff also mailed notice cards for
the March 20, 2014 ARB hearing. Newspaper and website notifications conveyed information
regarding the ARB hearings of February 20 and March 20, and PTC hearings of February 26 and
April 9. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to conduct a public hearing to review the
ordinance on April 21, 2014. Notice cards will be mailed prior to that hearing as well.
At the April 1, 2014 meeting, the participating property owners stated the following concerns:
1. A number of owners suggested that small lot development is already restricted by
abutting residential daylight plane and height restrictions, and by parking requirements,
such that the loss of floor area at the front of buildings is difficult. One owner
commented that all the rules combined do not make sense, and they have gotten
tougher every year, making it difficult to develop along ECR.
2. These owners said the City will not get agreement on the sidewalk unless the owners
get an agreement from the City to allow additional building height. They asked what the
property owners are getting in return.
3. The property owners expressed concern that the ordinance encourages property
owners to sell so that developers can buy several lots and combine them to build one
large building. One owner asked whether a big developer is behind this effort.
4. Another owner raised the issue of the alley use, noting that the City has restricted
access to parking lots behind buildings in the past.
5. The owners questioned how it will help if one owner redevelops with a 12-foot wide
sidewalk and the adjacent properties don’t, and asked how the city will get consistency.
6. One owner asked that the City not require mixed use when residential is proposed, but
allow the development of residential-only projects on small lots with few
redevelopment options.
Discussion
1. PTC Consideration Items and Staff Responses
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Eliminate the Build-to-Line Standard. This requirement currently applies to all CN and
CS zoned parcels on the following streets (some of which have “special setbacks” of 24
feet to 30 feet):
o Major thoroughfares: El Camino Real, Middlefield Road, San Antonio Avenue,
California Avenue, Page Mill Road, and Embarcadero Road; and
o Minor thoroughfares: North to College Terrace/Cal Ave: Wells, Encina, Park Blvd
and Ave, Leland, Stanford, Oxford, College, Cambridge, Sherman, Grant,
Sheridan; Park, Birch, Ash; Cal-Ventura to southern end: Pepper, Olive, Acacia,
Portage, Hansen, Lambert, Fernando, Margarita, Matadero, Kendall, Wilton,
Barron, Curtner, La Selva, Ventura, Los Robles, El Camino Way, West Meadow,
amino ourt, James, Maybell, !rastradero, W. harleston, Dinah’s ourt,
Monroe, Cesano, Leghorn
Staff Response: The Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) does delete the 50% build-to-line standard
for streets other than El Camino Real, and does delete the 33% build-to-line standard for side
streets intersecting El Camino Real.
The 50% wall build-to-line standard for El Camino Real would remain, altered to allow flexibility
on a case by case basis, so that Design Enhancement Exceptions would not be needed. The
build-to-line standard will now apply to the CC zoned properties on El Camino Real as well.
The proposal modifies the current standard by allowing flexibility, as follows:
(1) The 50% of the building wall can be placed within a range of zero to ten feet from
property line (which is 8 to 18 feet from face of curb) – rather than requiring all of the
50% wall area to be placed in the same plane 12 feet from the curb.
(2) Upper floors can come up to the zero setback line, even if the ground floor is set back
significantly to allow wider “effective sidewalk”- the upper floor walls are allowed to
serve as the required ‘50% of building wall’ in those cases.
(3) The 50% can be adjusted based on context based criteria and site context that is
defined.
A joint PTC/ARB discussion following Council adoption of the El-Camino centric ordinance will
be scheduled to address other thoroughfares and other related topics. The ARB is prepared to
address the “missing teeth” concern during individual project reviews and any unintended
consequences of the deletion of the build-to line standard on other thoroughfares
Implement a Combination of 12’ Minimum Setback and 15’ -18’ !verage Setback;
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Staff Response: The draft ordinance proposes a range of 12’ to 18’ setback from face of curb to
the ground floor building wall. The existing code requires a 12’ minimum setback from face of
curb to building face on El Camino Real. The existing code language also treats this as the
maximum setback for 50% of the building wall, via the build-to-line standard. Further, the
existing context based design criteria state that upper floors should be set back further than the
ground floor. Adding specificity and flexibility within the tables and context based design
criteria for front setback and build-to-lines, per the draft ordinance, will help. The ordinance
prescribes placement of 50% of the ‘building frontage’ within the first 10 feet of the property’s
depth rather than all along the 12 foot from curb line, and allows flexibility based on context
(and defining context), including allowing the upper floor front walls to be placed forward of
the ground floor front wall.
The concept for a 15’-18’ !verage Setback (from curb) combined with Minimum 12’ Setback
(from curb) is different than the concept of a specific percentage of the ‘building frontage’
placed within the first 10 feet of the property depth. With multiple story buildings, the current
50% standard is complex, but the “average” equation may be even more complex. The PT
asked for staff’s analysis of pros and cons.
Pros: Building front wall placement between 12 feet minimum and 15 feet on average,
could have interesting urban-scale results for retail uses, but there would need to be
flexibility based upon context.
Cons: Office, hotel and residential uses with building walls at 12 feet minimum to 15
feet on average could be problematic. Office, hotel and residential uses along El Camino
Real may be better placed at a minimum 15 foot or greater setback (three feet from the
12’ wide sidewalk, to allow additional landscaping.) Ground floor retail uses employing
display windows would benefit if these windows were located as close as possible to the
right of way (which is currently eight feet wide). Given existing context and location in
pedestrian nodes, the PT may want to weigh in on the !R’s suggestion about placing
retail display windows at a distance of nine feet from the face of curb, rather than the
current requirement of 12 feet or the Grand Boulevard standard of 18 feet.
Question whether restaurant with outdoor seating could encroach on right of way
without paying City.
Staff Response: Under the proposed ordinance, it’s likely that café and restaurant seating
would occur on the private property portion of the “effective sidewalk.” To extent it spilled
over to the public right of way portion, the City has an existing encroachment permit system
that allows for these types of uses. The ARB also discussed this issue and noted that this is the
type of use that the City wants to promote on an active boulevard.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
2. Consultant and Citizen Participation
The Downtown Urban Design Guide includes ‘desirable streetscape examples’ for different land
uses and transitions between the uses. It may be helpful to have studies for each El Camino
Real ‘segment’ (nodes/corridors) to determine where an 18 foot sidewalk is desirable. As
Council directed, staff is to study other commercial arterials, such as Middlefield, San Antonio,
and Alma. A consultant’s assistance to communicate different streetscape examples for those
streets may be critical. A consultant could provide studies of building form and show ways to
incentivize different land uses. As noted, staff will report verbally to the PTC as to the outcomes
of the April 1, 2014 outreach meeting with the El Camino Real property owners.
3. Street Trees
The Council Colleagues memo contained a statement regarding street trees:
“It is worth noting that 8-foot sidewalks limit the species of trees to those with vertical growth
and thus results in a smaller canopy that can be accommodated in areas with greater setbacks.”
The Urban Forestry Department has a standard condition of approval requiring a specific
volume of soil to support the growth of street trees. Staff considered placing footnotes in the
ordinance’s tables to reference a requirement for adequate soil volume, but did not do so
because project approval conditions address this requirement.
The next iteration of zoning ordinance amendments will include sidewalk treatments focused
on thoroughfares in all commercial zones. Staff can include a specification for rectangular tree
grates (4 feet by 8 feet) to encourage robust street tree growth through the City, and other
ideas that may be generated during outreach and with consultant assistance. Staff can add
these ideas to the Context Based Design Criteria found in the commercial zone district chapters.
In the case of Chapter 18.16 (addressing CS, CN and CC zones), staff could propose specificity in
Context Based Design Criteria (b)(1), Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment, promoting pedestrian
walkability through design elements. The criteria include Item C, which currently states,
“Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the areas streetscape environment
such as street trees, bulb-outs, benches, landscape elements, and public art.”
4. Height
Staff will forward to Council the meeting minutes that capture the ARB and PTC discussions
regarding the relationship to building height.
5. Public Use of Private Property
The draft ordinance does not require property owners to dedicate additional private property
for sidewalk use. Given the small sizes of some of the properties along El Camino, the existing 8
foot sidewalk already in place, the relatively nominal impact that some of the projected new
City of Palo Alto Page 11
development would have on sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities, and the evolving state
of the law relating to dedications, staff does not recommend a dedication requirement be
included in the ordinance. Instead, staff believes the streetscape concerns raised in the
olleague’s Memo are largely due to the zero setback standards in the existing Zoning Code. To
alleviate the feel of overpowering buildings located close to the curb, staff recommends
implementing a front yard setback. This provides property owners with more development
options for their property while creating the look and feel of a wider sidewalk.
Timeline (all dates are tentative)
April 1, 2014: Property owner meeting at Creekside Inn
April 9, 2014: PTC public hearing
April 21, 2014: City Council first reading
May 5, 2014: City Council second reading
Environmental Review
The proposed ordinance is considered “categorically exempt” from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Categorical
Exemptions, Section 15305, or “lass 5, Minor !lterations in Land Use Limitations”. lass 5
allows “changes that do not result in any changes in land use or density” to be considered
categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents,
because the project is considered not to have a significant effect on the environment.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance for 4 9 14 PTC (PDF)
Attachment B: February 26, 2014 PTC without attachments (PDF)
Attachment C: February 26, 2014 Excerpt minutes (DOC)
Attachment D: ARB 3 20 14 without Attachments (PDF)
Attachment E: 3 20 14 ARB action and comments (PDF)
Attachment F: ARB excerpt Minutes of 2 20 14 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Draft Verbatim Minutes 3 April 9, 2014 4 EXCERPT 6
7 8 9
Public Hearing: Recommendation of a Draft Ordinance modifying: (1) Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address sidewalk width and building setbacks (setback and “build-to” line standards,
11 12 13 14
and context based design criteria) along El Camino Real, and (b) reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to
adjust the definition of Lot Area and add a definition for “Effective Sidewalk”. Environmental Assessment:
Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per section 15305
16 17 18 19
Acting Chair Keller: A public hearing, recommendation of a draft ordinance modifying Chapter 18.16 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to address sidewalk width and building setbacks (setback and
“build-to” line standards, and context based design criteria) along El Camino Real, and (b) to reduce the
allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per
acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area and add a definition for “Effective
21 Sidewalk.” So I’ll open the public hearing. I guess we’ll start with staff report.
22 23 24
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you Chair Keller. The last time we met with you on this item was February 26th at which time you suggested that staff visit with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) with a couple of concepts. We did that on March 20th . We also had an outreach meeting with some folks
26 27 28 29
that we sent notice to. We had several folks show up, property owners along El Camino Real; had a good conversation. Tonight we have before you the ordinance that we are intending to take to Council.
The intent of the ordinance is new buildings. I have a little background on the El Camino zoning and
guidelines. I have a few images of buildings both constructed and approved. And I just want to clarify
the focus of the ordinance is to allow for flexibility in the review of buildings coming forward along El
31 32
Camino. This is a, the first phase of a two phased approach and we will be coming back to discuss other
thoroughfares. We can also come back and discuss the issue of height in the future phase.
33 34 So let me go ahead and show you a few images. This first is the right of way of El Camino indicating that
the existing sidewalks are eight feet wide. And many buildings are placed at eight feet wide. The
36 37 38 39
existing buildings that are out there on El Camino can remain even though the sidewalk may not be a
comfortable pedestrian width for several pedestrians. It is serviceable and the existing buildings can remain and be modified without chopping off a portion of the building to widen the sidewalk. I wanted to show you an image from back in the day before we had the South El Camino Real Guidelines. In the CN zone we used to require a 10 foot front yard as a landscape screen. So there was an 18 foot curb face to
41 42 43 44
building wall back in the day. The El Camino Guidelines of 2002 they were not adopted by Council, but
they were incorporated into the 2005 Zoning Code. The vision is a vibrant corridor with one or more
distinct centers rather than a commercial strip that has been the history of El Camino. The goal is to
have diverse uses and pedestrian nodes linked by corridors.
46 47 48 49
In 2002 the Design Guidelines were updated. We had a consultant; we had public meetings on this.
That is the origin of the 12 foot effective sidewalk width that includes trees and planters. And it did make
a note in those guidelines that we would like to see it wider than 12 feet and seating where appropriate.
There were some other ideas about arcades, about a number of windows in the wall, ample amount of
windows, and this concept of the build-to lines. As I said, the build-to lines and the effective sidewalk
51 52 53
were concepts that were then incorporated into the 2005 Zoning Code and approved by Council. There was another document called the El Camino Real Master Schematic Design Plan and it highlighted some improvements in the right of way and that was brought to Council as well.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27
28
29
30 31
32
33 34
35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43
44
45 46 47
48 49
50 51 52 53 54 55 56
I have images of El Camino Real buildings that were constructed following those guidelines of 2002 and
the zoning code of 2005 where the effective sidewalk width and the build-to line was addressed. I’m
going to go through those now. The first is a Planned Community (PC) the Sunrise Assisted Living.
Considered a commercial use it is residential in nature and having a deeper setback makes sense for
ground floors and upper floors even that are residential along a busy corridor. You can see also in the
distance the building, that the sidewalk is not a straight shot. It adjusts going north. Here is the Arbor Real project; again, residential, greater setback, and two trees an allee of trees providing a comfortable experience for pedestrians. Again, ground floor residential. Here’s a mixed-use project. We’ve had a number of mixed-use projects over the last 10 or so years. Here is an example of a 12 foot effective sidewalk width from curb face to building inclusive of the street trees. So in essence it’s a front yard
setback of four feet from the property line to the building. Here’s the Keys School; not too many
windows, the function of this did not support windows along the street. It’s unfortunate to have no
windows along the street. We hope for that and you can see there are not a lot of street trees.
More recently we’ve had projects come though, mixed-use projects on small lots where the ground floor
is structured parking and a little lobby to get you up to the office and one residential unit above. Most
folks on small lots propose one residential unit because it only requires two parking spaces. Here’s
another project approved recently, a mixed-use project with a bank on the bottom, office in the middle,
and some residential and again one residential unit. In this case you can see the allee was used to
achieve parking as well as the assessment district. Here’s the project you all saw as a site and design. In this project there was a request for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) on a side street to be setback further than the build-to line. We are suggesting elimination of the build-to line for all other streets except El Camino Real and then again we are suggesting flexibility in that line to be a range. This shows the detail. They had a deeper setback to the ground floor wall and some columns that came out
here. The columns happen to be at the 12 foot line. I thought I’d point out there’s a bicycle bulb out.
We would not really consider this as part of the effective sidewalk width. This is an aberration. We don’t
see much of this, but that’s something you may want to discuss. Here’s a recently recommended by the
ARB a mixed-use project as well and we can see there’s some pockets of deeper setback and glassy
walls.
When we met with ARB back in July of 2013 there was the concept of modified zoning and looking at the
right of way and considering where we’re going to get this additional sidewalk. So we’ve started with the
zoning process and that’s where we are today. I have bullets on what it means to be depending on context. Again, this is something that ARB would be looking at. We have a quite a difference in uses when there’s a residential or hotel we expect that would be setback farther. When there’s retail, nice to have the storefront windows right up at the sidewalk so we can have a look in those windows. Lot size makes a difference, large lots versus small lots.
Again, this is the draft ordinance with the key items. And I have some additional slides that you want to
see some additional images, I’m happy to show those. I will finish there and answer questions.
Acting Chair Keller: Do we have any clarifying questions from members of the Commission? Even though
I said I would do it in a different order I’m going to call a representative of the ARB now before the public
comment.
Randy Popp, Vice-Chair of the Architectural Review Board: Thank you very much for including me
tonight. I appreciated the conversation. Randy Popp representing the ARB today and I think what I
want to relay is that we didn’t have much further discussion about the sidewalk setback as it were. We talked briefly about the concepts that were brought forward here and I think the consensus within the Board was that we really should stick with this idea of having a range of depths available, a minimum, but a range beyond that. And the Board confirmed their commitment to individual project by project
context based evaluation as we go forward.
The one thing that I think the Board reacted strongly to and I guess I’m jumping forward here a little bit,
but in regard to the CN zone language change that was being proposed there was not any concern in
regard to the increase of density from 15 to 20 per acre, but we all felt it was, there was really not just a
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15
16 17 18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29
30
31
32
33 34
35 36 37 38 39 40
41
42 43 44
45
46
47 48
49
50 51 52 53 54 55
56
unanimous but a very strong opinion that a reduction in FAR in conjunction with that was a real mistake
and that the expectation is that if we allow for greater number of units the FAR will of course just get
divided by that greater number of units we’ll get smaller units anyway and to take a use which is so
important in our town and to limit them further from being able to provide what their mission is for us
would be a terrible mistake. And so I really wanted to bring forward the Board’s opinion that we
encourage you not to support any reduction in FAR in the CN zone if a project takes advantage of the increased density of 20 per acre. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you and we’ll now switch to public comment. And you’ll have three minutes each.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The first speaker is Yatin Patel followed by Kamal Nair. Can, is Yatin here?
Yatin Patel: Good evening, my name is Yatin Patel. I’m a local real estate attorney and a hotelier and we
own a property on El Camino Real just south of Page Mill Road. So we did attend the town hall style
meeting about a week, week and a half ago and there was a lot of concern about sort of the impetus of
why we’re going through this discussion, what’s the impetus for wanting wider sidewalks along what
amounts to really a highway. El Camino Real is not necessarily, not really pedestrian friendly. There
aren’t very many pedestrians walking up and down El Camino generally and a lot of the owners along El
Camino felt that for pedestrian friendly type things we’ve got California Avenue, we’ve got University
Avenue, we’ve got Midtown, that there are other places to sort of achieve this pedestrian, there are other areas in Palo Alto that are pedestrian friendly certainly not the king’s highway.
Specifically with respect to the proposed amendment there were several scenarios, I know it addresses flexibility of depending on what use you have. There was some real concern about whether what
happens in the case if there’s a fire and it burns your building down well now are you governed by the
new amendment because technically you’re redeveloping or you may need to redevelop or are you still
grandfathered in? So these are some of the things that we didn’t feel like were addressed.
The other thing is I think most people wanted to know again why are we going through this exercise? Is
it because there’s a public clamoring for buildings not to be so close to the lot line in reaction to the
supermarket on Alma or is there some real some other reason why we’re pushing for this? I personally
brought up the fact that if you’ve got one property that’s redeveloping and the neighbor’s not
redeveloping well then you might have an 18 foot sidewalk for maybe 50 feet and then when you get to the next portion of the sidewalk well now you’re going to have an 8 foot sidewalk. So the inconsistency of, the potential inconsistency of the sidewalks even on the same block. So these are just some of the concerns we don’t feel I think the last point I know I’m supposed to sum up here, but the last point is that a lot of owners felt like it amounts to…
Acting Chair Keller: You can finish your sentence.
Mr. Patel: Ok. A lot of owners felt that it amounted to a taking of their property. You know if they want
to sell in the future then they basically have to forfeit 10 feet if they’re selling to a developer the
developer is going to take that in a factor and their property values may go down.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Kamal Nair followed by Ken Weng.
Acting Chair Keller: To save some time when you’re name is called as being next could you position yourself over by the, behind the speaker so we can switch quickly? Thank you.
Kamal Nair: Good afternoon everyone, thank you for giving me the chance to address my concern. I am
at 3305 El Camino Real and I’ve been there since 1973. And I agree with Yatin because he says
everything that we all believe in and I think it’s a wrong idea for us to give that now because if we do
now like what’s going to happen to us in the future? We don’t care about now, which makes sense, but
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1 2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12 13
14
15
16
17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26
27 28
29
30 31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40 41
42
43 44
45
46 47
48
49
50 51 52 53 54
55
56
what about in the future? If we decide we want to sell it to the it will deplete the amount for our
property so I strongly believe that I don’t support it and that’s the way I feel about it because I think it’s
going to hurt and the inconsistency is what I don’t like: 18, 4, I mean it’s going to look terrible. This is El
Camino. Nobody is going to walk on El Camino. I’ve been there since ’73 and I don’t see people walking
there. There are many areas where they can go to walk and I see it’s just not going to help the property
owner. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Ken Weng followed by Tracy May.
Ken Weng: Hi, my name is Ken Weng and I’m an owner of a property at 3700 El Camino Real. We have
lived in the area for more than 30 years and over the past 20 years we have looked into redeveloping our
property, but we faced numerous zoning each time. In the early 1990’s our property was approved for a
sizeable office space plus eight residential units. Today it pencils out to be about 3,500 square feet of
retail space due to parking and other requirements.
I have many questions about properties on El Camino Real. Why are small retail businesses struggling
and not prospering? Why are the run down properties not being developed? Why are the developers not
buying up these properties? The truth is that the owners are trapped and holding properties with ever
restrictive land use. Now you ask us to make the sidewalk 18 feet comprising ten to twelve percent of our 100 feet deep property. Parking lots need to be replaced in the back and we’ll lose more space due to layouts. The result is insignificant loss in useable footage and the value of the property. Why are small property owners bearing the disproportionate burden of this change? The new larger buildings and the construction all have less than 12 feet sidewalks. The Grand Boulevard will be full of six feet to eight
feet sidewalks for decades. Palo Alto City seems to be focused on larger development is obvious,
oblivious to small property owners. Cafe Borrone is often used as an example of an ideal development
the Grand Boulevard, but it’s on a two acre lot with totally underground parking. Mountain View has
done a lot of economic analysis; they are increasing FAR beyond 1.85 and working on creative solution
for parking spaces. They realized having mixed-use on small lots does not make much sense. The small
properties face negative incentive development before redevelopment. Instead of putting more
restrictions I think we need to provide more positive incentives. Palo Alto can stand tall and help small
property owners on El Camino Real who have been suffering disproportionately zoning. We’d love to see
a lively El Camino Real, but 12 foot sidewalk is more than wide enough for small lots.
Here are some proposals that can help some of the El Camino Real properties; allow small lots to be residential only and at a higher density and taller. Residential use has the most effective land use in these traffic nodes. Allow shallow lots to have shallow sidewalks and reduce the rear setbacks. And
many alleys are totally underutilized.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. You can sum up, just (interrupted)
Mr. Weng: Ok, I’m almost done. Yes. Allow them to be used for parking access and allow them to be
setback to allow higher building to be built. The, I understand that we don’t have a Grand Boulevard
Champs-Élysées like style, but guess how many years you take?
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Next speaker please? And who’s up?
Tracy May: Hi, my name is (interrupted)
Acting Chair Keller: One second.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Sorry, Tracy May followed by Cary Davis.
Ms. May: Sorry. Hi, I’m Tracy May the property owner of 2080 El Camino Real in Palo Alto. I was born I
Palo Alto and raised in my dad’s retail store on the El Camino where Barbeques Galore is located today. I
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12
13
14 15 16 17
18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29
30
31
32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42 43
44 45
46 47 48
49 50 51 52 53 54 55
56
worked in my dad’s store for over 30 years and I have a key knowledge of the pedestrian usage along
the El Camino Real from Stanford Avenue to Palo Alto, I mean to California Avenue from the early Sixties
to the present. No one walks the El Camino. They don’t want to walk it back then or now. People walk
it only if they have to and only in short segments. Widening the El Camino Real sidewalks 15 to 18 feet
serves no useful purpose other than to restrict property owners’ freedoms and rights of the use of their
own land forcing them to give the City free use for their sidewalks and devaluating the properties along the El Camino Real.
People in Palo Alto don’t want to walk or eat along a busy State highway because there are much nicer places in town for these activities. Some businesses are so small that if they had to rebuild they would
have nothing left to build upon. Past and future restrictions have and will make it impossible for these
people to sell their properties. At the last meeting when these concerns were broached with staff,
owners were told repeatedly that these are challenges. I believe that staff is using the wrong verbiage.
A death sentence would be a more appropriate way to describe the owner’s dilemma. Challenges can be
overcome. What is happening to these small businesses and property owners cannot be overcome. I
support the ARB’s suggestion for exceptions to limit the sidewalk width to nine feet in front of retail
stores so these small businesses can maintain the visibility along the El Camino that is so vital to their
survival.
I am also reading for someone who can’t come today their speech, Melissa Coudenhaw. As an owner of
the property at 3876 El Camino Real I do not support the City’s proposition regarding setbacks and use of private property to widen the sidewalks of El Camino. I find it absolutely unreasonable and absurd that the City would try to take away private land that my family has struggled and worked for for years to hold onto. This proposition does not only forcibly strip land from us property and business owners, but it
decreases our revenue directly by making business less visible for customers. Therefore, if the
proposition passes it will make it impossible for me to be able to afford to remodel my property. Thank
you very much.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Cary Davis followed by Brian Knudson.
Cary Davis: Good evening. I’d first like to speak for Mr. Hussein Boardbari who is the owner of the
location at 3880 El Camino and this is how it reads: I am outraged at the proposition of the City taking my land and using it to widen the sidewalks of El Camino. The same land that I have worked my hands to the bone for. Palo Alto property is valuable. The property is difficult to secure and finance as a small business owner and resident of this beautiful City. Even if this proposition does not affect me in the near future it will unjustly bring about excessive losses to those who have worked diligently to secure
properties like mine. I am a simple florist. The business is not all that profitable and in my old age of 60
years learning new trades is an arduous and bleak endeavor. I am in no way greedy and I have worked
for every dollar I have. I have worked 15 hours a day, seven days a week for longer than I can
remember. Securing this property has taken a toll on me and my family. It just does not seem fair for
the City to take away a part of all that I have to live on and also my children.
And this is from myself; I would just like to add my voice to those who have spoken this evening in
opposition to the proposed restrictions along El Camino Real. We who own properties derive our
livelihoods based on the square footage of our stores. Basically and fundamentally if you reduce the
amount of useable square footage of our properties you reduce the incomes derived from that lost square footage. Furthermore, if you wish to sell our properties at some later time because of this proposal it will reduce the property’s value. I’m not a lawyer and I’m not familiar with the legalities of this proposal, but my own basic innate sense of right and wrong tell me that legislation intended to seize
one’s property for public use, in this case a sidewalk, without the owner’s consent and without
compensation is patently and unarguably wrong. You can call it what you want, but this is what it boils
down to. A new proposal has been issued by the ARB establishing a nine foot sidewalk, which given the
nature of the businesses of this area makes real sense and has my wholehearted support.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12
13
14 15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29
30
31 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39
40 41
42
43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51 52 53 54 55
56
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Brian Knudson followed by Sal Giovannetto.
Brian Knudson: Hi, good evening. My name is Brian Knudson and I’m connected to 2082 El Camino Real.
My concern is the proposal to widen the sidewalk on the El Camino. In 2005 the sidewalk was increased
to a 12 foot. Now the proposal is asking for up to 18 feet. Based on context although there is flexibility in the plan if it is codified I would have to assume up to 18 foot is possible. This would further limit your ability to use your land to its full potential. Small properties are affected even more so. I believe it would discourage property improvements if the City requires even more dedication of private property for
sidewalk. I feel a nine foot sidewalk can be practical, safe, and attractive. Thank you.
And I was also asked to read for Matthew Boardberry. He’s out of town today. He owns the property at
3878 El Camino and he has asked me to read this on his behalf. And he says the City’s proposal to widen
the sidewalk on El Camino using private property is ridiculous. I plan on remodeling the building at 3878
El Camino Real at some point and this proposition in the long run will cost me a fortune that I do not
have. I love this City and I would like to see wider sidewalks, but not by forcefully removing rights from
private property owners. Matthew Boardberry. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Sal followed by Phyllis Cassel.
Sal Giovannetto: My name is Sal Giovannetto. I’m not a good speaker so and sometimes I’m a little be hard when I talk, but let me tell you a little bit. I hear some people complain here about small lots. I am
here to complain with a lot of big lots. El Camino has always had bad zoning and that’s why nobody, I
haven’t built. I own those sites, I own two sites on both sides of El Camino about an acre and a half
each and they don’t make sense at all to build the way the zoning was. Now the way they want to do
now is to seal forever that that will I never develop. So right now I have tenants and that’s the only
people that you know rent on El Camino go from full massage to back massage to hand readers, car
repairs. So I think I agree with the Palo Alto Housing that if you really wanted somebody to do
something and build something you have to increase the floor ratio, you have to raise the density and the
ideal would be remove this commercial requirement on the first floor. Every tenant I have they don’t get
in from El Camino, they get in from the back alley or they get in through another neighbors. Nobody wants to get in.
I have an office building called the Tan Building. It’s an office building which is located on El Camino and the front doors are sealed. I’ve been owner of the building 10,000 square, 9,000 square feet or more
less, food store vacant since when I bought it seven years ago. No takers. So I think the only way the El
Camino can be valuable is allowed to put a housing, high density. As a matter of fact that’s what you say
I read on the paper all this and the lot should be residential. On the other hand then you tell people no,
don’t do, we want you to put commercial on the first floor. We want to limit your FAR. We want to
make sure you’re setback. So it’s not, it just doesn’t make sense. So if you want a valuable El Camino
just allow higher density and maybe remove this commercial requirement on the first floor. Thank you
very much.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Phyllis Cassel followed by Ben Cintz.
Phyllis Cassel: Ok, I’m Phyllis Cassel and I’m speaking for the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto in place of Mary Alice Thornton our President. The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto believes
increasing the density of housing along El Camino transit corridor is wise to increase the supply of
housing and ultimately improve the environment by encouraging the use of mass transit. Thus we were
glad to see the increased density for the Housing Inventory Sites identified in the Housing Element 2007
to 2014 approved by the City Council last January. However, the League does not support the current
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15
16
17 18
19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29
30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
40
41 42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 50 51 52 53 54 55
56
proposal to reduce the FAR for the residential units in the designated CN sites along El Camino from 0.5
to 0.4 per acre. By increasing the density to 20 units per acre while not changing the FAR the size of
potential units has already been reduced. As there is no minimum density requirement a market rate
developer can put in as few units as the market will allow, noticed all the one residential units in the ones
that were done recently. Now I lost my place.
As there is no minimum density requirement the market rate developer can put in as few units as the market will allow, but a nonprofit affordable housing developer is required by funding mechanisms such as tax credit requirements to build for a greater density. In addition, affordable housing developers are often required to provide other amenities such as community rooms to create a welcoming environment
for residents. This eats into the available square footage available for the unit itself. Furthermore this
change would limit the types of housing that could be built.
The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto believes that placing denser housing along transportation
corridors is good for the environment and our transportation systems as well as for the people who reside
in those units. Please do not create further barriers to the development of affordable housing along this
corridor. Please do not reduce the FAR for residential units where dwelling units are permitted at 20 per
acre. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Ben Cintz followed by Simon Cintz.
Ben Cintz: Hi, my name is Ben Cintz. I live at 2823 Kipling Street in Palo Alto and my family owns two properties on El Camino, one at 3885 El Camino the other at 3565 El Camino. And my brother will
address the particular properties and the history and so on. What I’d like to do is to say that I see this as
really involving two issues. One is that the build-to line requirement that the City has had, which has
resulted in reaction from the public because of large projects that have been built where that
requirement has been in place and I think of Miki’s Market and some other large developments. I think
the build-to line removing the build-to line requirement makes sense. It makes sense for those large
properties where all of a sudden you have a big mass at the street. That’s not an issue where you have
a 100 feet wide or a 50 foot wide piece of property, one that might be setback 8 feet, one that might be
setback 12 feet, it’s not an issue for those small properties. So I see, I think it’s a good idea to remove
the build-to line requirement, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to require a setback beyond that or to give the implication that a setback is going to be required.
The second issue is this Grand Boulevard idea. And a lot of people have spoken about this and I’ve lived in Palo Alto a good part of my life and I would agree with what they say. One doesn’t go to El Camino
for a stroll. One goes to El Camino because one has a particular purpose of doing something and then
getting back on that highway and going to wherever they’re going. And I think to use this Grand
Boulevard concept as a basis for action is only going to hurt the property owners in Palo Alto and force
them to sell to developers and I don’t think the City wants to force people to sell their property to
developers in order for them to be able to build something here. Thank you very much.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Simon Cintz followed by our last speaker, which is Joseph.
Simon Cintz: Hello, my name is Simon Cintz. You just heard my brother. He and I very rarely agree on anything because we’re brothers of course, but in this case I do agree with what he has to say. I want to talk a little bit about the history of the properties and whatever. One of our properties is located on El Camino. You may be familiar with many people, it’s called Kraft Mattress. They’ve been there for over
40 years now. There have been about three different owners over that 40 years. The one that’s there
currently has been there for 20 some years. If you walk along that area you’ll notice that these are all
small mom and pop businesses. These are how people make their livings. This is really important to
them and the changes that you folks are proposing are hurting these small businesses. They are not
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1 2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15
16 17
18
19
20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33
34
35 36 37 38 39 40
41
42 43
44
45
46
47
48 49
50 51 52 53 54 55 56
going to move to Stanford Shopping Center, ok? El Camino is the environment they’ve been there.
They’re there because they make money, ok? And why do they make money is because they serve the
people of Palo Alto, people of Palo Alto come in those businesses, Kraft Mattress in our case or auto
repair… El Camino is one of the few places in Palo Alto where you find a variety of things. I mean you
don’t find that on University Avenue or California Avenue. There’s a variety of businesses on El Camino
and the sorts of things you’re proposing here are hurting the small businesses, are hurting the small business owners, and they really have nowhere else to go.
And it, I was not able to attend the community meeting a few weeks ago, but I did get a copy of this proposed ordinance here. It says findings and then lists various things like bicycling and consternation in
the community about, so on and so forth. The one finding that you didn’t find is that businesses and
commercial property owners are concerned that these changes will negatively impact the viability of the
El Camino Business District. And you’ve heard all of these people yet that’s not a finding. Maybe
because you didn’t ask, ok? No one asked me. I didn’t even find out about this until I got one of these
cards a month or so ago about the ARB meeting. Businesses in Palo Alto especially the ones on El
Camino really need the support of the Planning Commission and the City Council and they don’t need
what you folks are proposing. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you, and our final speaker?
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The final speaker is Joseph Rizza.
Joseph Rizza: Hi, my name is Joseph Rizza. I own the property at 3401 El Camino. It’s on the corner of Fernando, which is the, I guess the northernmost boarder of the Barron/Ventura node. I’m asking the City to delay voting adopting and implementing the proposal for wider sidewalks until or at least until we
can discuss other changes within the codes for FAR for height restrictions and the like. Built in flexibility
is not an objective measurement, but a 9 foot sidewalk or a 12 or 18 foot sidewalk is an objective
measurement. I’m on the east side of El Camino and I have the alley that’s about three or four blocks
long which severely limits the size of the lots. I am limited to about 70 feet of useable space, 80 feet is
the property line that goes into the alley. And taking up to 10 more feet from the property line for
setback should we, when we decide to improve the building will severely impact parking. We’re not in a
parking district as are most of those projects that were shared with us earlier. And it just limits any uses
of the building especially if we have to have 50 percent frontage on El Camino. Accessing parking is not
congruent with setting the building back and requiring 50 percent of the setback.
So I’m asking to delay this and have the City Planning Department discuss with the building owners there’s a reason why these buildings have not been improved. Most of us have come to the City at one point or another to improve these buildings only to get shut down and be told of the limitations that our
properties have. I have less than a quarter of an acre. So to be able to improve these buildings we want
to work with you to improve these buildings, not get further restrictions. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So first thank you to all the speakers and I’ll return it back to staff. You
may wish to address some of the comments made by the speakers. Do you want us to ask you questions
or do you want to go ahead and address them on your own?
Ms. French: I mean I’m happy to answer questions. We were there both the Director Gitelman and
myself were at the outreach meeting. We heard the concerns. The ARB we heard that recommendation
for the nine feet. We had Council direction and so we’re as asked by the Council we are coming back to the Council with the recommendation that they directed us to do. They will be privy to all this, the minutes, the discussion, and they can choose to delay adoption if they, if that’s what they want to do for further discussion, but we committed to a timeline getting it to them.
Acting Chair Keller: Great, so let’s start off with a three minute session for each of us in terms of asking
any questions or and if we need to go a little longer let’s just ask questions of staff and in particular if
you want to ask questions that may have been asked by members of the public that’s fine. So who
wants to lead us off? Commissioner Alcheck.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17
18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26
27
28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39
40 41
42
43
44 45
46 47
48
49
50 51 52 53 54 55
56
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. At our recent retreat we discussed being more efficient with our time and
specifically using our commentary to articulate our views clearly highlighting areas where we have
concerns quickly so that we can engage in more rounds with each other. So with that in mind I’m going
to do that.
During our February 26th meeting I shared my support for the Grand Boulevard Initiative. We should have a grand vision for this thoroughfare. Our City is not the only city working on this. I think over 30 cities from San Jose to Daly City are attempting to grapple with the issues involved here and I would argue that so far Redwood City has demonstrated the greatest level of competency with respect to this initiative. And to be clear on my view the vision is not that residents from all over, from all corners of
Palo Alto will get in their cars and drive to El Camino and walk up and down the sidewalks. I think the
idea is to create a more inviting framework for a mixed-use residential development all along El Camino.
And the idea is that future residents of this area can enjoy a walkable retail and restaurant friendly
community.
I think the soul of this initiative is about increasing density. In fact, I think any effort to reduce the
potential of a lot’s redevelopment is unacceptable and I feel like I’m being put in a very difficult position
here because I support this vision. I think that we have to articulate an ordinance that considers
increasing the FAR. Not keeping it the same, dramatically increasing it. I can’t imagine a scenario and I
said this last time I think or I think I said it when we talked about the design guidelines, I don’t remember. There’s just, we, I refuse, I’m and I say this to you guys directly; I refuse to support any initiative where we increase the sidewalk space, we reduce the developable square footage on these lots without dramatically increasing height. I think the idea is about redevelopment. With all due respect to
our palm readers and massage therapists and our car repair facilities I hope they continue to be
successful, but our goal here is to increase the walkable livability of this place. And I think we do that
with dramatic increases in density.
And I think we get greater density with greater height. And this should be a canyon. I think someone
described it as a canyon, not like a two-story or one-story Route 66 style thoroughfare. So I just want to
throw it out there. I have serious problems with the idea we don’t have greater height allowances. I
know that the City said something like they’re going to explore height increases at a later time. I think
that’s a mistake and it’s such a big mistake that I can’t support this initiative without us considering
height increases and density increases so that all of these business owners come back to us and say, “I think this is the greatest idea ever, I cannot wait to redevelop my property. It’s going to have a florist on the first floor and there will be six stories worth of awesome office space and retail and restaurants.” Not all restaurants have to be on the first floor by the way.
Acting Chair Keller: Before I go on to the next speaker I’ll just ask a clarifying question about from the
City Attorney. And that is in terms of the notice for this meeting do we have scope to be able to address
the issues that Commissioner Alcheck brought up? In terms of the ordinance, would there be sufficient
notice for doing that?
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. You certainly
can talk about them in terms of an overall recommendation on further things to explore and as sort of
conditions or caveats to your recommendation, but we can’t get into the particulars of drafting a Motion
without further notice to concerned property owners.
Acting Chair Keller: So the suggestions that Commissioner Alcheck he can make them as ideas, but we can’t put them in the formal ordinance that we recommend to the City Council?
Ms. Silver: Yes, that’s correct.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. The next person anyone? Commissioner King, do you wish to go ahead?
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1 2
3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12
13
14
15
16 17 18
19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33 34 35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42 43
44
45
46
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
55 56
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: So I have a question for staff. So the way the draft is, the ordinance is drafted
right now can you walk through in terms of in your mind is there a loss of development for the property
owners or is this mitigated? And maybe you can explain either way.
Ms. French: Setting back a building further from the property line along El Camino can result in the loss
of ground floor retail space or other space that’s forward towards the street. One of the factors is the
size of the lot. A larger lot might access from a side street let’s say, might be able to use the underground area for parking in which case there’s more ground floor to extend that ground floor retail area let’s say farther back into the property. So I think it’s a balancing act when there’s a lot size concern I think as these property owners are mentioning it’s quite burdensome in a smaller property the
partial setting than in a large parcel. We’ve seen assemblage of parcels such as the Equinox
development where they can go underground or they can make use of the property size to not be as
affected. The City Attorney, the Assistant City Attorney may have other comments about that taking.
Ms. Silver: Yes, I don’t in the answer to a question of whether this is considered a taking of property
rights, which would be legally compensable; the answer is no we don’t think that is the case. This is a
development standard and so cities have well established powers to adopt development standards on
properties: setbacks and height limits and those types of things are very common development standards
that all cities impose. And of course it should be emphasized that this particular ordinance the way it’s
drafted does not require property owners to dedicate that extra setback to the City to be used as a
sidewalk or right of way. It’s framed in terms of a setback rather than a dedicated right of way.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok great, thank you. So for the cases of the smaller property owners how can that in fact be mitigated? Because I think some of the property owners make a good point that this is
kind of a disincentive. So maybe can staff talk a little bit about how some of this is mitigated in this
ordinance, in this draft proposal?
Ms. French: Again, I think the flexibility provisions that we’ve placed in here I think do allow the ARB to
provide a recommendation as to allowing the building to be closer. Again, based on context which we
tried to give indications about what those types of things including land use, property size, and other
factors including nearby buildings and such. If it’s a retail use having the building come farther forward
towards the sidewalk and not having it farther back probably makes sense on a smaller lot. And so I
think there is flexibility in the ordinance to allow for that. If it’s an office use the second floor might be a
good place to put the office and that can come forward a bit as long as there’s room for street trees to grow. So if the ground floor is setback to allow comfortable walking and maybe some landscaping the upper floor can come forward and maybe make up the difference at the second floor level for the floor area not at the ground floor. Again, they get, the property owners do get squeezed because of parking requirements. They’ve got to put it somewhere. So that’s going to restrict what can go on the ground
floor anyway.
Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner King?
Commissioner King: Thank you. So let’s see, regarding and I’m trying to follow here, I see on ARB their
recommendation did not go with the reduction in FAR and I’m trying to find that in the… a reference to
the changes that you made in the, so are we as the ordinance is written now are you saying we are
reducing the FAR? As it’s proposed?
Ms. French: Correct. The provision on the CN zoned sites that allow per Council direction up to 20 units per acre it’s not a requirement to provide 20 units per acre, but it’s an allowance for that if the property owner so chooses to provide 20 units per acre then the floor area is reduced as the ordinance suggests or states. If they choose to do a 15 unit per acre product the floor area is the same. It’s a 1 to 1 along El Camino.
Commissioner King: Remains the same as it is currently?
Ms. French: Correct.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1 2
3
4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11
12 13
14
15 16 17 18
19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26
27
28
29 30
31 32 33 34
35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42
43 44
45
46 47 48
49
50 51 52 53 54 55
56
Commissioner King: Ok. And so part of that goal I believe was to, the thought was the more studio if
you focus studio/one bedroom that then you’re going to get less impact on the schools, probably more
people who use transportation. Do we believe that the market conditions would be such that those units
would be built smaller? I guess under the two scenarios, higher FAR or the lower proposed FAR and 20
units per acre, what do we think would happen with the type of units to be built?
Ms. French: Well we have had some feedback from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) that believe that this is not a good idea as they’ve communicated because it’s again a challenge to provide more units and yet be further restricted with the floor area. So I guess that’s a comment from an active
user of increasing density for affordable housing.
Commissioner King: Ok. And then I guess my other question is regarding this issue around smaller lot
sizes and the impacts on them. Have we done any, I mean for me it would be good to have concrete
numbers that oh on this and maybe take a real parcel and say currently this is what could be developed
on this small parcel under existing ordinance and with the new ordinance this is what would be, they
would be possible. So we’d have an understanding of the magnitude of the impact to small lot owners in
particular.
Ms. French: I can respond thorough the Chair. I think it’s a good idea to show graphically, visually what
the ordinance would manifest in implementation.
Commissioner King: Ok, because I just if I understand that we believe legally we’d have the capacity to make these changes, but there’s also if I saw oh well some person’s their development rights are going to be cut by 50 percent in seeking our goal here, then I would be certainly less likely to vote for it if it
were a more nominal impact. And overall I understand the goal of the project and there were many
comments by particularly by the property owners that oh well nobody wants to walk El Camino Real and I
think an overarching goal here is to make it so that people would want to walk El Camino Real and so
there’s a chicken and egg thing there. So I’m supportive that it would be better to be walkable, but I
want to understand better the impacts to those property owners. So, ok. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you, so a few questions. Firstly, if existing businesses are, if the existing small
businesses in a property and the property isn’t redeveloped in other words the existing small businesses
can stay that’s less likely to hurt the businesses then if the existing businesses of the property is redeveloped or am I confused?
Ms. French: I think you’re saying if the existing business stays they don’t have to do anything. I mean that’s, and if they redevelop then they do have to do something.
Acting Chair Keller: The existing business has to move somewhere else, right?
Ms. French: Well…
Acting Chair Keller: Or close.
Ms. French: They don’t have to move, but yeah if they redevelop the entire property and they’re currently
at eight feet and they want to put an office there they will face coming forward to an ARB that takes a
look at the use, ground floor office let’s say, and they may suggest that go farther back from the sidewalk.
Acting Chair Keller: But I’m saying if you tear down the building and build a new building the existing business has to go somewhere else.
Ms. French: Oh, I see what you’re saying. I didn’t get that. Yes, there’s a time period for construction
where it’s pretty hard to operate a business.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2 3 4
5
6
7 8 9 10 11
12
13
14
15 16 17
18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45 46 47
48 49
50 51 52 53 54 55
56
Acting Chair Keller: Right, so for existing businesses redevelopment doesn’t help existing businesses. It
might help the new businesses that go in there, but not the existing businesses. The second thing is in
terms of walkable community, if we basically only build housing and don’t build retail how does that help
a walkable community? Or maybe it doesn’t.
Ms. French: Well there is housing on El Camino. Arbor Real is one such project and for better or for
worse it’s there. There are trees on both sides of the sidewalk and I think the vegetation has grown in nicely and I think it’s no longer the poster child for something that’s horrible. I think there is a possibility that residential works in certain situations. We want to encourage to have ground floor commercial or non-residential, but it’s worth a discussion.
Acting Chair Keller: If we had more, if we had retail dispersed through El Camino then would, then for
the housing that’s added would that increase its walkability or if we had 100 percent housing and no
retail would that improve its walkability?
Ms. French: I don’t think we want 100 percent residential along El Camino. I don’t think that would
improve walkability. No.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Ok, so and in terms of transportation corridors the consideration is to the
extent that people live on El Camino, do we expect them to only use the transportation? Do we expect
people to be driving at all? I mean what; do you have an idea of what the mix is there?
Ms. French: We would hope that some would choose to use public transit and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) when that comes along. Maybe not so much bicycles along El Camino, but…we would hope that. We wouldn’t expect that everyone would choose to use transit.
Acting Chair Keller: But the BRT stations are at Downtown Transit Station, California Avenue,
Charleston/Arastradero, and those are the only BRT stations in the City. Is that right?
Ms. French: That’s the plan. They don’t exist today, but eventually.
Acting Chair Keller: At least the 522 stations. They’re not going to plan on anymore I don’t think.
Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Correct, well the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is going to be released soon so there’s no determination made yet for the BRT. I think to your overall point though the question isn’t whether or not people are not going to drive. I think the overall goal is to have people drive at a reduced rate because they’re near different types of uses, they’re near a corridor where there’s different options versus in single-family home neighborhoods there is no option except the car.
Acting Chair Keller: Great, thank you.
Mr. Aknin: I think that’s the overall goal is reduce rates of auto ownership and driving, but not complete
elimination of it.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you, and I’ll ask one question of the City Attorney about that was brought up
about disaster replacement, because I don’t think that was addressed. And if a building which is there
existing and presumably nonconforming with the new zoning were to be burned down or destroyed in an
earthquake could they rebuild the exact same building in the exact same space if they didn’t add any
square footage and didn’t change the footprint of the building, didn’t change the everything? Can they rebuild it exactly in the same place?
Ms. Silver: I’ll defer to Amy on that one.
Ms. French: I have my finger on the pulse of the fire damage here in the code. We do have the
noncomplying facility replacement provision here. It talks about if the cost to replace or reconstruct a
noncomplying portion of the facility does not exceed 50 percent then the damaged portion may be
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2 3
4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27
28
29
30 31
32 33 34
35 36 37 38 39 40
41
42
43
44 45
46
47
48 49
50 51 52 53 54
55
56
replaced or reconstructed. So if it’s 50 percent of the building goes down in a fire they can build it back
to what it was. If the entire thing burns down then they get to keep the amount of, per this one section
they get to keep the amount of floor area that was there before, but they do need to follow the rules for
other, the other development standards such as height, setback, etcetera.
Acting Chair Keller: So I guess we’ll go around in the same order. Commissioner Alcheck and why don’t
we give people five minutes to have longer comments? Thank you.
Commissioner Alcheck: I know that you had suggested that to a certain extent these changes that I’m mentioning can’t be incorporated because of the way that notice was put out. I’m suggesting that
moving forward on this version would be imprudent because it lacks those fundamental components. So
I’m not suggesting that our recommendation tonight include a vast number of changes, I think our
recommendation should be this is not ready because it lacks… I think we should not recommend. I’m
seeing our City Attorney’s face look quizzical, but my suggestion is that we don’t recommend this draft
ordinance in its current form.
I want to say, I want to share with you guys I recently attended a three day conference that was for the
Planning Commissioners that was hosted by the California League of Cities and on the third day of the
conference the keynote for the closing session was this gentleman named Tony Seba of Stanford
University and his presentation was entitled “The Future of Transportation, Mega Transit Will Soon
Disrupt Public and Private Transportation.” And I’m not going to, I can’t articulate everything he said, but the gist of it was that in 15 years this professor of Clean Technology and Entrepreneurship at Stanford, the gist of it was in 15 years or in 15 years’ time the market penetration for self-driving automobiles will be overwhelming. So whether or not you believe that in 15 years’ time you are actually
going to buy a self-driving car, I think sort of the point I’m trying to make is that Mr. Seba suggested that
self-driving cars could operate in lanes that were half the size of our current lanes. Our current lanes are
sort of twice the size of cars.
Now the point is that we are very inefficiently using our highway and road space and when I’m
suggesting these density increases and these height increases and people look around and they go how
the heck is this going to get parked and my lot’s only X square feet and how could I possibly have a retail
space and six floors of mixed-use and be able to park it? We should, the point here is not to create an
environment where it’s quid pro quo; well we took away some sidewalk space, but we gave them a little
more FAR. I think our goal here should be to encourage redevelopment. So we should be giving a lot more than we’re taking. Or we should be presenting an environment that is rich with opportunity versus like some sort of fair trade space. I understand it’s within our reign the issues of taking are really not relevant, but I’m just trying to make this point that we should be encouraging the kind of redevelopment we want as opposed to making it just as hard as it is now or less easy and I think it wouldn’t be prudent
for us to make these decisions solely based on how we’ve been redeveloping these properties in the past.
I think we have to consider what the 15, these buildings that are going to get redeveloped all of these
owners who are considering redevelopment their buildings should hopefully last 60 to 50 to 60 years. I’m
hoping. Many of our buildings in the downtown are that age that is being considered for redevelopment.
So in 60 years I hope I just push a button and I get to work, but that’s beside the point.
The point is that we need to encourage this redevelopment and the PAHC doesn’t support some of these
components of this ordinance because it discourages housing. And I think that you heard Board Member
Popp suggest that that was a problem from the ARB’s perspective. And I think we need to echo that we
have those concerns too and maybe we can’t discuss amending the, I guess the recommended ordinance, but I do think we could ask I do think our recommendation could encourage City Council to consider amending it. And I do think our recommendation could encourage Planning to bring to City Council changes, etcetera that are properly noticed. I don’t, there’s a part of me that doesn’t believe that
the Planning Department is opposed to these ideas. I think that they’re trying to achieve as much as
they can and I think I get the sense that they’re trying to bite off small portions of this vision. So I would
encourage you guys to be more bold, but.
Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner, Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka do you want to be second as before?
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14
15 16
17
18
19
20 21
22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
31
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
42
43
44
45
46 47
48
49 50 51 52 53 54 55
56
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Sure. I largely agree with Commissioner Alcheck. I think if I look at El Camino
Real there’s a lot of property there that could be redeveloping in terms of I’m not sure that it’s the best
use of land as it is today and so I think encouraging redevelopment is actually a good thing. I’m not sure
we have the right notice to discuss all the issues, but I think having incentives to make it a better place is
actually a good thing and we should try to encourage that.
I think the goals of what this is trying to do in terms of having a wider sidewalk is actually very, is actually very important as well. And just because it’s not walkable today doesn’t mean it’s not good to be walkable. I think it is in generally good and I think the future might be very different in terms of the
importance of the car or maybe new technologies or new ways of transportation. So I largely agree with
Commissioner Alcheck on this one.
Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner King.
Commissioner King: Thank you. Let’s see, so this I definitely think this is one of the more complex issues
that’s come before us and I’m not an urban planner. I am only trying to apply the reasonable person
tests and does it make sense to me? Right now the impacts are unclear to me of this. We’re trying to
solve an aesthetic problem, which is always a challenge because not everyone will agree on the problem
and the solution. And then the part that I’m hesitant on moving forward is that the impacts are unclear
and I think it would be helpful to have the two analyses I’d like to see fleshed out are: what are the impacts if you took three different lot sizes one at the small end of the range and again it would be ideal to see a real, an actual parcel if that’s if we’re allowed to do that, at the smallest end of the range, the largest end of the range, and a midsized parcel the median sized parcel and understand ok, here’s what
would happen if that property would be developed to its maximum today and then post ordinance. And
then the other analysis I’d like to understand is and this won’t be as clear, but is what really would
happen particularly when you look at the non-affordable housing or not a PAHC type project, but a what
would a developer build under the new increased density and then the two scenarios for the FARs. That
would help me understand what we think is going to be the impact of making this change to reduce the
FARs for a 20 unit per acre zoning parcel.
There’s obviously an, I also think and this is not atypical that we didn’t hear a lot early when it first came
to us there weren’t a lot of people here. Now it’s reaching a phase where things are getting closer and
so interested parties, affected parties are now raising their voices. I don’t understand I don’t follow all the logic; for instance, the part about people being forced to sell to developers. If they’ve got an existing use and an existing building then it seems to me that they won’t be impacted by this so I don’t quite follow that. I don’t follow if people are making their living from their existing mom and pop buildings how this change will affect them. In fact I don’t want to say it’s the right thing, but if it makes
development of that property less likely then they probably have more chance of staying there and
certainly if they’re on a lease. I mean I look down El Camino Real and I don’t, I can’t think of one single
building that’s been redeveloped and the owners of that building and of the existing business stayed in
that building. I just I’m going down the Chipotle, the First Republic Bank, the State Farm, the dentist all
of those someone new comes in and at much higher rents. So I’m not quite following the logic that this
is going to put people, tear people out of their current use, mom and pop use. But I do understand that
it would impact people’s net worth and so maybe if you owned that lot and you’re the mom and pop
store in there now an you want to sell then that could impact your net worth, but I do not see how its
impacting existing uses. To the contrary actually.
So I using my reasonable person test don’t think or I’m not there to move this forward to Council and say that we should adopt this without further study and ideally further input from the community. I’m not sure of the best format or venue to open this up to continued discussion, but I would not move forward.
Hillary Gitelman, Director: Chair Keller if I could make a suggestion?
Acting Chair Keller: Sure.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1 2
3
4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28
29
30
31 32 33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40 41
42
43 44 45 46
47 48
49
50 51 52 53 54
55
56
Ms. Gitelman: You know I think the ARB set an example here that the Commission may wish to follow.
Obviously we could continue studying this as Commissioner King indicates, but we’ve been through a lot
of meetings on this already. I wonder if the Commission would consider a recommendation to Council
outlining those things that you would like changed. It means that Council could like if they accepted your
recommendation they couldn’t adopt the ordinance on the spot, they’d have to direct us to go back and
make those changes. But for example the ARB articulated a recommendation to adopt, but with the change to the nine foot sidewalk width and with the elimination of the reduction in FAR for those sites at 20 units to the acre. The Commission could similarly I think embrace the vision of the Grand Boulevard and this idea of a walkable corridor and improving the mix of uses and the amount of pedestrian amenities along the corridor and there’s some good things in this ordinance that I think all of you agree
with the changes to the build-to line, the ability to be flexible in terms of setback based on lot size and
use, but perhaps the Commissioners could agree on those things that you don’t like in the ordinance and
like the ARB recommend that those be deleted or amended. Just a suggestion.
MOTION
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So a couple things. So firstly I think that the issue of increasing height,
which is not something that I agreed with initially, is something that will require significantly more study.
And it is something that is not simply a zoning ordinance type thing. It is really an issue for the Our Palo
Alto process and we’re going through this Our Palo Alto process that’s essentially a two year process,
little bit less than two years now where we are figuring out how much we want Palo Alto to grow, where and how and when. And so that’s really the right venue for the decision of how high we should have the buildings on El Camino Real, how much increased FAR we may wish to have on El Camino Real. This is not the proper venue for that and we should not consider El Camino Real in that regard in isolation of
that discussion. So I would encourage us to defer that kind of discussion and wrap it into the Our Palo
Alto process.
The second thing is that because the minimum is currently 12 feet setback and the ordinance has a
minimum of 12 feet setback as proposed it is possible to build if the ARB agrees based on context and a
bunch of criteria it’s possible to build more or less what is basically the existing zoning. The difference is
that there is a limitation that at 20 people, if a developer builds at 20 units per acre then there’s a reduce
in the FAR allowable on CN zoned properties on the Housing Inventory. So firstly, I think that that is a,
that combination is a bad idea. And the reason the combination is a bad idea is because I think we want to encourage smaller units in general. There have been a lot of big units being built in Palo Alto, but there’s a shortage of small units. And the demographics in Palo Alto says we’re going to have more seniors and we also have a lot of young people 20 and 30 something’s without kids. We need housing for them and smaller units provide housing for them. This is a disincentive to provide housing for these smaller units. And therefore essentially what I’d like to see is the opposite.
The idea is that if you want to reduce FAR, reduce it across the board and not reduce it when you
increase the density. In fact, I think that the main requirements for density should be based on parking
and FAR and building envelope and things like that and people build whatever they make sense within
those requirements as opposed to simply saying ok we’re going to have some arbitrary number of units
that you can require and I think that makes more sense because if somebody wants to build small units
and they can park it and they can fit it within the FAR God bless them from my point of view. We want
to encourage that not discourage that.
So I think we were directed with these changes essentially by the City Council and these changes came from them. They started it in colleagues’ memo. It was voted on the City Council to direct us to do this. So I think that we should to the extent that we can make incremental changes to what we’re being proposed that’s fine, but to the extent that we can move forward on this under the Council direction I
think that that is a good idea. In particular I have a few things that I think will be worthwhile clarifying.
One of those things clarifying was mentioned by staff and that is if you have a street bulb out for a BRT
or for example for tree or whatever that that should not be considered part of the effective sidewalk
width, because you really you want that space for something else. You don’t really want the building
coming out to take away the space that’s meant for BRT.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14
15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29
30 31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
44
45 46 47 48
49
50 51 52 53 54 55
The second thing is that the staff narrative talks about removing the build-to setbacks on side streets;
however, that has not been removed from the ordinance. So on Pages 3 and 7 of the ordinance I would
suggest deleting that. And the third thing is that there’s a difference in language for Table 3 on Page 3
and Table 3 on Page 7 with respect to on Page 3 it says “minimum yard for lot lines abutting opposite
residential districts or residential BC districts,” and the language in Table 7 is different from that and I
would suggest conforming that language if that could be possible. And I’m not going to make that as something in a Motion, but that’s something I would suggest staff do before it goes to the Council.
So I am going to offer a Motion that we recommend to the City Council that they first adopt the
ordinance as proposed by staff with the two changes that we, that they ignore street bulb outs for the
purposes of transportation or street trees and second that we delete the provision for minimum of 32
percent of side street build-to setback on Tables 3 and 4. That’s the first element. The second thing is
that further consideration of height and FAR be part of the Our Palo Alto process and be considered in
the evaluation of future growth plans for the City.
Ms. Gitelman: Just a question on the Motion. Was it your intention I was trying to follow your remarks,
was your intention to recommend against the reduction in FAR for the sites that are at 20 units to the
acre? Or that’s something you want to put in that future study as well?
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND
Acting Chair Keller: I’m going to leave that there and I don’t think any, I’m not sure if any of my fellow Commissioners would suggest that or not, but to the extent that any of them want… I guess I will put that in there. That also remove the reduction of the FAR on 20 units per acre and I guess I’ll let my
remarks stand on the conditions on which I think that that makes sense. Do we have a second? We
have a Motion being offered by Commissioner Alcheck.
MOTION
Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to suggest that we recommend that City Council direct staff to
incorporate this sidewalk discussion into the greater discussion that revolves around I guess Our Palo Alto
and the height limit. And I guess that implies that we would be recommending that they don’t adopt the
current draft ordinance. There was a… and I want to say that there’s a, and the reason why I’m suggesting this is because there’s a part of me that doesn’t believe that the City Council has the political capital right now to have the sort of discussion that they need to on this issue. And I think that if we incorporate it into the envelope of Our Palo Alto and allow it to be a part of a discussion that includes a lot of changes it’ll be a more complete process and potentially a more successful one.
And I guess while I have the mic real quick I want to add that there was sort of a median, medium point
here and many of these really small lots may get consolidated and it may be really difficult to look at a
particular parcel and go how would this ever get redeveloped if the sidewalk got increased and I lost
some floor area, but another developer may look at a series of four or five or six adjacent parcels and see
some much bigger opportunity. And so I think there’s I think that this is a, this, I think when City Council
directed staff to go down this road it was a different political climate maybe. I don’t know, but I think
this discussion should be broader and so my Motion is that we recommend that they don’t adopt this
draft ordinance and alternative incorporate this discussion into a greater discussion related to issues like
height and density and potentially the Our Palo Alto Initiative.
Acting Chair Keller: Could you repeat that so I could get it down? So you recommend that not adopt the draft ordinance and instead?
Commissioner Alcheck: Incorporate this discussion of the, I guess sidewalk size into a discussion that is
more multifaceted and includes height and density and potentially in the envelope of the Our Palo Alto
discussion. I don’t know. I mean when we started this discussion it had to do with the Grand Boulevard
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2 3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10 11
12
13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26
27 28
29
30
31
32
33 34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42 43
44
45
46 47
48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
and we’ve gotten to this very specific component of it and ignored all the other factors that may or may
not have a huge impact on the Grand Boulevard success.
SECOND
Acting Chair Keller: Ok. Do we have a second? So second, Motion by Commissioner Alcheck second by
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. Commissioner Alcheck do you wish to speak to your Motion?
Commissioner Alcheck: I think I’ve done it justice.
Acting Chair Keller: Great. Commissioner, Vice-Chair, Acting Vice-Chair Alcheck, I mean Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. Sorry.
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Thank you. I support this, I support it although for a different reason and my
reason is more just that I think the concept is right. I think Grand Boulevard concept is right, but I think
when City Council asked for this to be, to go forward I think in a sense they are asking for us to do
homework, right? I think they’re asking for us to see well, what are the ramifications? They’re not
blindly asking us to say, “Ok, do this.” So I think there’s some implications that are involved in this and I
think there’s some important elements that still need to be considered to really make this thing complete.
So that’s why I support this Motion as well. Thank you.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Commissioner King do you wish to speak?
Commissioner King: Yes, but first I would like to ask a question of staff is that?
Acting Chair Keller: Sure.
Commissioner King: Am I wrong? Ok, so can you explain to me on the process so now the ARB has sent
along their recommendation to Council, correct? And so now we’re being asked to do or that’s staff’s
proposal that we do the same. And so if now we say either we don’t, we come to no Motion that we can
all support or a majority support or we move along with recommending to Council not to adopt the
ordinance as is the current Motion what will happen?
Ms. Gitelman: Well the Council will receive the recommendations and they will have the ability to either
adopt the ordinance or reject it and ask us to go back and change it.
Commissioner King: Ok, regardless if we pass no Motion tonight or if we pass Commissioner Alcheck’s Motion the ordinance would still go to Council for review?
Ms. Gitelman: I believe that’s true, yes.
Commissioner King: Ok. Ok, alright then I’m, I, again I’m hesitant to support the ordinance as it stands
now and I’m not quite sure I don’t have the information to even make a reasonable person proposals for
changes to that and so I think that and I apologize to staff because I know opening up a big discussion is
probably, I don’t think that was on your work plan for this upcoming year so I apologize for the intent of
opening up more discussion, but I think that’s the right thing to do in the big picture.
Acting Chair Keller: Ok, I’ll reiterate that I think that we could have passed this ordinance and made
some improvement as directed by the City Council with some minor changes to it. I think that this
ordinance in and of itself would not that adversely affect property owners in particular especially if we reduced the, if we eliminated the reduction in FAR then essentially it would be a design decision that we give more flexibility to property owners in terms of the build-to and we also give more flexibility to the ARB in terms of exactly how much setback that they would’ve allowed to have. I think that the also the
removal of build-to lines in the rest of the City is something that wasn’t noticed and is actually a
considerable improvement there. I think the clarification of the fact that we’re not allowing parking in the
setback on all properties and in fact that wasn’t originally there, that was a clarification that was added to
the ordinance before it came back to us. I think that’s an improvement that is not there. So there are a
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1 2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17 18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26
27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41 42
43
44
45 46
47 48
49 50 51 52 53 54
55
number of things that merit this ordinance moving forward absent the larger discussion. And I think the
larger discussion should happen as part of the Our Palo Alto so I will not be supporting this ordinance
and I would encourage the City Council to go ahead and pass the ordinance according to the lines of my
Motion that failed to receive a second.
So with that if nobody else is speaking I’ll call the question. Yes?
Ms. Gitelman: Could I just clarify the Motion so we make sure we have it correct? So the Commission’s Motion is to recommend the Council direct staff to incorporate the modification of sidewalk width and this question of FAR for CN zoned parcels into a larger discussion of height and density in the context of the
Comp Plan Update and not adopt the current ordinance.
Commissioner Alcheck: You know I don’t want to be really specific about height and density. I think my
goal there’s so many components that you could possibly consider when you change the development or
redevelopment landscape: parking, build-to line, I mean the point is is to incorporate this discussion into
a broader discussion of how we could encourage development along El Camino in an effort to realize the
Grand Boulevard Initiative. I don’t want to say it’s just about density and height. There are a lot of
factors that should be considered. I just think it needs to be put in the envelope. So I was using those
as an example.
Ms. Gitelman: Ok. Can I try again then? I want to make sure I get this right. So the recommendation is that Council direct staff to incorporate the modification of sidewalk width and this change to the CN FAR into a broader discussion of redevelopment along El Camino and the Grand Boulevard Initiative and not adopt the current ordinance.
Acting Chair Keller: Can I clarify? And I assume that you’re talking about a broader discussion as part of
the Our Palo Alto discussion is that what you’re suggesting?
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I feel like I made it worse.
Acting Chair Keller: Ok, can I try?
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah. The idea is we’re focusing on a very small piece of the redevelopment
options and I think we should look at the big picture. So we had residents say height should be considered in conjunction with this change, right? As a sort of you’re giving us something and taking something away at the same time or you’re affecting our redevelopment in one way but you’re enhancing it in another way. So I guess I would like to see I think my suggestion is that we reevaluate this idea in a, within a conversation that deals with a larger number of options which we can’t do now.
Acting Chair Keller: So may I try to put words in your mouth?
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah.
Acting Chair Keller: By wording a Motion for you?
Commissioner Alcheck: Absolutely.
RESTATED MOTION
Acting Chair Keller: And see if you agree with it? So you recommend that the Council not adopt a draft ordinance and instead incorporate this discussion of sidewalk depth or width with height and density and other development standards as part of Our Palo Alto discussion to realize the Grand Boulevard Initiative.
Commissioner Alcheck: That’s so beautiful.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11
12 13
14
15
16
17
18 19
20 21
22 23 24
Acting Chair Keller: Ok, actually I would prefer not applause and boos from the audience. Thank you. So
that, is that the Motion by the Maker? Is that the Motion accepted by the seconder? Ok so we have
affirmation on that. Any other questions before we move to a vote? Ok. Then all in favor say aye (Aye).
All opposed? So the Motion passes on a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Alcheck, Commissioner Acting Vice-
Chair Tanaka, and Commissioner King saying, voting yes, and Chair, Acting Chair Keller voting no and
Commissioner Chair Michael absent. Yes?
MOTION PASSED (3-1-1, Acting Chair Keller nay, Chair Michael absent)
Ms. Gitelman: Chair Keller if I can just make one remark? At the outset we said this was scheduled for
the Council on April 21st. Given the Commission’s action this evening we may need another day or two to
prepare our staff report. So I’m going to suggest that it’s more likely it will go to the Council on April
28th. We’ll have to think about that and we’ll be sure to let people know who have received notice and
who are here this evening.
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you very much. So we’ll take a five minute break and then proceed with Item
2 on our agenda. Thank you all for people who attended, thank you, and participated.
Commission Action: Recommendation to Council to not adopt the draft Ordinance and to incorporate
sidewalk width with height, density and other development standards as a part of Our Palo Alto
discussion to realize the Grand Boulevard Initiative. Motion by Commissioner Alcheck, second by Acting Vice-chair Tanaka, Motion passed 3-1-0 (Commissioner Alcheck, Commissioner King, Acting Vice-chair Tanaka – Aye; Acting Chair Keller – Nay; Chair Michael – Absent)
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26================= 2 This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. 3 4 5 Thursday, March 20, 2014, 6 Architectural Review Board Meeting 7 8:30 AM, Council Chambers 8 Excerpt Verbatim Minutes Item 3 9 10 11 ARB members present: Chair Lee Lippert, Vice-chair Randy Popp, Board Members Alexander Lew, 12 Clare Malone Prichard, Robert Gooyer. 13 14 Staff: Amy French, Chief Planning Official; Russ Reich, Senior Planner; Diana Tamale, Administrative 15 Associate 16 17 Public Hearing Item 3: 18 19 Review and Recommendation of a Draft Ordinance modifying: (1) Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto 20 Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address sidewalk width and building setbacks (setback and “build-to” line 21 standards, and context based design criteria) along El Camino Real, and (b) reduce the allowable Floor 22 Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC 23 Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area and add a definition for “Effective Sidewalk”. 24 25 Chair Lippert: Ok, so I’m going to introduce the next project. It is review and recommendation of a Draft 26 Ordinance modifying (1) Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address sidewalk 27 widths and building setbacks (setback and “build-to” line standards, and context based design criteria) 28 along El Camino Real, and (b) reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on CN zoned sites where 29 dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of 30 Lot Area and add a definition for “Effective Sidewalk.” Staff would like to introduce this item. 31 32 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, thank you. I see that the number of people in the chambers 33 has been reduced. I just wondered - I know I received some e-mails this week due to the notification 34 and I was a bit curious as to how many of the folks in the audience were here for this item as well. So 35 let me go ahead and start. 36 37 The City Council directed the staff, the Planning Commission, and Architectural Review Board (ARB) to 38 examine several items. One of them, the most recent direction, came in January of this year regarding 39 the FAR reduction on the CN zoned housing sites. The second direction was received almost a year ago 40 now regarding the sidewalk width and how buildings address the street. with a focus on El Camino Real 41 and with reference to the Grand Boulevard guidelines. We were directed to come back with zoning 42 ordinance amendments to implement the vision, and here we are. 43 44 This is an image of the Grand Boulevard Initiative that suggests that sidewalks be 18 feet wide from curb 45 to building face. The Council did mention other thoroughfares; however, there is a lot of discussion that 46 would go into other thoroughfares, which have different zoning. So the staff has focused initially on El 47 Camino Real and has adjusted the ordinance to focus on El Camino Real, which is zoned CN, CS, and CC. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 49 50 51 52 53
54
55
56
The item about the FAR reduction - we have had a comment about that. Again this was directed by
Council to be a .8 to 1 FAR total for a mixed-use project on those housing sites where they’re getting
additional dwelling units per acre. It should be noted that concessions, if it’s an affordable housing
project, can be used to regain the residential FAR and concessions can be requested to regain the
commercial floor area, but it does require a pro forma analysis.
The sidewalk and building frontage - before you is an ordinance; the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) did review a version of this ordinance that we have since modified. Therefore we are going back to the Planning Commission on April 9th and would appreciate a representative from the ARB attend that meeting as well. The ordinance in front of you does look at several things. This is the 12 feet
width on El Camino Real that currently exists in our code, the 12-foot effective sidewalk. But the way it is
written right now, folks that want to go farther back than that with their building need to come in with a
Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) request, and we want to stop that from having to be a process
that’s needed to go farther back. We want to have flexibility based on the context. We’ve defined
context as inclusive of land use, lot size, building design, and adjacent conditions.
The effective sidewalk width - we’ve identified as being to the ground floor wall, and inclusive of supports
for upper story overhangs - would allow supports to come down as close as nine feet to the curb in order
to allow for an arcade effect. The lot area definition - we have added a clarification so that folks that do
choose to allow public access on their property will not be penalized as to the amount of lot area
considered for the FAR, for building size floor area on the site.
The PTC asked us to consider removing the build-to line altogether, which was an approach that staff had considered initially. We have done so in this draft for elsewhere, because again we’re concentrating on El
Camino and on El Camino, the goal of the build-to line is - we don’t want to throw that baby out with the
bathwater for El Camino - we want to still see kind of a building presence on that very wide street, we
just want to have a little bit more flexibility built in. So to allow flexibility, again based on context based
design criteria, we’ve provided footnotes that clarify what all of that means.
Right now on El Camino there is basically a four-foot minimum setback for buildings, because the
sidewalk right of way for the right of way along El Camino is about eight feet from curb to property line.
So in essence, the existing zoning ordinance does call for a 4-foot wide setback from the property line, to
achieve that 12-foot effective sidewalk width. So what we’re clarifying there is to say 4 feet to 10 feet
and that allows for a 12 to 18 foot effective sidewalk; again, to be evaluated case-by-case, based on
context. The ARB is the appropriate body, as you have clarified. This was an important part of this effort, to understand that each land use, each building has a different circumstance.
The PTC had noted that they would like the ARB and staff to study the concept of a combined minimum
12-foot setback from curb to building and an average setback ranging from 15 to 18 feet. So this is
something that staff did look at. We did not end up with that, but we have the alternative
recommendation that we have in the ordinance. Again, Council had asked us to study 18 feet and we are
not saying 18 feet has to be provided.
Here is the image that our past consultant had shared with us. It shows a concept of two street trees to
green up the corridor on El Camino. And that shows a 15 to 18 foot concept including two trees. This is
not something that we’ve studied at length. I just wanted to again share that for those of us who have
seen this image before and those who haven’t. Again, part of our effective sidewalk width definition has
a mention of a comfortable clear width for pedestrians to traverse the sidewalk. And I think that’s a concept that is an important one. We aren’t putting a number on that. Again, we’ve heard from folks and from the ARB, this is something you want to have - comfortable walking, two people passing each other. It can meander based on the street trees and the placement of various furnishings and amenities.
Again, the ARB had said a 9 to 15 foot dimension, and we kind of pulled that into a concept to say the
arcade could be 9 feet. And this is based on this Redwood City example where, from the column here to
the curb is 9 feet, but then the front wall, the ground floor wall is set back something like 19 feet from
the curb. So this kind of illustrates that we can have flexibility to come closer than 12 feet.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 49 50 51 52 53
54
55
56
The Planning Commission also suggested that we restrict parking in the front yard. Now the ordinance
already does that, for nonresidential buildings. So, for mixed-use buildings we now have that same note
apply - no parking in the first 10 feet of the property. The context based design guideline also talks
about parking located behind buildings as important, where feasible or screened by landscaping and low
walls, if not feasible to put behind the building. The context based criteria - a couple of items there to try
to clarify and be consistent. This allows a tool for the ARB, as well as clarification for applicants.
So City Assistant Attorney Cara Silver is here (sorry if I pronounced your title incorrectly) for questions as well, as there’s been some discussion and concern about takings and what are we doing here by
potentially having the sidewalk go to 18 feet, in some cases. And we can talk further about that.
Chair Lippert: Would you like to talk about takings?
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Oh, I never turn down that opportunity. Cara Silver, Senior
Assistant City Attorney. Just wanted to introduce one of the legal concerns, with respect to this particular
ordinance, is that when you start to require property owners to dedicate additional property for right of
way or for sidewalk, you do get into the realm of possible takings. Court decisions have made it more
difficult for cities to require those types of what we used to consider standard dedications. And especially
in a case such as this, where there are already existing sidewalks in place, and the City wants to expand
those. In those situations, a court is going to look at that situation more strictly. So what we suggest, and what we have incorporated into this ordinance is, instead of requiring a dedication of sidewalk, that the ordinance be instead recast as an additional setback. So that’s where we have introduced this concept of an effective sidewalk. There is some flexibility built into it, as properties redevelop. One of the
questions we’ve received is, “does this ordinance take effect immediately?” Of course it does not require
the tear down of existing buildings in order to effectuate that new setback. But as buildings redevelop
what we want to do is encourage them to set their buildings back further in order to create sort of that
illusion of a wider sidewalk, and the definition of effective sidewalk then is incorporated into the
ordinance. So that’s our basic concept on this ordinance. Thank you.
Chair Lippert: Thank you. Ok, I’m going to ask Board Member Popp, Vice-Chair Popp to just simply
report on the PTC meeting of February 26th.
Vice-Chair Popp: Very happy to do that and I’ll just note that in the staff report they did an excellent job
of recapping kind of the major points of that discussion and I would say that actually it was an unusual meeting in that way. It was much more of a discussion and I really appreciated that interaction. I did relay what our comments were to the PTC. There was a bit of discussion in regard to the economic benefit that applicants might receive from creating a wider sidewalk and yet retaining all of the FAR inside their building. And the concept here is that you set your building back and you still get all the FAR,
but then you can put tables out on the sidewalk effectively increasing the size of your restaurant. That
might be something that would need to be studied. I think Amy did a great job of explaining to the PTC
that there is a process by which people have to apply to be able to use the street frontage in that way,
and so I think there is a methodology for regulating that, but I think there was some concern on their
part about the value of the economic benefit and what they might receive as a result of that. My
interaction about that was that that seemed like a good tradeoff to me. That if we can encourage people
to set their buildings back in the way that we’re hoping to, and create life on the street, that does just
what we’re trying to get to. So I was very much in favor of that in the discussion.
And I think the other thing I really tried to reinforce and to push forward was this idea that there really is a varied character and the sense that we want something that is of high quality and that a one size fits all really doesn’t work. And the very clear point that that’s exactly what this Board is charged with: looking at projects on a case-by-case basis, and making a determination relative to immediate context in regard to the appropriateness of the design.
I think there was some discussion about clear width, relative to furnishings and fixtures. And I do think
that, and I’ll just reinforce again, the concept of engaging a consultant to create some examples or to
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 49 50 51 52 53
54
55
56
develop some illustration that will help applicants to understand what the overarching goals are, so they
can enter the discretionary process with the highest degree of likely success, would be a benefit to
everyone.
Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. Ok with that I’m going to open the public hearing. I have four
speaker cards. If there’s anyone else that wishes to speak to this item, please fill out a speaker card and
hand it to one of the staff members. We’ll have Tracy May followed by Cary Davis and you’ll each have three minutes.
Tracy May: Yes, my name’s Tracy May and I’m attached to the property at 2080 El Camino Real, Palo
Alto. You know most of the properties on the El Camino are run by little businesses. Some have been
handed down from generations. My property is run by Barbeques Galore right now who is a renter of
mine. They rented it for some years now. Before that it was Stanford Sport Shop. It was my father’s
store. He was a little business man in Palo Alto since 1936, helped build this City. And I think by taking
away, which is hard enough I don’t know if you folks even have any idea how hard it is to stay in
business on the El Camino Real. And every time we turn around, we’re getting things to hide our
buildings, to set back our buildings, to make us less visible. I don’t know if you realize how many people
walk that street, but with six lanes of highway that runs along there, nobody wants to go there. I mean
the way you get to a business is to drive there and park. We have so many beautiful places in Palo Alto
and I was born and raised pretty much on that property, worked there since I was six years old, lots of
people have lots of other beautiful places to walk. And it’s not like a downtown area nor will it ever be, because you have six lanes. I mean just walking down a couple of blocks and you’re kind of choking on the exhaust, okay; I mean it’s not a very desirable walking area. Widening sidewalks has nothing to do with adding people, to end up with people walking it. It just takes away from the value of the property,
to the value of trying to resell the property, the value of useable space, and taking away our freedoms to
be able to use our space on the El Camino. Now I see there’s quite a few places there that depend upon
little business, that depend upon the parking that they have on their property in front of their stores. I’m
not one of those; however, there were many people here for this issue today that had to leave to go
open their little businesses around 9:00, 9:30, 10:00ish that have talked with me about the concerns
here.
I would like to mention that you’re talking about two stories, I’ll make it real brief, and talking about two
story buildings to compensate for the footprint being smaller. For little stores, two story buildings makes
no sense to them. They can’t survive on that and put up an elevator and all the rest. So I’m hoping that
you will consider that and consider that it is a hardship on the people who are trying to make a business there and also trying to employ three and four people to try and make a living as well and the families. Thank you.
Chair Lippert: Thank you. Cary Davis followed by Brian Knudson.
Brian Knudson: Morning. Good morning, my name is Brian Knudson. Cary Davis had to leave so he’s not
able to be here. My concern was on the proposal for wider sidewalks. I can see the aesthetics of it is
very nice and my concern is if it goes into an actual law then, rather than 12 foot it could be as much as
18 feet. I think, on a voluntary basis for new development, it can look very nice and really add to the
way the buildings all look, but I don’t like to see an actual ordinance stating that there needs to be
anywhere from 8 to 18 to 20 or 18 feet of space along El Camino Real between there and the business
for a sidewalk. I don’t see it as a safety item and I think it just limits the landowner’s ability when and if
he develops. I think it’s just adding on another limitation to what can be done with that particular property. Thank you.
Chair Lippert: Thank you Mr. Knudson. Jessica De Wit followed by Ben Cintz. Thanks.
Jessica De Wit: Good morning Commissioners, I’m Jessica De Wit and I’m speaking on behalf of Palo Alto
Housing Corporation (PAHC). We’re a nonprofit affordable housing developer located here in Palo Alto
and we’ve recently submitted a letter to you regarding the proposed design criteria updates on El Camino
Real. We appreciate all of the work that staff has done on these updates; however, we do believe the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 49 50 51 52 53
54
55
56
newly proposed reduction in FAR for the CN zone will have a negative impact on affordable housing.
We’d really like you guys to look or at least consider retaining the current FAR requirements or possibly
looking at other jurisdictions nearby that have a lot greater increase in FAR and actually had minimalized;
have no density and looked only to the FAR.
I know staff mentioned that the FAR could be used as a concession for us for affordable housing, but I
know you guys probably already know that it’s really, really difficult to build affordable housing and make it feasible. So we really value those concessions and hope that one isn’t just automatically reserved for an FAR. That’s it. Thank you so much.
Chair Lippert: Thank you. Ben Cintz and if there are any other speakers please get a speaker card in.
Ben Cintz: Hi, my name is Ben Cintz. I live in Midtown. My family owns some properties, small
properties in Palo Alto including two on El Camino at 3565 El Camino, 3565-67 El Camino where Kraft
Furniture or Kraft Mattress is downstairs and 3885, which is where Starbucks is located. Those properties
have been in our family for many years and I want to thank staff for their hard work on this and also to
echo the comments that have already been made. Part of the difficulty is that there have been a number
of different rules on El Camino on the block that Kraft Mattress is on. There are three buildings; ours is
the oldest, it is the furthest set back. The other two buildings each have different setbacks. This will add
yet another layer of further, yet another setback requirement that’s different than the ones that have
been there so far.
But I think the biggest concern is that these requirements will make, pose a hardship on the individual property owners when they want to improve or develop their property, because I think it’s going to make
it more difficult for these small parcels to be developed economically. I think the result is that the
property is going to be sold to developers and combined into multiple parcels and I think that really goes
against what Palo Alto is about, which is to be a warm friendly community that wants to encourage the
people who own the property to do things that will improve the City, rather than having to sell the
property to others in a complex set of regulations; to be able to do something that should be fairly
straightforward. Thank you very much.
Chair Lippert: Thank you. Is there any other speaker? Ok. What we’ll do is I’ll close the public hearing
now and we’ll return to the Board for comments and hopefully a Motion. And I’m just going to ask Board
Vice-Chair Popp if you’ll lead the discussion. Lead off.
Vice-Chair Popp: So I’m pretty clear on what’s all in here now. I studied this quite a bit, but I do want to ask just a brief question about what the decision behind reducing the FAR from .5 to .4 in the CN zone
relative to the all residential and the 20 unit per acre increase is about and where that comes from. Can
you help me understand what the rationale behind that might be?
Ms. French: It’s the Council’s rationale; it was requested that we because we’re allowing more units. This
pretty much forces those who are doing beyond the 15 units per acre to have the micro units, the smaller
studio type units. It’s reducing the FAR so those 20 units per acre would be smaller units, smaller FAR
per unit.
Vice-Chair Popp: Ok, that’s helpful. So everybody has an opinion about this and I understand theirs.
am absolutely against that. And I have to say that I think that we are so challenged right now in
complying with the obligation to provide housing that we have all kinds of other limitations that are in place that will restrict size and density in other ways and telling people that if they want to provide more smaller units, 20 to the acre, that they don’t have as much square footage to do that within is really a very negative message and I cannot support that at all. The idea that on a 7,500 square foot lot - let’s
say you’d lose a 750 square foot unit - it just seems so contrary to increasing the density that I just can’t
follow the logic and just won’t support that.
Everything else that’s in here feels very comfortable to me. I will say that I do not support the PTC’s
concept that we have a minimum setback of 12 feet. Again, I think that variation and compatibility are
City of Palo Alto Page 5
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 49 50 51 52 53
54
55
56
the key and I hear very clearly comments brought forward by the public that there are a range of
conditions and challenges for sites and each one needs to be evaluated on its own merit and in its own
basis within a range, and I’d like to confirm that I felt that the 9 to 15 foot was appropriate. I am
comfortable with an average of 12 to 18 feet, but that the limitation of a minimum doesn’t seem
appropriate to me. Thank you.
Chair Lippert: Board Member Gooyer.
Board Member Gooyer: There are a couple of things and one of the speakers said the same thing. I’m sorry, but I keep hearing this Grand Boulevard, but El Camino is a freeway. It’s six lanes basically and I
sure as heck wouldn’t want to sit there and enjoy a meal when there are three lanes of cars going by at
40 miles an hour; it just…I just don’t see it happening. There are other communities that have tried to
go to the same thing and most of the other ones have determined that the most important thing that
people want to do on El Camino is get from point A to Point B and they really don’t want to do that
walking. They want to do that driving. But having said that, the 18-foot width I think is inappropriate. I
think 15 feet is more than adequate.
I also agree that I don’t like the FAR reduction and I also agree that I don’t think there should be a
minimum setback. The other items in there I’m fine with.
Chair Lippert: Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I have some questions for staff. So I think in previous discussions we were talking about just CS and CN. I don’t recall talking that much about the CC zone. So I looked at the CC zones
and some of the ones around California Avenue and so I think that makes, I think I see the logic there.
The CC also includes things like the shopping center and Town and Country and maybe others and I’m
not quite sure we’ve all really sort of discussed that at that level and so you mentioned that there were
12 parcels, but I was wondering if you could just explain that further?
Ms. French: Well, so the California area, the Stanford Shopping Center and the (I’m getting my map
here)… Town and Country and Stanford Shopping Center, those are both I believe CC and so that is true.
They were provided noticed they are zoned CC; however, Stanford Shopping Center and Town and
Country are kind of a different animal.
Board Member Lew: Yeah.
Ms. French: In that they’re a shopping center. So that is a good point and though the trend in Stanford
Shopping Center has been to come farther towards the street and we have discussed the El Camino
Guidelines with respect to those, there has not been a build-to line for those and I don’t think it makes so
much sense on those. So certainly it would be good to note that in the ordinance, those two centers
(interrupted)
Board Member Lew: The shopping center has a cap, right? I mean they are at the cap and so if they
want to do more, they’re going to have to what, rezone? They’re going to have to come up with
something?
Ms. French: Tear something down.
Board Member Lew: Right, they’re going to have to do something significant to be able to do more.
Ms. French: Yeah.
Board Member Lew: And I’m not sure about Town and Country, but yeah.
Ms. French: Yeah. So we can make a reference in the ordinance to exclude those two shopping centers.
Thank you for pointing that out.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 49 50 51 52 53
54
55
56
Board Member Lew: And on the removal of the build-to line in areas outside of El Camino, I think I can
support that. And then I think there was just one little tiny area that I thought that popped out in my
mind, which was the College Avenue sort of in back of the College Terrace Center project. So I think the
idea, I mean I think the concept of removing the build-to line in areas like Midtown and Charleston
Center, whatnot, is that those areas have the special setbacks and then this one little block of College
there is I think many of the buildings are built right up to the sidewalk and there is no special setback there. So I was just pointing out that there’s a little anomaly there. And I don’t think the ordinance helps or hurts or anything. I mean it gives them, they still have the flexibility to do whatever they want there, but it’s just in previous discussions I think I had said that everything is all of the CN and CS are in
special setback areas and that, I just wanted to correct myself. That’s not quite the case. There are still
other streets such as Encina. I think there are still some little pockets of other zones. I had a question
for you. You’re prohibiting - you still want to prohibit parking in the required front setbacks?
Ms. French: Yes. The ordinance for Table 3 currently does that so it’s adding it to Table 4, which is a
mixed-use product.
Board Member Lew: And so my question is for hotels, does all that loading zone area - does that count as
parking?
Ms. French: Yeah, I think we really mean a parking space where somebody’s going to put their car and it’s going to stay there. I understand the porte-cochere is where I think we’re going with this. People dropping folks off at a hotel might want to use kind of a portico share arrangement.
Board Member Lew: Right, and so I was just saying that the loading area, I mean I think as I was
reading the actual language, you’re saying no parking or loading space.
Ms. French: Oh.
Board Member Lew: Whether required or optional should be located in the first 10 feet. And I think I
understand your intent and I agree with it and I was thinking on some of the other hotels that we’ve had
the Board’s been a little critical of having the entrances on the sides of buildings instead of on the front
facing the street and I think that this would sort of contribute to that.
Ms. French: Ok, so…
Board Member Lew: They are inclined, they are going to be inclined to put things on the side and I think
we’ve been criticized for not having, not requiring more entrances on the front face of the buildings.
Ms. French: So this would be a change to the existing ordinance. We haven’t suggested a change to that
existing wording. So are you suggesting that we consider removing the loading space from that wording?
Board member Lew: No, I was actually just asking what you were, I was just trying, I was asking for
clarification.
Ms. French: We just duplicated the existing language of the ordinance.
Board Member Lew: Got it.
Ms. French: From Table 3 to Table 4.
Board Member Lew: Ok.
Ms. French: Yeah.
Board Member Lew: And then…
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 49 50 51 52 53
54
55
56
Ms. French: Russ Reich made a point that this; there’s loading and there’s loading - loading of boxes,
UPS, and that kind of thing might be a different scenario than passenger loading, valet, this kind of thing.
Board Member Lew: Got it.
Ms. French: Yeah.
Board Member Gooyer: Wouldn’t it be easier then just to get rid of the wording? Rather than worrying about what kind of loading; is it loading of bodies or loading of boxes?
Ms. French: Yeah, I mean we could remove that prohibition of loading space so we can eliminate the
speculation and then just see what comes in.
Chair Lippert: Anything else?
Board Member Lew: I do have yeah a couple more things. Are we working on the five minute time limit?
Ok. I just want to comment that I did review the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) diagrams for
sidewalks and stuff, and then they I think they mentioned the four different zones of it and I think that
my hope was in increasing the sidewalk, effective sidewalk width that we would actually get an actual
furnishings zone, which doesn’t really work so well in 12 feet. And I think the ITE thing does support that, that in 12 feet you don’t really get any furnishing. There’s no buffer zone. It’s like between the sidewalk and the front door of the building. And I think we’ve had people complain about like sidewalks on University Avenue again like the cafés like things that they sort of spill out into the sidewalk and
narrow the effective walking area. And so I think that the extra width actually gives businesses more
flexibility in putting things out there.
And I think there’s been, I know some people are sort of very skeptical about El Camino becoming a
boulevard and I’m on the fence on this one. I do understand the skepticism and I think it’s well founded
here, but whenever I go down to Los Angeles (LA) and look at what they do on big four and six lane
boulevards, I’m actually always surprised at how much they do there with storefronts and how many
people are on Melrose or Sunset or Abbot Kinney, Culver City Boulevard, like they are not afraid of the
street and traffic as we are. Maybe because they don’t have much choice, as many choices as we do; I
don’t know what it is, but I think it’s possible to have a nicer street than what’s out there. I mean I think
it’s within the realm of possibility. And to the extent that this tries to refine that, I will support the zoning, this proposed zoning change.
And then my last question for staff is, I think you’re not asking for any recommendation at this time,
right? I think Chair you mentioned a Motion and I think we’re not it’s my understanding this is just a
discussion and that we still have a PTC/ARB meeting…
Ms. French: No, let me clarify that. Because we are…the April 9th meeting with the PTC wasn’t going to
be the joint meeting it was just going to be PTC making the formal recommendation to Council. So this
is really your opportunity today to make a formal recommendation to Council on the qualitative aspects of
this and the Planning Commission is technically the one to recommend an ordinance change. So we do
want to plan a joint meeting with the PTC/ARB, but I believe it’s going to be following the April Council
meeting where this kind of quicker ordinance gets adopted or is requested to be approved. And that
meeting would go over some other items that the ARB has been interested in, such as height at the other thoroughfares and maybe some of these qualitative drawings, to help the applicants to come forward with what we’re looking for.
Chair Lippert: Yeah I just want to clarify that it was mentioned earlier that we need to send a representative next to the PTC on April the 9th I believe it is. So while we’re not the acting body on it,
what we do have to do is formalize what our thoughts are and put it into some sort of direction that we
can go back to PTC with for their ultimate recommendation to the City Council. Correct? Ok, Board
Member Malone Prichard.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 49 50 51 52 53
54
55
Board Member Malone Prichard: Ok, first I want to say I’m absolutely opposed to that CN zoning
reduction of FAR for residential sites. I understand what they are trying to do is, they’re trying to
counteract any of the benefit one might get from a Density Bonus Law and I think that’s not in the spirit
of density bonus laws.
Couple of other things, we are still maintaining a side street build-to line in this ordinance and I think that’s something we probably should discuss at some point as to whether that ought to be eliminated because we are trying to create a wall along El Camino. I’m not quite sure what we’re trying to do on the side streets. Not a discussion for today.
Somebody had mentioned the meandering walk widths and I am in support of that. I don’t recall
whether that was actually in this draft ordinance or whether it would just end up in the guidelines.
Ms. French: Yeah we do put the words in the definition for effective sidewalk - just comfortable
pedestrian width - those words we used, instead of saying “meandering” because then it’s a qualitative
look by the ARB at how they accomplish that comfortable walking.
Board Member Malone Prichard: I would suggest that it be offered up as an option in the guidelines but
not the ordinance just to clarify it for future Board’s use for those who don’t remember this discussion.
So just wanted to clarify for the record my understanding is the current rule on El Camino Real is that a 12 foot is the minimum sidewalk width required. Is that correct?
Ms. French: Effective sidewalk. So yeah, the way the ordinance currently reads is “a 0 to 10 foot setback
in order to create a 12 foot effective sidewalk on El Camino Real.” And instead of defining it with words
the effective sidewalk width is shown in pictures in the context based guidelines.
Board Member Malone Prichard: That was my understanding. So I just wanted to let people know that
we’re not going to be requiring 18 foot sidewalks. This gives developers the option to have an 18 foot
effective sidewalk width if they want to. Because the way the ordinance is currently written they have to
build that 12 feet. So this is an option not a requirement.
And then I just have some very detailed things to go through. If we go to Attachment A in Section 2
where the definition of effective sidewalk widths, it states that it includes structural building columns as
long as they’re nine feet back from the curb. I understand what you’re trying to do there. I would take away the word structural because there can be columns there that aren’t actually structural.
Ms. French: Yeah I think the concept there was so folks understood it was that there was the overhang
and so they’re kind of needed.
Board Member Malone Prichard: Right.
Ms. French: But yes.
Board Member Malone Prichard: They’re needed but because they look right.
Ms. French: Right.
Board Member Malone Prichard: In the build-to lines in the, in Table 3 and also probably Table 4 we’re saying the wall percentage is based on context based design criteria and site context including land use, adjacent building context, lot size, and building design. I would like to expand that to adjacent and
nearby building context. Because a building two or three doors down may be important as well.
There’s also something left over I see it in Table 3 in the notes, Note #2 says, “Any minimum front street
side or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscape screen.” I don’t think that’s what
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 49 50 51 52 53
54
55
56
we’re trying to achieve on El Camino if we’re trying to get a wider effective sidewalk. So that’s just
something to look at and see whether that needs changing.
Ms. French: Again I think this is, this chapter was broadly written so that El Camino is different than this,
but it’s definitely not clear.
Board Member Prichard: Yeah, and I know what kind of properties they’re talking about; an office building with a big setback should have a landscaped front yard, but that’s not what we’re trying to do on El Camino.
There is in Table 4 the build-to lines applicable to El Camino Real only states that the front wall can be
placed within a range of 0 to 10 feet from the property line, but I think that’s only showing up in the
mixed-use table, not in the commercial only table. Is that on purpose?
Ms. French: Yeah that should be duplicated in both Table 3 and Table 4 to clarify. Again, and we’re
looking at primarily an upper floor zero setback rather than the lower floor setback, but yeah.
Board Member Malone Prichard: That was my understanding that was for both mixed-use and
commercial.
Ms. French: Yeah.
Board Member Malone Prichard: I think that’s just an omission.
Ms. French: It’s just it needs to be corrected. Thank you.
Board member Malone Prichard: And the next one is really esoteric, but it’s something that actually gets
discussed a lot in offices, believe it or not. Item 50 back to Attachment A, the first page of Attachment A
and the definition of effective sidewalk widths, it’s the width from curb to building face. The question
often comes up which face of the curb? The curb is six inches wide. And I think what we mean and
what we show in the diagrams is widths of the curb when you’re looking down on it. A curb is a six inch
wide strip of concrete typically. So I think what we’re talking about is the roadway face of the curb.
have had people try to tell me that it’s from the other face of the curb, which would push everything six
inches further in. So I think that should be clarified.
Ms. French: I think how we think of it is it’s the face of the sidewalk that faces the street. Yeah, it is
what we mean by curb.
Board Member Malone Prichard: Engineers don’t think that way.
Board Member Gooyer: There are a lot of people that consider there’s a curb and then the sidewalk starts
behind the curb.
Ms. French: Got it. Ok, yeah there’s…
Board Member Gooyer: So you have to be specific as to where…
Vice-Chair Popp: (Unintelligible) absolutely right about this.
Ms. French: Face of curb is what we say here, but it should be…
Board Member Malone Prichard: Face of curb facing the roadway.
Ms. French: Ok, facing.
Board Member Malone Prichard: Or adjacent to the roadway. Yeah. That’s all I’ve got.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 49 50 51 52 53
54
55
56
Chair Lippert: I need clarification on Page 17, the table there where it talks about maximum residential
floor area. In there under the CN zone it’s .5 to 1 FAR. Are we looking at going to .4?
Ms. French: That’s exactly what we were directed to do.
Chair Lippert: Ok because I’m in agreement with Board Vice-Chair Popp with regard to the idea of reducing residential density is antithetical to what our obligation is in terms of meeting the what’s defined in our Comp Plan as our housing allocation. And so if you look at that number there what we’re saying is that it’s a reduction of really 10 percent of the maximum allowable floor area of a building. That’s a big
chunk right there. And then for low-income housing developers and particularly having a greying
population, having senior housing also which can use the Housing Density Bonus Law, it’s not what the
intent is here. And so just right off the bat I would say you know if it’s market rate housing or other than
senior housing I’m ok with limiting it to the .4, but not for low income housing or senior housing and
especially with a greying population. They’re going to need to live closer to transit. So I think there
needs to be some sort of an exception carved out in that.
Where I think the fly in the ointment really is, is the blended rate that we get, which is, in this case
you’ve used .9 to 1 FAR. What happens with that blended rate is that they’re not required to build the
residential square footage. They can use, apply some of it to commercial square footage and in this case
what I would say is we really want the developers to build all of the residential housing and that that shouldn’t be that blended rate, really needs to be that .5 for the .4 to 1 FAR even if it carves into the commercial space. So it needs to be far more equitable. We need more housing. It’s the jobs/housing imbalance where we have more jobs to housing. Let’s get more housing in here. So right off the bat,
I’m not inclined to support a reduction in allowable floor area in the CN zone and I think that that needs
to be looked at much more closely.
With regard to effective sidewalk, I just want to clarify when you say effective sidewalk, it’s not the
concrete sidewalk width we’re taking about. I’m clarifying this for the members of the public here. What
we’re talking about is, it’s really both landscaping and sidewalk and anything else that should happen in
that space, correct? Ok.
And then just to clarify again we’re not talking about existing buildings, legally existing nonconforming
buildings that are built into that sidewalk width, it’s only if those sites were to redevelop or they have that
space. Is that correct?
Ms. French: That is correct. We are not planning to do any kind of amortization period for existing
buildings or anything along those lines. It’s only when a property owner elects to come forward with a
new building that would be subject to these changes.
Chair Lippert: Ok, so for Ms. May and Mr. Cintz I’m just clarifying, having staff clarify for you that this
really isn’t a taking your existing building. As long as it’s there in perpetuity you’re good. The minute
you sell the building or somebody redevelops the building, builds a multi-story building there or
redevelops the lot, that’s where that would happen. Staff is clarifying this for you and you can speak
again at the PTC hearing on this.
Ok so with that, what I’d like to do is move forward with direction that, and I see no reason that we can’t
send Vice-Chair Popp back if you’re available on the 9th? Ok. So what I’d like is a Motion just to clarify… huh? Want to make a Motion? Ok.
Vice-Chair Popp: Yeah I’d be happy to carry our Motion if there’s another Board Member (unintelligible) just taking notes.
Chair Lippert: Ok. Anyone else care to make a Motion that we can give direction to Vice-Chair Popp?
MOTION
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Board Member Malone Prichard: I will move that we recommend that this modified ordinance go forward
with the revisions that I stated. Do you have those recorded well enough so I don’t need to restate
them? And with the statement that the Board is not in favor of the reduction of FAR in the CN zone
which is currently in this draft ordinance.
Chair Lippert: Ok, do I have a second on that?
SECOND
Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second.
Chair Lippert: Board Member Gooyer. Do you have anything you wish to add to that?
Board Member Gooyer: No.
Chair Lippert: Any additions or any friendly amendments here? Ok. So let’s vote on the Motion. All
those in favor say aye (Aye). Opposed? Ok, that passes 5-0-0 and I appreciate you going back to the
PTC. Thank you.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0)
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXCERPT MINUTES
===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26================= 2 This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. 3 4 5 Thursday, February 20, 2014, Meeting 6 8:30 AM, Council Chambers 7 Excerpt Verbatim Minutes for Item 4 8 9 10 Members Present: Chair Lee Lippert, Vice-chair Randy Popp, Board Members Alexander Lew, 11 Clare Malone Prichard, Robert Gooyer 12 13 Staff: Amy French, Chief Planning Official; Russ Reich, Senior Planner; Diana Tamale, 14 Administrative Associate 15 16 Item 4: Architectural Review of a proposed Draft Ordinance modifying: (1) Chapter 17 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.16.060 to (a) address building 18 setbacks (the “build-to” line standard and context based design criteria) in the CN and CS 19 Districts and (b) reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units 20 are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 Section 18.04.030 to adjust the 21 definition of Lot Area in order to encourage wider sidewalks. The Draft Ordinance is scheduled 22 for Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation to Council on 23 February 26, 2014. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per section 24 15305. 25 26 Chair Lippert: Ok, so Item Number 4, Architectural Review of a proposed Draft Ordinance 27 modifying Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.16.060 to address 28 building setbacks (the “build-to” line standard and context based design criteria) in the CN/CS 29 Districts and (b) reduce the allowable floor area on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are 30 permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 Section 18.04.030 to adjust the 31 definition of Lot Area in order to encourage wider sidewalks. The Draft Ordinance is scheduled 32 for Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and recommendation to Council on 33 February 26, 2014. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from provisions of California 34 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). And I just wanted to make a note that when we do take 35 action on this today or make a recommendation today we will need a representative to go to 36 the PTC next week to present our recommendation. So with that if you’d like to introduce the 37 item Amy? 38 39 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, thank you Lee. So the item before you: there’s a staff 40 report there that had presented the background, and why we’re here now, and the past efforts 41 of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), as well as the joint meeting that was held last July 42 with the PTC to discuss the sidewalk issue in particular. This ordinance that is at places today, 43 and it’s also at the back table for the public, does go farther than that, as advertised, to address 44 the recent Council directive about the affordable housing sites along El Camino and elsewhere 45 that are zoned CN that have a restriction now proposed for the total amount of floor area. So
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
that’s kind of a sideline that came out of that recent Council. We’re folding that into this
ordinance because we’re addressing this ordinance at this time.
So the first item: I’m going to go ahead and take the first item that’s in the ordinance as a
question, I have questions for the ARB to help us focus this. And as you’ll notice in the draft
ordinance, we do have some highlighted areas and some places that are annotated for your
help. So the first item is, for lot area definition, would the modification of the lot area definition
help incentivize the dedication of additional sidewalk width? So the corollary on that as well is,
should this definition be broader to include the downtown commercial zone as well? For right
now what we’re focused on is just this one ordinance that is CN and CS and CC. Chapter 18.18 is where the CD zone regulations are located and we would have to come back and advertise
that separately, but it’s worth asking that question. Sorry, the lot area definition is contained in
Chapter 18.04 (which was advertised) so we could expand that as we think about the
downtown as well. So it wouldn’t have to be re-advertised.
So basically the reason for this, in this ordinance, was because we have a lot area definition
that talks about the lot area excluding the portion within a public or private street right of way whether acquired in fee, easement, or otherwise. So the thinking is that if people are giving
their property for sidewalk width, perhaps it’s an incentive to not reduce their lot area and
therefore their building size. So this is why we kind of proactively went after this piece of our
zoning code. So maybe we could just take that piece first as a discussion item and then move
to the next piece, or did you have another thought about how you might want to discuss this
and then get to the ordinance?
Chair Lippert: What I was hoping is that the subcommittees that were, the teams that were
actually broken up and looking at sidewalk widths would be able to report on what they thought
appropriate sidewalk widths were. Did any of the groups convene, I guess it was on the 6th of
February, or around there? Or have any discussions here? Alex you haven’t had a chance to… have you had a chance to think about it at all?
Board Member Lew: I did. So Randy and I did not meet, but I’ve been looking at sidewalks and
measuring them and stuff in the zone.
Chair Lippert: Do you want to illuminate on this a little bit about your thoughts?
Board Member Lew: Well, I think that Amy gets into it in some of it in the staff report. Which is
I think that there are, there were distinctions to be made between the different zones and they
were different and I don’t think it’s a one size fits all and I think there are situations where this
is partly designed, tied to building design. It’s not just narrowly focus on the sidewalk. But generally if you have a very wide frontage, something, greater setback or more stepping back
on the height of the buildings would be warranted. I think last time we met on the retreat I
think we were talking about some of the sidewalk widths and I actually went and measured the
Alma Village sidewalks and those are five feet with a five foot planting strip and maybe like a
whole foot of landscaping in front of the building. So that’s our, that’s like 11 feet. I think the
general consensus is that doesn’t look good and so, so generally it makes sense to go to me it
makes sense to go wider in locations like that.
Chair Lippert: Ok.
Board Member Lew: And then I would say just one last thing is I think that if we go back to the
Council memo, I mean they were sort of opening it up for the whole City, but if you look at the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
zoning map the vast majority of Palo Alto, the commercial properties, have the special setback.
And I think Amy mentioned it in the staff report is generally 24 feet, sometimes it’s less than
that. And then also areas in Midtown and Charleston have special zoning overlays or designations with uses like ground floor retail and so it really seems to me the focus should be
on… the thing that I’m worried about most about is actually El Camino, because we have lots of
CS zones and where it’s not near, not next to residential, there’s a 50 foot height limit. So I
mean to me that’s the area to worry about.
Downtown, it’s mostly, we generally have more smaller lots; there’s a lot of context that the
Board can respond to. But on El Camino, we don’t generally like the context and it seems to me it would be hard to hang it all on a context based findings if we don’t like, if we don’t
necessarily like the context. So it seems to me that having a more concrete fixed standard is
needed in that situation.
Ms. French: Yeah, one of the troubles that we’ve had on staff in trying to prepare a one size fits
all code here for adoption, recommendation, is that we do have older building stock along El
Camino. And so the hope, I guess, of the El Camino Guidelines was that eventually the buildings would come down, the ones that aren’t precious, and we gradually increase that
sidewalk width all along, but you will have situations where buildings will be there for the next
50 years. Some of those buildings will be there and they’re not going to go back to 18 feet for
a while as per the Grand Boulevard recommendations. I guess what it comes to here is that
somehow we need to be able to get to a point where we can say we have changes that will
mean wider sidewalks than 12 feet where they’re desired. And how do we – there’s probably a
longer process to determine where that 18 feet would be appropriate, but we have to have a code that allows for that, because right now with the build-to line the way it’s written it doesn’t
allow to be set back that far. So that’s kind of the quick fix that we’re looking at.
Board Member Lew: I just had a quick question for you. Maybe I might… I can, we can defer
this later if it makes more sense, but I was looking in the RT zoning for South of Forest Avenue
(SOFA) and then for mixed-use it says that the setback for commercial, mixed-use, residential,
and there are different setbacks and I think for the one for mixed-use it says it’s 15 feet, but it
could be reduced to 0 based on Planning staff and ARB recommendations. And I was
wondering we don’t get very many RT projects, but I was wondering if you thought that would
be a… is that a way to go for the zoning or is that too open ended?
Ms. French: Well, let’s see. If you, so the ordinance…yeah, I don’t want to be answering a
question with a question. But we do have the table. Ok, so I think if we focus on our Table,
Table 3, Table 3 and Table 4 are very much alike. First Table 3 is for non-residential only and
the second one is for mixed-use. They both have this range that allows 0 to 10 foot setback,
the purpose being in order to create an 8 to 12 foot setback. Now we are talking about that
should be gray, actually, to expand that to say 8 feet to 18 feet so it gives us a broader range
and then the question is when you say “based on context”? That’s where the ARB and staff have work to do. And can we identify some other factors? So we, down below under build-to
lines, we start identifying lot size as one factor and where wider sidewalks are desired, which is
to be determined where that is desired. There could be another factor such as land use. We’ve
had this discussion; if it’s a hotel do we want an 18 foot wide sidewalk or not? So I guess
helping on defining the criteria would be great if there’s a way to do that. It’s maybe a longer
discussion than just today, but the zoning code could say that it’s subject to criteria that we
continue to work on.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Chair Lippert: Yeah, we don’t have very much time because we need to move forward with
some sort of guidance that we can give Planning and Transportation whether we revisit the
item or not. I think that this is going to be a push/pull type of thing. So what we need to do is today formulate some sort of consensus here that we’re able to then give some guidance to the
PTC, have them take it in, decide whether they want to use it or not in their recommendation to
the City Council. So I think that any direction that we can give is going to be particularly
helpful. I really like what Alex has to say, but I’m interested in getting other Board Members to
weigh in and have a discussion on this. So Robert, why don’t you go next?
Board Member Gooyer: Clare and I did meet and I think we’re, I think a similar opinion that for in most cases a 9 to 12 foot wide sidewalk is sort of an ideal…
Unidentified man off microphone: Sorry, what was the numbers?
Board Member Gooyer: 9 to 12. And, but I happened to mention 18 feet. I don’t see any
situation where an 18 foot sidewalk is necessary. I mean that’s my own personal opinion. I
understand the whole grand concept, the Grand Boulevard concept, but I’m sorry, El Camino
Real is never going to be a Grand Boulevard. It’s not the Champs-Élysées where you want to
sit there and have a cup of coffee watching cars go by at 40 miles per hour. I mean it’s a
highway and it will never be anything other than a highway. But even for the larger areas that
I think that ought to be somewhere in this, we were talking maybe 12 to 15 and not 18 feet. Is
that it? That’s it.
Chair Lippert: Randy?
Vice-Chair Popp: Yeah, I have to say I’m absolutely in agreement with what the other Board
Members are already saying. You know the only thing that I would point out is one of the really
nice spaces in the area is Bob Peterson’s Menlo Center. That public space that’s out in front of that building that has some landscape area and the fountain and Cafe Borrone comes out to
that, it’s really very nice. And that’s much deeper than 18 feet. So there are exceptions where
something special might happen, but I think those are the exceptions and not the rule and I
appreciate your thought about 18 feet as a norm being too much and that the 9 to 12 seems
much more reasonable.
In terms of giving direction there were some specific questions that were asked in the staff
report and I’ll try and address a couple of those quickly. First, the build-to line in regard to the
two different directions on that, I’m definitely in favor of the one staff’s recommending, which is
Option 2. And I’m in favor of the changes proposed to 18.16 and in particular this B3E item. I
think we should as quickly as possible contract with Bruce Fukuji, am I saying that right, Fukuji?
For his study and recommendations to help support and guide us in this and I think that that’s
true as well for 18.04 when we’re talking about clarification for lot area in regard to Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) and how we’re going to handle that very delicate issue. And having some studies or concepts not just for sidewalk widths, but also in consideration of what amenities need to be
placed within those widths and how that might reduce or encroach or enliven the sidewalk
landscape would be really helpful to me.
There was a paragraph about outreach that was not really clear to me how we’re talking
about…let’s see if I can find that quick thing… oh, I’m sorry, on Page 9 of the staff report
you’ve got something about outreach and further study. And I think that the, there’s some just in the editing of that paragraph something got lost and I just wasn’t quite able to follow what
was there, but if you could just read through that and maybe that needs to be re-crafted, but
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
for me I think I’m very much aligned with the direction staff is headed on this and I think that
having Bruce help to bring some closure to this quickly is really a great way to go about it.
The last item I guess I wanted to point out is that on Attachment C where you’ve got your
really excellent table talking about all these different aspects and the pros and cons of them the
second to last page where you’re talking about the CD zone you made a great statement about
that seeming a little wacky to you and I think I just wanted to understand. What about that is
challenging for you or I’m just I’m not quite clear on the criteria about 640 Waverly and what
was happening there, but if you could… can I ask you to jump in and explain that?
Ms. French: Sure, I think the way the CD zone, which we’re not addressing today, but we can
just talk briefly about that again, is do we need to come back and look at the CD zone. The
way the CD zone is set up if you have a mixed-use project there’s a different front setback than
if it’s a commercial building and the wacky part, I guess colloquial use of that…
Vice-Chair Popp: Wacky is fine.
Ms. French: Is that it just seems odd to me that you would have a greater setback when it’s
mixed use than when it’s commercial because across from residential; so at 636 Waverley
there’s it’s a mixed-use, so it has to be deeper. If 640 Waverley came along with full
commercial it could be closer, but if they do come back with mixed-use, then they’re across
from residential and they’d have to get, they’d have to be deeper.
Vice-Chair Popp: So you’re absolutely putting an exclamation point on my concern, which is I think we need to be looking at all of this at the same time, not just the CS, but the CN and all
these things because…
Ms. French: Right.
Vice-Chair Popp: They are going to occur next to each other. We are going to have these
issues where one is in context and our whole goal here is to try and get an overall methodology
so that we don’t have to look for exceptions and we don’t have to look for, there are no
questions and there aren’t a lot of loopholes in this. And so I think that to the degree we can
we should put everything on the table all at the same time and solve this at once and…
Ms. French: Yeah, in concept I agree, but there’s certainly pressure to get something to the
Council. There’s a work plan, there’s this kind of thing. And so, El Camino - being that we’ve
been at that for a while and that’s strictly CS and CN with some CC thrown in and the build-to
lines where we’ve been seeing these Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) come forward, are
only applicable in the CN and CS - that was kind of the low hanging fruit, in my opinion. We’ve
had these DEE’s to the build-to line. I have to say there is good urban design reason for
maintaining a street wall, but we have to have some flexibility there. And so looking at, is that a maximum setback, so we don’t have buildings that are farther than 10 feet from the front
property line - is that a way to get to it? But there’s this thing about the 50 percent of the
building wall has to be at that zero lot line - the way it’s written now - and so it’s to try and free
some of that up, but not lose…you know, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Vice-Chair Popp: Absolutely in favor of the direction this is headed. I just think that if there was
a way to, I don’t know how you’d do this, is there a way to include some language that suggests that for projects of similar character in other zones, the same considerations might
apply?
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30 31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Ms. French: Yeah, and we can do that without touching this ordinance in particular. We can,
you’re saying, now we can set this up for the next chapter that we tackle - the 18.18.
Vice-Chair Popp: Ok.
Ms. French: We can set up the logic now, the reasoning, right?
Vice-Chair Popp: Great. Thank you.
Chair Lippert: Board Member Malone Prichard do you have any thoughts on sidewalks here?
Board Member Malone Prichard: Board Member Gooyer accurately described our conversation
that the 9 to 12 is typically a reasonable sidewalk width and it could expand to 12 to 15 along El
Camino. The 18 seems excessive especially given the depth of the lots that are there. Did
want to answer one of the staff questions about whether or not there is an incentive given to
property owners to provide more sidewalk if they don’t have to subtract that from lot area.
That’s not an incentive. No. It’s sort of a no harm no foul, but it’s not going to say great I’ll go
ahead and give you more sidewalk because it’s not going to come from my lot area. They’ve
got their lot area either way. So it’s not an incentive. It’s fair, but it’s not an incentive.
Ms. French: I think the concern that staff has is, if they provide a sidewalk on their private
property and the City wants to have the public walking on it, then because of the way the lot
area definition is written now, that it may be an interpretation to say that doesn’t count for lot
area for you and therefore you have to have a smaller building based on your lot area.
Board Member Malone Prichard: Yeah, I understand that. It’s not a fair interpretation to be
taking property and I think City Attorney has mentioned that there’s a legal issue with that as well. So yes, take it out, but don’t view it as an incentive.
I’m coming at this from a slightly different angle perhaps than other Board Members. I see that
we’ve got a problem with sidewalk widths because of the way the zoning ordinance was written
that required a build-to and we’re trying to fix that by changing some numbers. It’s just going
to be a different set of problems. I think what we need to do is either remove the build-to
requirement, and write some language that allows for architectural review to decide what the appropriate setback is, or we need to leave it the way it is and add exceptions for uses that
enliven the street. Because what you don’t want is a blank wall that’s 18 feet back from the
street. You want that space to be used somehow and not just be concrete sidewalk. But that’s
something you can’t put in the zoning ordinance specifically. You just can’t do it. There are too
many different properties out there, too many different situations. So I’m really not in favor of
tweaking the numbers because they’re going to be wrong again. They’ll just be wrong in a
different way.
Chair Lippert: Ok, well I’m the odd man here. I’m supposed to team up with Russ and
unfortunately the only time I had to meet with him was on a 980 Friday and you were already
gone. But with that, there are a number of things that I’ve heard here which I’m in agreement
with; first of all I think that the idea of building width dictating or beginning to talk about
setback I think is particularly important and hasn’t really entered into this discussion before and
it’s something to consider. I think that the Alma Plaza project, which I’ve yet to vote in support of on any front, has been an abysmal failure and part of it is the sidewalk. I love the idea that
there’s retail and a supermarket up on the ground floor there against Alma Street, but there’s a
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
wall there. There’s no visual connection between Alma Street and that market. And so in order
for there to be some sort of enhancement there, you need to have visual access. And so in
some ways when we talk about the use and the visual connection, the more visual connection there is really the closer it can be to the street and the sidewalk. The less visual connection
there is, the building should be forced to actually move back away from the street.
So I’m thinking about trends in architecture, if you look at the modernist, midcentury modernist
notion the building was an object, an extruded object in the middle of a site with parking
around it, it moved away from the street. In the postmodern era even the high-tech era, which
overlapped, it was building, taking the building and making it almost a neoclassical element or again an object. And so today, as we move into this movement of the building being an
environmental machine and looking at livable/walkable communities, the sidewalk and the
building need to interact and work together. And so I don’t think it’s a one size fits all scenario
and it is the use of that building and how that use complements the sidewalk that should
dictate that sidewalk width. If you take for instance Arbor Real, the failure of Arbor Real, I
mean Arbor Real is set back quite a ways from El Camino and from Charleston. That’s not the
fault of the placement of the building, even though repeatedly again and again and again it’s characterized as such. The failure of the building is that the residents there, the front doors
don’t adequately address the streets and give those buildings a street presence in essence like
a mews or like townhouses generally do in an urban environment. And so again it’s the use
that’s driving that relationship to that sidewalk.
And so there’re a couple of things that we can do to incentivize wider sidewalks and one of
them is that retail uses are important - that they actually come up and abut the sidewalk, whereas a commercial office use really in some ways should be stepped back away from the
street. Again, I think a residential element you want to have some sort of a buffer between the
sidewalk and the residence. So again, if it’s a ground floor residential unit or the entrance to
apartments above that should be setback away from the street to create that buffer, a
buffering. So I don’t think it’s a necessarily a one size fits all.
I am in agreement with Board Member Gooyer and Malone Prichard in terms of the 9 to 12 foot
sidewalk width. And what I would generally say is that there are situations where the property
line and the curb don’t have 9 to 12 feet, but those are required to be 9 to 12 feet right from
the get go. That’s the starting point. And so those buildings must step back, but there’re
opportunities for encroachment. One of them would be columns could encroach into that. I
think upper stories should still be forced to comply with the build-to line so that they’re right on
the property line and that in some ways maybe that’s where we look at the 50 percent is that
we look at upper level structures be forced to come forward to the property line. What we can
also look at is, we want to incentivize mixed-use buildings a lot more, so there’s going to be
more floor area, more density. Again, the ground floor we want that to step back, but with that
you get the added density. So I think again there’s not a one size fits all and I’m in agreement
with Vice-Chair Popp that we really need to look at not just El Camino Real, but we also need to look at the other areas in town and let this discussion happen based on not just El Camino Real,
but also Cal Ave., downtown, midtown, etcetera.
So with that why don’t we do this… first of all I’m going to open the public hearing. There are
members of the public that wish to speak to this item - you may do so. Mr. Borock if you would
like to speak you may do so and then just fill out a speaker card when you’re done and you’ll
have, I’ll give you three minutes.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Herb Borock: Thank you, I don’t think I’ll need that much. Board Chair Lippert and Board
Members (interrupted)
Chair Lippert: Turn on, is the mic on? Yeah, ok, great. Ok.
Mr. Borock: The (interrupted)
Chair Lippert: Lift the mic up please.
Mr. Borock: The discussion refers to 9 to 12 foot sidewalk. Well, that’s something to walk on and one of the Board Members talked about what use would be made; you need 9 to 12 feet so
you can use it for something. Well, if you want to privatize, take the public space and privatize
and say for tables and chairs for a business it’s no longer a sidewalk. And so the real question
you have to figure out is if you’re talking about a particular area where you want a certain width
of sidewalk, say a commercial area where you feel it needs to be that wide then it should not
be appropriated for private use.
The second issue my recollection is that what Council was concerned about were just those
properties that were being included in the list of properties to meet our Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) and those were required because of the size of our community to have a
minimum residential density of 20 units per acre compared to say 15 in the CN zone. So the
idea is that there was a bonus allowed in the Housing Density Bonus Law that it was the idea to
bring it down to what the number would have been without the bonus. So it’s only talking
about specific properties rather than all the properties in the zone district. And now this is sort of morphed into discussion first from dealing with the properties that would get an increased
density under the Housing Density Bonus Law in terms of floor area and worrying how to make
that not happen to referring to all the properties in those districts and now referring to all the
properties on all parts of the City because those properties in the City’s action on the Housing Density Bonus Law were focused on El Camino and it just seems to grow. I think the most
helpful thing to be would be to start with our award winning zoning districts many years ago
and see how they’ve changed, which has essentially been intensifying, which has created this
problem. Thank you.
Chair Lippert: Thank you Mr. Borock. If you would please fill out a speaker card and give it to
one of the staff members I’d appreciate it. Amy, do you have anything you’d like to add?
Ms. French: Yeah, I thought I would try to help a bit on the FAR piece, based on what the
speaker just mentioned. The FAR piece is strictly in this ordinance focused on the CN
properties, which was the action by Council. And so we’re not expanding that piece of this
ordinance to any other zone, it’s just the CN zone for the purpose and it’s kind of an add-on to
the ARB’s effort and the Planning Commission’s effort that has been ongoing for a while to
address the sidewalk width. Hopefully that clarifies it for the speaker.
Chair Lippert: Ok, so I will close the public hearing and will return to the Board and I’m going to
begin with Board Member Lew and why don’t we go through and simply discuss the sidewalk
width first and then we can talk about the 20 percent housing as a separate issue.
Board Member Lew: So I would actually argue that the sidewalks should be wider on El Camino,
more so than what I think the majority of the Board is arguing for. If you actually look at El Camino we’re not going to get - I think it’s doubtful we’re going to get - bike lanes on there.
It’s doubtful that we’re ever going to get, that there’s ever going to be a lane reduction or a
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
road diet. And if you walk on El Camino as I’ve done, you see actually most of the bicyclists are
actually on, are actually riding on the sidewalk. And in the places where we have the old
sidewalk width, which is whatever, I don’t know what it is, six feet or whatever, it’s just incredibly narrow. I think the 12 feet is working in some places, but the 12 feet is encroached
by a lot of storm water drainage and stuff in some projects. And at the Hilton Garden Hotel we
had a 12 foot sidewalk, but we also had a big portico share with big curb cuts and storm water
drainage. And to me it didn’t really all fit together very well. I mean it, they did it, but it’s we’ll
see, I mean it’s under construction now. But to me it wasn’t an ideal situation in that case.
There are definitely places on, where there are smaller lots where it seems, yeah, I would agree going wider than 12 feet doesn’t make any sense. But there are definitely locations on the
southern part of Palo Alto where I think we could go wider. And I think the other thought that
I have on the sidewalks is the planting. In some cities they are doing wider swales, and they
are actually draining instead of dumping everything in the storm drain - they are putting it in
the planter strips and the planter strips are very different than what we’ve ever seen in town,
but they’re…Mountain View has one on Grant Road. I know Phoenix and other places are doing
that. And I’ve worked on one project on El Camino where there was a storm drain issue and I know that College Terrace Center did a whole green roof to try to address the lack of storm
water storm sewer near their site, and so to me that’s another factor. We’ve seen, there’s
some projects like the Medical Foundation where they had a big raised planter right in front of
their building and that was partly to address the storm water issue. And so to me that’s a really
important factor and that should be included in this. It’s not clear to me like what’s the best
way of handling those situations and that’s something new that we haven’t really had to deal
with that much. It’s appeared on the AT&T building on Page Mill Road and also the Hilton Garden Inn. So I think that we should try to do something like make it a nice design feature,
not just squeeze it in these tiny little planting strips. So I think that was all that I have to say at
this time. Thanks.
Chair Lippert: Let me ask you a question here. If we started with the 12 foot wide as the
sidewalk, how much width would be too wide?
Board Member Lew: Effective sidewalk. We’re actually saying ‘including planting’.
Chair Lippert: Correct.
Board Member Lew: Right.
Chair Lippert: Yeah, so if we started 12 feet and you said, “Gee, it could be wider,” what would
you see as being too wide?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I would actually say that from the projects that I looked and were
shared at the retreat that 18 feet seems really wide. And I think that the Rail Corridor Study, which is saying 15 seems to me to be fair. It’s like a balance. And then in certain places where
there’s a greater context of everything is built at 10 or 8 or 10 or 12 or whatever there’s some
places say like near College Terrace where there is actually already a consistent street wall,
then I would just say maintain the existing context.
Chair Lippert: Ok, so you’re saying, I’m just trying to get a handle on this; so you’re weighing in
that somewhere between 9 to 15 feet would be appropriate as effective sidewalk where we say you have planting strip, sidewalk, and then some landscaping before the building starts?
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Board Member Lew: And I would actually agree that there are maybe a couple of places on El
Camino or could be even larger than 15. There are some on the Research Park side, which I
think people think are in the Research Park, but they’re not. Right? I mean there are some, a couple projects, lots that aren’t part of Stanford. So I would argue again, it’s just context that if
Stanford has 50 foot setback, then those projects might need to have something more. And
then again in my mind, I’m connecting buildings and sidewalks. Buildings and sidewalks are
separate (interrupted)
Chair Lippert: Ok, I’m just looking for a range that we can begin to hang each other’s discussion
on here. So Robert, Mr. Board Member Gooyer?
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I think if you’re going to do a range, I think 9 to 15 at the two
extremes is very reasonable. It shouldn’t probably be less than 9 and I don’t think it should be
over 15, unless you want to do something as you said, where the bottom floor backs up
because you want to do a larger seating area or something, but that is outside of the purview
of the sidewalk.
Chair Lippert: Vice-Chair Popp what are your thoughts?
Vice-Chair Popp: Yeah, I’m in agreement with the 9 to 15 dimension. I think again my concern
is what occurs within that space and how does that occlude movement/inhibit the use of that
space? And so again, I’ll go back to staff’s recommendation that we get some studies done and
we talk about what other amenities might be within that space and have some examples
prepared that really illustrate how we want that space to be used, but if you’re looking for just a specific range of numbers today, I think 9 to 15 sounds very reasonable.
Board Member Lew: Can I have a quick follow up for staff?
Chair Lippert: Sure.
Board Member Lew: So Amy, we’ve had a couple cases where Transportation or the County, I
think Transportation, would not allow street trees. And so I was wondering, I think that maybe
should be a factor. So if you have a really busy arterial road and no parking and there’s a
travel lane right against the curb and then they say, “Oh you can’t have trees,” then I think we
have to come up with some other design standard for that situation.
Ms. French: So I’m reading between the lines, subtext, is we’d want to have a greater setback
requirement when there’s no parking, and we want street trees, so that we allow placement of
trees farther back from the curb, since if we put it at the curb they won’t be able to grow with a
decent canopy of any kind, on one side at least.
Board Member Lew: Or something. Or there has to be a planted façade or whatever it is. But I mean it seems like or maybe there’s just a different standard altogether.
Ms. French: On the inside of the sidewalk or…?
Board Member Lew: I mean somehow in the history of cities, there are lots of beautiful cites
without any street trees so I don’t want to say that you have to have a tree in front of your
property, right? But then the building has to be better. So I’m just thinking there’s a… the projects on Page Mill Road - actually they are in process, I can’t mention them.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Chair Lippert: Board Member Malone Prichard.
Board Member Malone Prichard: So a range of sidewalk widths of 9 to 15 is a reasonable request.
Chair Lippert: Ok. I think I’m in agreement. I think that that is a reasonable request of
applicants. We’re not being abusive here and I don’t think it really represents a taking since we
do require landscaping onsite anyway. So my feeling about it is twofold. Number one, I think
we want to make it very clear to the recommending body that street trees are a very big
important element here, the landscaping…how, what the use of that sidewalk is. And if Caltrans is not permitting plantings or street trees on El Camino Real and the reasons being, my
guess is number one maintenance… you want to correct me here?
Russ Reich, Senior Planner: It hasn’t been Caltrans that’s been the issue on El Camino. It’s the
County on Page Mill Road. Being a county expressway, they have a seven foot minimum
distance away from the curb so the problem has been…
Chair Lippert: The County?
Mr. Reich: Page Mill is with the County, not with Caltrans.
Chair Lippert: Yeah, I don’t see that as much of an issue. What I’m concerned about is that
street trees incorporated into the sidewalks are particularly important. Landscaping is
particularly important. We do have the issue however of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, actually it’s not an aqueduct it’s a tunnel, running underneath El Camino Real and I know that that’s
problematic in terms of trees seeking out water. But I think that they’ve resolved that pretty
much. You just can’t go very deep underneath where those are.
With regard to the setback I think 9 to 12 feet is just fine. I think that there should be allowed
for encroachment into that effective sidewalk, meaning that as long as it’s on the property line I
think street furniture, columns, building… certain building elements are allowed. And I would
still encourage that the upper floors up to 50 percent be required to build to the property line.
Board Member Gooyer: Could we make it the face (interrupted)
Chair Lippert: You’ll get a chance to weigh in. So, and I think that it’s important in terms of
capturing the street and making the corridor a room and getting eyes on the street. I think
that’s particularly important. I also would incentivize that ground floor retail has the ability to
move up closer to the property line, whereas if it was ground floor office or residential, that
would have to step back or step away from the property line. And my thought about that on
the ground floor is that I think we have the ability to begin to memorialize retail, ground floor
retail and simply using that as an enforcement tool to say, ok if this is going to exist as ground floor commercial space where it’s located closer to the street, it can’t be office. It needs to
remain retail. And it’s fairly easy I think for a property owner or tenant to move that ground
floor façade back if they wanted to then put in commercial office space. They use that they
lose that ground floor office space, but they create a wider effective sidewalk there. And so
that’s the way I would simply approach it is that the use drives in some ways that sidewalk
width. Mr. Board Member Gooyer you had some thoughts you wanted to add to that?
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Board Member Gooyer: No, I was just going to say that, as far as the 50 percent requirement,
make it the face of the building as you said so that even if the first floor is stepped back the
second or third or whatever would allow that 50 percent to be met.
Chair Lippert: Vice-Chair Popp? You’re in agreement? Just nodding in agreement, okay. Board
Member Malone Prichard?
Board Member Malone Prichard: Regarding the retail coming out to the closer to the sidewalk, I
think it is great for retail to come out closer to the sidewalk. I would disagree that it’s easy to
remove square footage later when the use changes and I would also point out that our zoning ordinance already has very straight regulations on whether or not you can put office on the
ground floor if retail has already been there. So I don’t think we need to go there and modify
that. But I do agree that we should allow a smaller sidewalk when it is a retail use.
Chair Lippert: You know where I was going with that is that, because of the threat of more, we
had a threat several years back of commercial office poaching the ground floor retail in the
downtown. What the PTC basically did was they said, “Ok, we’re going to protect University
Avenue, we’re going to protect some of the side streets here, we’re going to seed portions of
Hamilton Avenue and Lytton and allow those to become ground floor office spaces.” And my
thought was that well, because we’re looking at the whole notion of sidewalks, what we could
do is allow for those façades to actually be closer to the street as retail, but once they became
commercial they would have to come back away from the street. And I know that a lot of the
buildings are actually supported by columns or… steel columns or other devices where the
façade could actually be pulled back away from the street different from the actual structural you know, so it’s a current wall system. It’s not a structural wall.
Board Member Malone Prichard: So the issue with that I think is that you’ve got a 6,000 square
foot building and now you want to change it, the ground floor, to office now you’re going to have a 5,000 square foot building I think you’ve taken away development rights from them.
It’s going to be hard for them to add that 1,000 square feet somewhere else in an existing
building. I think it’s a big can of worms you don’t want to go into.
Chair Lippert: Any thoughts from staff on that?
Ms. French: Well certainly there is that zoning, a piece of the zoning code, that talks about
conversion if it was retail. The language was written in a way that doesn’t, isn’t quite as tight
as it should be to preserve retail in the CS zone. Right, well there’s CN zone, there’s CS zone.
So we probably should, and we’ve had some concern in the past that maybe what was adopted
in 2001 in haste doesn’t have the kind of protections that people think it has, because of the
way it’s written. So that’s something probably we need to take a look at… I think it’s really
tough as a staff person, when somebody comes in for a Use and Occupancy Permit and if
commercial is allowed on the ground floor to say well, but your building doesn’t allow it so you can’t. It’s a trick. How do you write that into a code? I can tell you writing, trying to do
something that fits, with language in a code, is really tough. Again, because context and
existing uses, it gets very specific for each property that comes in and each owner. And it’s
tough to kind of try to write something, when you could write something to say for instance,
amortizing all of the existing buildings that are close, to say you must do retail there. We would
have a firestorm, because there’re people that already have office and what are you going to…
and then you’re going to say well the next use that goes in can’t do office anymore. I mean you’re kind of, that’s kind of a bit of a taking. You get into some legal trouble that way. So it’s
hard to craft.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Chair Lippert: Let me give you an overall picture where I’m going with this, ok? And I think
height plays an important factor into this. During our retreat, Vice-Chair Popp gave a very compelling presentation in terms of floor to floor heights and ultimate building height and what
was required in terms of mechanical systems and what was desirable. And, in that illustration it
really talked about having greater height when there was a retail use on the ground floor. And
the driving force - where I’m going is that, it’s not necessarily existing buildings or legally
existing nonconforming uses or existing uses and trying to flip them or change them. But I think
it’s the new development, because the opportunity here is that we could really benefit greatly
from more mixed-use buildings and with Planned Communities (PC) currently in a state of yeah, we pushed the pause button on it. I think that there are ways to begin to use allowable uses,
densities, some of the Bonus Density Law, additive floor areas and begin to manipulate that
whole issue along with the building height issue as to where we encourage density and
memorialize things like retail, ground floor retail uses. And by saying you want that extra
square footage at the ground floor level that approaches the street or approaches the sidewalk
there, abuts the sidewalk, well then you definitely have to have a retail use there. And with
that you get the added height, but it has to be ground floor retail. And then when you begin to add the other uses on the floors above you get greater density so what we’re doing is we’re
being proactive. We’re actually incentivizing and approaching more of a form code than we are
relying on development regulations. Any thoughts on that? Did I lose everybody or does what
I say make any sense?
Mr. Reich: As a staff person that implements the code, the issue that I see or something that
would need to be addressed is, I understand how that works for new development, but you have a lot of existing development that then suddenly becomes nonconforming. Or how do you
address that new development 10 years down the road when they want to change uses? And
suddenly you have this retail use and they want to go to office or something else that wouldn’t
be allowed to have those heights and then suddenly you have this building that’s not, obviously
you’re not going to modify the heights of the building to be able to change the uses. And then
that property owner is stuck into forever having this one particular use and that use may not be
appropriate in that location anymore as things change up and down the street, and we just
need to think though that very thoroughly.
Chair Lippert: Well, you know I appreciate what you’re saying, but if you apply everything to all
the zones then you don’t have a problem because everybody is the rules, the regulations have
been changed for everybody in that zone. So if you had a retail use and the building owner
wanted to convert over to office space, yes it might be problematic. Ok? However, if it’s office
space already and it’s just simply flipping and putting another office in there it’s still the same
legal existing nonconforming use and so it’s not a problem. It’s only when you begin to
introduce a change of use and that happens all the time. We do impose additional regulations
on new tenants when the use changes. If it was going say from retail space to a restaurant,
well if it’s over 800 square feet we require that they actually go to a different model in terms of the seating arrangement or they begin to sprinkler the building if it’s not already sprinklered.
That’s an example of another regulation that’s added. So do my fellow Board Members
understand where I’m going with this and understand or are they in agreement or not in
agreement or?
Board Member Malone Prichard: I’m in agreement for new buildings. I’m not in agreement as it
would affect existing buildings.
Chair Lippert: Ok. I think that’s fair. Board Member Vice-Chair Popp?
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Vice-Chair Popp: I agree with that.
Board Member Gooyer: So do I.
Chair Lippert: Board Member Lew?
Board Member Lew: I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but I think the situation’s much
more complicated.
Chair Lippert: It is.
Board Member Lew: And I don’t know, I think my hunch is that retail and development, the way
developments are being done, has changed so much that I don’t know that if that kind of
incentive is really going to take it where I think you envision it to go. I mean I think that, if you
just look at what’s being built now like the hotels and we have like Elk’s Club and private
schools and stuff on El Camino, I’m not sure that they would be so inclined to add retail. I
don’t know. I’m not a developer.
Chair Lippert: That’s a very good question. I think that the only thing that really matters here
are the new buildings, because frankly, the sidewalk and the building façade are already fixed
in place, so you’re not going to go in and where they’re renovating an existing building, the
building’s built. They’re just renovating the building. They’re not going to move the sidewalk.
Yeah, slice off five feet of the building. Yeah, unless it’s Menlo Park which did that on the west side of El Camino Real where it came and the reason why the movie theatres don’t have any
lobbies is that those facades were actually just sliced off to make El Camino Real wider and
that’s why the sidewalk is so narrow there. But (interrupted)
Board Member Malone Prichard: Sorry, go ahead.
Chair Lippert: Sorry, no go ahead.
Board Member Malone Prichard: I just wanted to just say that in all of my dealings with
developers, really the only incentive that gets them to do anything, is more square footage.
That’s what drives them. That’s what they’re all about. So if, and that’s why you’re seeing mixed-use developments in the CS zone, because you can build more square feet as a mixed-
use than you can as any other use. That’s why it’s happening.
Chair Lippert: Ok, so just I just want to find some sort of closure or direction on this. So if we
went back to the PTC for the time being giving guidance that we feel that a 9 to 15 foot
effective sidewalk is the direction that they should be looking at, are we in agreement with that
pretty much?
Board Member Gooyer: I think so, yeah.
Chair Lippert: Ok. And so what do my colleagues think about the idea of requiring that upper
floors come out to the build-to line, still require upper floors to come to the build-to line up to
50 percent of the façade?
Board Member Malone Prichard: I feel comfortable allowing it, but not requiring it.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Vice-Chair Popp: Exactly. I don’t think we can make that a requirement, but I think we could
encourage it.
Chair Lippert: Ok.
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I agree. That goes back to the same thing I said as far as the
whole face of the building becomes part of that 50 percent.
Chair Lippert: Ok. Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I think my answer would be it depends.
Chair Lippert: Ok.
Board Member Lew: I’m with you I think on the 35 foot height limit. I’m not sure I’m with you
on the 50 foot height limit areas.
Chair Lippert: Ok. Do we want to talk a little bit about the taking off the density, the residential
density, the 20 units per acre?
Ms. French: You can talk about it, but the Council has kind of given that direction. I mean
certainly adding value to the conversation would be great. I feel like there’s still other stuff to
do with respect to this context, the way we’ve set up in the ordinance to kind of fold in the
context based guidelines and if we could just get some input there. I mean definitely it’s
helpful to get that 9 to 15 foot, so we’re going from it used to be 8 to 12 feet and now it’s
going to say 9 to 15 feet wherever we have those - that range. So that’s clear. Maybe I could
go back and ask questions at some point when you’re ready.
Chair Lippert: No, go ahead. Please.
Ms. French: Ok. Alex had (interrupted)
Board Member Lew: I just had a quick one - so we’ve got the effective sidewalk width, but then
what happens where there’s a special setback? So I know you have your, you have it in your
table (interrupted)
Ms. French: Right.
Board Member Lew: So I guess the thing that’s in the back of my mind was, you know the
there’s a Middlefield project, Ken Hayes’ project on Middlefield right next to the Winter Lodge
and he was arguing, I mean it didn’t meet the 50 percent build-to line or it was an
interpretation?
Ms. French: I believe it was a DEE, a Design Enhancement Exception, because they didn’t get to
50 percent solid wall.
Board Member Lew: Right, it had a porch or something.
Ms. French: Yes, some kind of canopy that we counted.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Board Member Lew: I guess my question for staff is, what difference does it make? If you have
a 20 foot, that much of a setback and there’s no continuous wall, then what are we trying to
do?
Ms. French: Yeah, I don’t think these guidelines were written for the special setbacks. I think
they were written less specifically for El Camino, because they were taken from the El Camino
Guidelines that were prepared in 2002 to apply to El Camino, where we were trying to establish
that building wall as continuous as much as possible, given the fact that you have to have
driveways, etcetera. So yeah, the Middlefield example it’s wacky, to quote myself, but to have
that much that you have to put at 25 feet back, it’s sort of silly, right? Yeah.
Board Member Lew: So it seems to me like in your table like you just have them in separate
columns, right? You have special setback lines imposed by the special setback map and it
seems to me that there should be some sort of connection between the or some sort of
separation, or some sort of way to reconcile those two. Or maybe, I don’t know, maybe there
are situations where you want them both? I don’t know.
Ms. French: Right, so again to use a project, a real project that’s built, the Alma Plaza had a
special setback requirement along that roadway of 24 feet or maybe it was 30 feet. I think it
was 30 feet at that point. And so, but there’s no build-to line in that zone as it was PC,
basically all bets were off. There was no requirement for it to do the build-to. So anyways that
was through the PC process to have that come closer. If that were a CN on Middlefield again
with a build-to line in place for CN districts, which again was written more for El Camino, but it
does apply still for any CN zone property. We could probably go into this ordinance and say we’re really talking about El Camino here, because there’s other - I listed all the streets that are
CN, right? There’s CN on Antonio, and CS. There’re lots of roadways here and some of those
are impacted by that special setback. So the build-to line kind of allows you to violate the
special setback if you will by saying put it 0 to 10 feet from the property, front property line
you’re saying you can now violate that 24 foot setback because we’re requiring you to put it
there.
Chair Lippert: I just want to put some legs on the whole notion of the special setbacks. That
the idea I believe when that was implemented was that we were more of a car oriented society
and that the idea was that the City wanted to be able to hold the option of being able to
eventually widen Middlefield Road in order to create more of a either Alma Street or something
that was more of an arterial in this City. Since then, I think everyone has pretty much set on
the meandering notion of Middlefield Road and that it’s not really an arterial. And I believe that
the same thing occurred on some of the downtown streets where we had special setbacks and
the idea was that, at some point, Bryant Street would be widened and made into more of an
arterial street. So that’s where a lot of the special setbacks actually come from, even though
it’s not described in that manner.
Ms. French: Yeah, I think the special setbacks is something that kind of makes us glaze over
and probably needs to be handled in a future, separate discussion just because we have to go
back to the origins, and see if there is any reason to keep them around and all of that. I mean
for instance, in the Research Park, you have 50 feet setbacks. You know? Let’s say that was
Page Mill Road or some other streets. Do they really want to have that wide of a roadway, or is
some of that because they want that green front lawn look, which is no longer sustainable, but
there might be other reasons for that special setback besides roadway that we’d have to do some more study about.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Chair Lippert: But just to get around that whole discussion of special sidewalks because that’s
not part of this is, that it doesn’t affect our recommendation here because we’re looking at a
minimum effective sidewalk width here. And so the special setbacks are actually outside of that.
Ms. French: Yeah, I think it’s only if we eliminated the build-to line then it would rear its head,
the whole special setbacks thing, because then we’d be looking at again the missing teeth by
observing the special setback. Yeah.
Chair Lippert: Good, good catch there. I like that. Missing teeth, pumpkin teeth.
Vice-Chair Popp: I understood that there are five specific things that you wanted us to give you
some input on, ok? Build-to line including the sidewalk widths; I think we’ve talked about that.
Lot area clarifying FAR should not be taken. Setback by land use. Overhang concept, I think
we talked about that and street trees I think we’ve addressed that. So I’m comfortable saying
go ahead to Council with the information, I’m sorry, Planning Commission with the information
that you’ve got here and with the one very clear statement from me that we need to get Bruce
involved. We need to get some examples made, we need to get some precedent evaluated and
really clearly exhibit for people what it is we want to have happen, but there’s nothing here
that’s challenging for me at this point and I think that we should try and move this forward
quickly so that we get rid of all the confusion and the swirl and the loopholes and get some
clarity and direction for people so that we don’t have to go through this on project after project.
Let’s just do it.
Ms. French: And since you’re going to appoint somebody to come to PTC to explain why not 18
and 12 at this point where we’re identifying this range, to be followed by further understanding
where that applies along El Camino in particular with Bruce Fukuji’s help perhaps, and then we
get a Council contract approval of a contract for a consultant to help.
Vice-Chair Popp: And I think we can probably go to Planning Commission and tell them what it
is we’re interested in, give them a narrative of why we want it and then get Bruce to further
illustrate that as we go forward, but we don’t need to wait for Bruce in order to take care of
that.
Ms. French: Sure. So I’m just, you know right now we have it kind of quasi-set for
recommendation to Planning Commission, but I’m feeling like we might want to pull back on
that and have the first meeting next week with them as a more discussion and to be continued
to come back with further amendments if they take that up and want to have further
discussion.
Chair Lippert: I don’t have a problem with that. I just want to make sure that they understand
where we’re at and that it’s beginning to boil or bubble and simmer, but it’s not soup yet. Not stone soup. Would you like to weigh in a little bit about what Randy has just contributed?
Board Member Malone Prichard: I like that he’s distilled it back down to the five things we’re
supposed to be talking about because this is a huge topic otherwise. I think we did deal with
the build-to and setback, sidewalk widths, and the lot area. I’m not sure setback by land use
we really addressed except that we all agreed that it should vary by land use and I was hearing
we should either require or allow upper floors to overhang out to the property line; was that to the property line or was that to the build-to line? Street trees are important and that’s a Bruce
Fukuji thing.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Chair Lippert: Board Member Lew do you have anything to contribute?
Board Member Lew: No.
Chair Lippert: Board Member Gooyer?
Board Member Gooyer: I’m fine too.
Chair Lippert: Ok. I just want to try to understand here a little bit since we’re talking about use and setbacks and effective sidewalk width so are my colleagues in agreement that if it was a
retail, ground floor retail use that in fact a 9 foot, something closer to a 9 foot sidewalk width
would be acceptable because we want to get people excited about the retail that’s going on
there and that if it was a different use that it would then be more of a 12 foot effective sidewalk
width? Is that what we’re saying here?
Board Member Malone Prichard: I think it is, but I think it’s important to state whether we’re
talking about allowing them to come to nine feet or requiring them to come to nine feet. And
I’m in favor of leaving it up to the applicant to design their building appropriately, but allowing
them to come to nine feet if it’s retail.
Chair Lippert: Ok, when it comes to use and zoning that’s really the PTC’s purview. So what I
would do is I would give them some guidance here and then allow them to weigh in and sort of
thresh that out and then maybe when the soup is closer to being ready when there are ingredients we can finalize our recommendations here.
Ms. French: If I might just weigh in on that? So if just for, because of building form really,
which is your area of expertise particularly, if you have a nine foot sidewalk for retail then we talked about the upper floors being at this 50 percent. Do those also continue on this nine foot
even though they’re office or do we have those ones step back to the twelve foot or whatever it
might be? These are other kind of questions that come up for me when I think, well we allow it
to come forward, but is the, you know, if it’s a 50 foot wide building are the upper floors also at
9 feet? And then that’s going to protrude forward. I guess it’s a question.
Chair Lippert: My (interrupted)
Board Member Malone Prichard: That’s what architectural review is for.
Chair Lippert: Yeah. My feeling is that I prefer… there’s a reason why we have a build-to line,
but it’s getting in the way of what’s happening at the ground floor plane with sidewalks.
Sidewalks don’t happen at the upper level. And so my thought is that you still encourage the
build-to for the upper stories particularly and I’m looking at either curtain walls, balconies I think work well, and it doesn’t need to happen at all the floors. It could step back when you
get to the third floor, so.
Vice-Chair Popp: I guess I’m not interested in being dictatorial about these regulations, right?
Each project stands on its own. We need to evaluate each one as an individual piece. The one
certainty is change and if someone designs a project for retail today there’s no guarantee it’s
going to be retail five years later. It could become something different and so I think what’s important is to recognize part of the reason the ARB exists is to help evaluate buildings and to
look at all of these different variables and setting one set of rules that is so precise I think is
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
going to be very problematic and that’s something that Planning Commission needs to
understand clearly is that we’re entrusted with managing some of this and design and character
are something that needs to be assessed on a site by site basis.
Chair Lippert: Ok, so it’s now 20 of twelve. What I’d like to try to do is at this point get a
Motion and that captures the discussion that we’re having today and while that is not a formal
action or recommendation to the director it is guidance or talking points to provide to the PTC
so that they can have their discussion and hopefully this can return to us and we can continue
the discussion and fine tune some of this.
Vice-Chair Popp: Is that a Motion?
Chair Lippert: No, because there’s no content. I want to make sure that we capture the
content. So what I’m looking for is a consensus of agreement. So if there was a member here
that wants to make that Motion? Ok.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Popp: Ok, I can try. I’d like to move that we move forward to a discussion with the
Planning Commission with the five elements that are requested for comment and discussion in
the staff report with the direction established today by the Board including recommendation for
a 9 to 15 foot sidewalk width, lot area modifications should not reduce FAR, that setbacks by
land use could be variable and need to be evaluated on a project by project basis, that building
overhangs may extend to the build-to line, but don’t necessarily have to, and that street trees wherever possible should be encouraged as part of the sidewalk landscape.
Chair Lippert: Well done. Do I have a second on that?
SECOND
Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second.
Chair Lippert: Ok. We have a second on that. Any discussion? Ok. I just want to say as Chair
here I have to apologize for being so forceful here, but if we don’t get moving on this
somebody else is going to tell us what to do and so I want to make sure that we weigh in on this and we do it in a measured and thoughtful way and so I really appreciate your
perseverance with this. I don’t like making anybody do anything, but it really has to get done
and it has to get done expeditiously. I’ve had a couple of conversations with Planning and
Transportation Chair Mark Michael and I’ve told him that we are sending a representative
forward and that we are making progress on this. And so it’s important that we deliver and we
make that feedback and that guidance very deliberate and measured in this case. And so what
I see as the follow up actions are that we then agendize a follow up meeting getting the feedback from the PTC, we take a couple of more meetings probably to formalize that and
incorporate the discussion of height, we then have a joint meeting with the PTC in which we
begin to formalize the recommendations with them and we can actually agendize it and do it in
a way that both boards can take action. And that we move forward at that point with a
recommendation to the City Council and we do right now we’re trying to get a joint meeting
with the City Council and perhaps we make our final recommendation or presentation at that
point.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36
37
38
39 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Vice-Chair Popp: The only thing I might add to that very appropriate list is outreach meetings,
which were identified in the staff report. I think there was a timetable for that and it looked
like there might be an opportunity for some CN and CS property owners to weigh in on the process and give us some feedback and I’d like to get that earlier rather than later.
VOTE
Chair Lippert: Ok, well maybe when that returns to the ARB. So with that why don’t we vote on
the Motion. All those in favor say aye (Aye). Opposed? Ok, that’s unanimous and I will ask
Vice-Chair Popp to make the presentation to the PTC next week. Ok? Ok, thank you very much.
MOTION PASSED (5-0)
Recommendation
Staff recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and discuss the concepts
for a draft ordinance (Attachment A; this was provided at places):
(1) Addressing the build-to-line requirement for sites within the CN and CS zone districts
found in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16, Section 18.60.060, to clarify
that:
Buildings may be placed farther back than: (a) the required 12 feet from the curb
along El Camino Real and (b) the required 8 feet from the curb along other
thoroughfares; and
To allow more flexibility in how much of the front building wall must be located
at the setback line, with respect to the rules for building wall filling 50% and 33%
of the main and side street frontage at the minimum setback line (particularly, as
applied to large parcels with potentially long building walls at the setback line).
(2) Addressing the Context Based Design Criteria Considerations and Findings found in
PAMC Section 18.60.090 (b), item (2) Street Building Facades, to modify sub-item (H)
upper floor placement, and item (3) Massing and Setbacks, to modify sub-items (E) and
(F); specifically:
(2)(H): currently calls for upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the
neighborhood; add that the ground floor may be set back farther than the upper floors when a greater first floor setback is established to provide a wider
sidewalk;
(3)(E): currently calls for a 12 foot sidewalk width on El Camino Real and an 8
feet sidewalk width elsewhere; to note that an increased width may be appropriate based on context, given a desired sidewalk width range of ‘12-18
feet on El Camino and 8 to 12 feet elsewhere’; and
(3)(F): currently calls for a majority of the building frontage located (exactly) at
the front and side setback lines (to achieve a continuous street façade at the
build-to-line); to build in flexibility based upon context, so that the majority of the
front building wall is placed within (specified setback such as 20 feet) of the front
property line (unless subject to special setback).
(3) Reducing the allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are
permitted at 20 units per acre, also in Section 18.60.060 of Chapter 18.16; and
(4) Modifying the definition of lot area, in PAMC Chapter 18.04, Section 18.04.030, to
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29
30
encourage provision of wider sidewalks.
Architectural Review Board Action: Vice Chair Popp moved seconded by Board Member Gooyer to move the ordinance for discussion with Planning Transportation Commission (PTC)
and bring back the ordinance with Commission comments for more discussion with the Board.
The Board also requested a joint meeting with the PTC and requested that the discussion
include building height among the topics discussed. Briefly, the ARB:
1. Supports a 9 to 15 foot sidewalk width, face of curb to building, where the 9 foot width
would be appropriate for retail uses.
2. Does not support a requirement for a continuous width of 18 feet along El Camino Real. The ARB suggested the City retain a consultant to provide visual examples of sidewalks
and concepts for amenities to enliven the area in front of buildings.
3. Supports the proposed lot area definition change to allow applicants to provide
additional sidewalk width on private property and not deduct the area removed from
private use from the lot area available for calculating building square footage. However,
the ARB does not consider this an incentive (noting that only additional floor area would
be an incentive).
4. Supports including land use among the criteria for context to determine on a project by
project basis whether additional sidewalk width is needed and allowing discretion for
ARB determination.
5. Supports removal of the build-to-line requirement to allow the ARB to determine
appropriate setback in each case, or retain the build-to-line requirement and allow
exceptions for different land uses.
6. Supports encouraging or allowing building overhangs on upper floors extending to the build-to-line to meet the 50% building frontage requirement, and allowing the ground
floor to be set back further to provide a wider sidewalk. The ARB also noted there is a
height relationship that should be included in the discussion.
7. Supports encouraging street trees as part of sidewalk landscaping.
Vote: Approval, 5-0-0-0
City of Palo Alto Page 21
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4725)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Meeting Date: 4/29/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: FAA Metroplex EA
Title: Discussion and Direction to City Manager Regarding City of Palo Alto
Response to the FAA Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Regarding the
Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the
Metroplex (NorCal OAPM)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
On March 25, 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released for public
review and comments a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) on potential actions
involving the airspace management for flights in the Northern California
Metroplex area. This project involves changes in flight routes and altitudes in
certain areas and in particular for aircraft arriving and departing from the four
major airports in the Bay area: San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Sacramento.
The proposed action does not require an increase in the number of aircraft
operations or involve additional aircraft landings. Over the past few years, the
FAA has been implementing airspace management programs nationwide and the
Bay area is one of the last regions to be implemented. The FAA has stated these
programs are necessary for flight safety as well as fuel economy.
This program is unrelated to the potential flight path change proposed last
December by Surf Air that a number of community members were concerned
about.
The original deadline for public comments on the EA was April 24. However, the
City joined with other agencies to urge the FAA to extend the public comment
period, and to provide critical information regarding airplane altitudes
(Attachment A, B and C). Staff believes the FAA should provide the altitude
information.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
At the special request of Congress members Eshoo and Speier, the FAA has
extended the t comment period to Sunday, May 4, 2014. The requested critical
information has still not been released. Therefore, there is no way to evaluate the
aircraft position/elevations over the City of Palo Alto (i.e. possibility of lower
altitudes and increased noise impact). In an abundance of caution, the EA
comment letter (Attachment D) was sent on Thursday April 24, 2014. The
recently announced extension of public comments to May 4 allows for Council
and public discussion, as well as the opportunity to amend the original comment
letter.
The full Environmental Assessment of the project can be found at
http://oapmenvironmental.com/norcal_metroplex/norcal_docs.html.
Attachments:
Letter from Palo Alto Mayor Shepherd to Secretary of State Transportation Foxx (PDF)
Letter from Congresswomen Eshoo and Speier to State Secretary of Transportation Foxx
(PDF)
Letter from San Francisco Community Airport Roundtable to FAA (PDF)
EA Comment Letter from Palo Alto City Manager to FAA (PDF)
-+
SF�
COMMUNITY
ROUNDTABLE
April 3, 2014
NorCal OAPM EA
Federal Aviation Administration
Western Service Center-Operations Support Group
1601 Lind Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98057
San Francisco International
Airport /Community Roundtable
455 County Center, 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
T ( 650) 363-1 853
F (650) 363-4849
www sforoundtable org
Re: Extension of OAPM Environmental Assessment Public Comment Period
This comment is in reference to the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) released on March 25,
2014. The release included all chapters of the DEA and technical reports except the Design &
Implementation Team Technical Report, which contains details to the enhancements of IFR
procedures. This report was released on March 31, 2014. While the Design & Implementation Team
Technical Report shows the anticipated procedure way points, it does not show altitudes of the new
waypoints or the latitude/longitude of these new locations.
At the April 2, 2014 regular meeting of the SFO Airport/Community Roundtable (Roundtable), the
group asked the attending FAA representation for additional design information be made public during
the comment period, including altitudes of the way points and the procedure approach and departure
plates. Should this information become available during the comment period, we anticipate the existing
30 day comment period will be inadequate to review the changes. We respectfully request a comment
period extension of 60 days in anticipation of reviewing the waypoint and associated altitude
information.
A key part of the Roundtable's mission is to continually abide by Article II Section 5 of its
Memorandum of Understanding, "that the Roundtable members, as a group, will not take an action(s)
that would result in the "shifting" of noise from one community to another, related to aircraft operations
at San Francisco International Airport." It is our intention to fulfill this article for our stakeholders in San
Mateo County and the City and County of San Francisco through a thorough review of the DEA in its
entirety, including technical reports.
RD:4
Cliff Lentz
City of Brisbane
Chair, San Francisco Airport Community Roundtable
Working together for quieter skies +