HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-26 City Council (13)City of Palo Alto8
TO:HONORABLE cITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE:
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 26, 1998
REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ARASTRADERO
COMMITTEE; A COMMITMENT OF FUNDING
CMR:406:98
OF THE
GATEWAY
FROM THE
ARASTRA FUND; AND REFERRAL OF THE SITE AND DESIGN
APPLICATION FOR THE FACILITY AS WELL AS A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE TO
ZONING REGULATIONS TO CHANGE THE SETBACK
RESTRICTION ON ARASTRADERO ROAD
REPORT IN BRIEF
In July 1997, Council directed staff to work witha consultant and members of the public to
develop a plan for a new, modest gateway facility at the Arastradero Preserve, consistent with
the Arastradero Preserve Master Plan, and no larger than 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. This
report forwards a site and design application for such a structure, prepared by the Bluhon
Planning Group, to Cou~acil for review and action. A ten-member task force, representing
Preserve users, park rangers, conservationists and neighbors developed the conceptual plan
through a series of task force meetings and community forums. Incorporating ideas from a
broad range of users by consensus, the plan envisions an unobtrusive set of three small
structures, close to the existing Preserve parking lot, situated on the natural slope of the
hillside. The gateway facility would provide a meeting and informational place for visitors
and students, a storage area for work tools to be used by volunteers on trail restoration,
restrooms and a small office for the park ranger or steward. Construction of the building is
estimated to cost $289,756 and will be funded from the Capital Improvement Budget, with
reimbursement from the Arastra Fund and other donations.
The plans are ready for referral to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board
for their review and approval. Together with the site and design application, staff will also
ask for revision of zoning and Comprehensive Plan regulations to change the current set back
along Arastradero Road from two hundred feet, to seventy, five feet.
CMR:406:98 Page 1 of 4
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
Approve the recommendations of the gateway task force committee and refer the
attached site and design application to the Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Boards for review and approval; and
Q
Approve the recommendation of staff to refer to the Planning Commission an
amendment to the zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan, which would reduce
the set back restriction along Arastradero Road within Palo Alto, between Page Mill
Road and Alpine Road, from 200 to 75 feet.
BACKGROUND
On March 16, 1998, staff reported to Council the progress of the Arastradero gateway task
force (CMR:335:97). The committee concluded that the facility should provide space and
amenities for visitors and volunteers to gather and learn about the Preserve, and conduct
habitat restoration and maintenance projects. The modest facility should provide for flexible
use and include space for classes, small .meetings and lectures associated with Preserve
activities. Space for monitoring and research of restoration work on the Preserve and limited
storage space was also suggested.
Subsequent to the status report, the committee held three task force meetings and one public
workshop to discuss the siting of the facility and consider alternative building designs.
Through the facilitated task force meetings, the .committee reached consensus on how to
configure the facility to provide meeting space for up to thirty people, work space for
occasional use by rangers or the steward, and an indoor storage area for equipment and
supplies. The public workshop then provided the opportunity to discuss the committee’s
recommendations for the site and building design. Suggestions from the public were
considered in developing the attached fmal draft design.
DISCUSSION
Consistent with design guidelines for development in the Open Space Zone, the task force’s
draft design integrates the gateway into the natural landscape, with minimum visual and
ecological impact. The facility design is simple, natural and accommodates flexible use.
Ecological design principles incorporated into the design will help to conserve resources and
minimize maintenance costs, while at the same time educate visitors. The complete design
goals, program and uses for the gateway facility were summarized by the design consultant,
Bluhon Planning Group, and are attached as Attachment B.
There is complete consensus from the task force as to the need for limited facilities in the
Preserve, which would include a restroom, emergency shelter and equipment and tool shed.
One member of the task force.has voiced her concern that, while having a meeting room and
office would be nice amenities, she is concerned that money from the Arastra Fund which
could be used for trail.development and restoration in the Preserve, would be diverted for
CMR:406:98 Page 2 of 4
building the facility. Staff feels, however, the park and building infrastructure management
study adequately allocates new funds for maintenance of trails in the Preservel
,Set Back Issue
A key component of the draft design is the recommended site for the structure. Situating the
building along the Arastradero Road corridor close to the existing parking area would
accomplish the following task force objectiv,es:
Concentrate buildings in an area that has already been developed in order to prevent
impacts on undisturbed areas of the Preserve.
Prevent the need for a fire/medical access road, which would be required if the
structure were over 75 feet from Arastradero Road.
Make the facility visible from the road inorder to function as a "gateway," but not so
visible as to be obtrusive upon the landscape.
Provide convenient access to the facility for all visitors, especially the disabled.
The Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations presently restrict building within a two
hundred foot set back of Arastradero Road within the open space district. This restriction was
intended to reduce the visual impact of buildings along scenic corridors, such as Page Mill
and Arastradero Roads. Unfortunately, however, since most of Arastradero Road between
Page Mill and Alpine Road is situated in a valley, situating buildings at least two hundred
feet from the road can have the detrimental effect on most of the parcels of making the
buildings more visible and causing more intrusion into the landscape for the construction of
access roads, than at 75 feet. For this reason, staff recommends a reduction of the set back
along Arastradero Road from two hundred to seventy-five feet. The proposed change of set
back would affect four parcels in Palo Alto: the Arastradero Preserve, Portola Riding Stable;
the Bressler property and the American Research Institute.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The cost to design and construct the proposed facility, including sewer and phone utility
connections, has been estimated by the architect to be at least $289,756. This amount takes
into account an inventory of building materials that were salvaged from the former house and
barn on the Preserve, and that have been integrated into the design of the building. Costs
might be further reduced by the use of volunteer labor on certain portions of the facility
construction or. landscaping.
Funds for the project are proposed to come from the 1999-2000 Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) Budget. Full reimbursement to the CIP fund will be sought from the Arastra Fund, the
Palo Alto Recreation Foundation and from individual contributors. The balance of the
Arastra Fund is $510,000. After deducting $160,000 for the four remaining years of the
agreement with Bay Area Action for steward services for the Preserve, there is a balance of
at least $350,000 which could be earmarked for construction of a gateway facility and other
park improvements. The task force believes that a community fund raising drive would
successful in raising approximately $100,000 so that only $189,000 would be needed from
CMR:406:98 Page 3 of 4
the Arastra Fund to pay for gateway construction costs. The construction of a gateway facility
would have operating budget impacts as well. While park ranger staffing at the Preserve
would not change, there would be a slight increase in operational expenses estimated at $800
annually for janitorial and office supplies. Sewer costs for the restrooms are estimated at
$1,200 annually.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Staff’s recommendation is consistent with the Arastradero Reserve Master Plan, and With
the direction of Council at its April 28, 1997 meeting. Changing the building set back along
Arastradero Road within Palo Alto, between Page Mill Road and Alpine Road, will require
amending the Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations.
TIMELINE
After review by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board, the site and
design application and attachments will return to Council for final approval by February
1999. Funds for final architectural design and construction, if later approved, will be
expended in the 1999-2000 Capital Improvement Plan Budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Subject.
to CEQA requirements. An Environmental Impact Assessment will be prepared to evaluate
the impacts of the project as pai’t of the Site and Design review process.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Draft Site and Design Application.
Gateway Facility Task Force Report
PREPARED BY: Greg Betts, Acting Superintendent, Open Space & Science
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
PAUL THILTGEN
Director, Community Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:406:98 ’Page 4 of 4
DRA.FT of THE FINAL REPORT
Consensus Design Recommendation for the
ARASTRADERO PRESERVE GATEWAY FACILITY
To be Ratified by the
Arastradero Gateway Task Force
October 20, 1998
Prepared by
Arastradero Gateway Task Force
Prepared for
City of Palo Alto City Council
Arastra Fund Committee
Consensus Design Recommendation for the
ARASTRADERO PRESERVE GATEWAY FACILITY
Draft Table Of Contents
Ratification ............................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgments ..................i .............................................................................................ii
Planning Process Overview
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Task Force Consensus Process .....................~ ................................................ ..........1-2
1.3 Community Participation ........................................................................................1-2
1.4 Results of the Consensus Process ...........................................................................1-3
4.
6.
Arastradero Preserve Description
2.1 History .......................................................................................~ ............................2-1
2.2 Management and Operations Policy .......................................................................2-2
2.3 Description of Arastradero Preserve ......, ................................................................2-5
Project Background
3.1 Arastradero Main House and Barn Demolition ..................., ....................................3-1
3.2 Arastra Fund .........................................................~ ..................................................3-2
3.3 City Council Resolution for the Gateway Facility .................................................3-4
Design Goals, Program and Uses for the Gateway Facility
4.1 Design Goals .......... ............................................,.~ ...................................., ...........4-1
4.2 Design Program ...........~ .................................................................................~ .........4-3
4.3 Recommended Uses .......................................................~ ..................... ....................4-4
4.4 Role of Gateway Facility in the Preserve Management Plan ...................................4-5
Recommended Design
5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Site Plan and Landscape ..........................................................................................5-5
5.3 Description of Structures .........................................................................................5-7
Costs and Funding Sources
6.1 Estimated Costs ........................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Funding Sources..... ..........................i ..............~ .........................................................6-3
Appendices
A Task Force Roster ........................................................................................... ......A-1
B Task Force Process Agreements ...................................................................., ..........B-1
C Summary of Public Input .......................................................................................C-1
D Alternatives Designs Reviewed ............................................... ............~.~ .................D-1
E Straw Bale Background Information ..............................................................i ..........E-1
Section 1
PLANNING PROCESS OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
The proposed Conceptual Design for the Arastradero Gateway Facility (detailed in
Chapters 4 and 5,0f this report) is the culmination Of consensus design process
initiated by the City of Palo Alto involving the community, the Arastradero Gateway
Task Force (an appointed volunteer committee), and the City. Having guided design
development, the Arastradero Gateway Task Force recommends approval by the City
of Palo Alto Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and City Council, the
Conceptual Design outlined in this report.
1.2
Initiated in September 1997, the design process required identification of community
needs, analysis of the potential site, goal-setting, definition of a design program, and
development and ref’mement of alternative design schemes. This report documents the
consensus process and describes the recommended of the Gateway Facility, intended
uses of the facility, estimated construction costs, and a possible funding strategy.
Task Force Consensus Process
The City and Co.nsultant Team convened a ten member Arastradero Gateway Task
Force which consisted of diverse community interests and the City including
recreation, habitat restoration, open space, and environmental education. The Task
Force was responsible for guiding the design process, and toward a consensus outcome.
The Task Force (Task Force Roster, Appendix A) included a representative from each
of the following entities or interests groups: Bay Area Action, Canopy, Citizens for
Green Foothills, Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association, Environmental Volunteers,
Responsible Offroad Mountain Peddlers, John Marthen’s Lane residents, Los Altos
Hills Horseman’s Association, City of Palo Alto Open Space Department, and one
citizen-atTlarge.
The Task Force agreed to embark on a facilitated process where decision making would
be done by consensus rather than a majority-minority voting procedure. Assisted by a
professional facilitator and architectural design team, the Task Force met eight times
over twelve months and ratified a series of agreements concerning the design and
Planning Process Overview 1-1
potential uses of the Gateway Facility. Four public workshops were convened to
gather community ideas to guide design development.
At its first meeting, the Task Force ratified a Mission Statement, Meeting Schedule,
Roster and Ground Rules to guide the consensus process (Appendix B). The Ground
Rules directed Task Force members to consider carefully the interests of all the
constituencies represented when deliberating and making decisions. This interest-based
dialogue helped members move away from previously held positions regarding the
gateway facility and develop solutions that, as a whole, would address the interests
represented around the table.
The Task Force also agreed to prepare a single schematic design rather than alternative
schemes from whichthe City commissions and Council would have to choose. The
Task Force recognized that recommending one consensus, design would likely result in
a more efficient decision making and implementation process by the City Council.
1.3
The facilitation and architecture team guided the Task Force through four phases of
work (Figure 1A). A public workshop was convened during each of the phases. In
Phase 1, "Identify Needs," the Consultant Team gathered information about
community interests regarding the proposed facility and analyzed site opportunities
and constraints. In Phase 2, ‘‘Develop Design Program," the Task Force developed a
design goals and a detailed design program to guide conceptual design development. In
Phase 3, ‘‘Develop Alternatives," the architecture team produced two sets of
alternatives. Schemes were developed for four alternate sites to determine the proper
siting of the facility. One site alternative was selected from these four and three
detailed variations were prepared. The design goals and program were used to evaluate
and select the desired plan from the three variations, In Phase 4, "Develop Draft Final
Design," the Task Force revised and refined the desired conceptual scheme.
Community Participation
The Task Force and Project Team (City staff and consultants) agreed that local
community participation would be essential to the consensus planning process. Public
involvement consisted of stakeholder interviews, public workshops, a participatory
Web Site, and public comment periods at all Task Force meetings.
1-2
Stakeholder Interviews
The lead facilitator conducted approximately 28 interviews with community
"stakeholders," defined as individuals or organization representatives with an interest
in the long term management of Arastradero Preserve. The interviews revealed diverse
views on the appropriateness of constructing a gateway facility and ideas on potential
design solutions and uses. This information was used to structure the consensus
process and public involvement program.
Public Workshops
The public workshops were convened at key milestones in the process. The
workshops allowed the community to provide ideas to influence conceptual design
development and to comment on draft schemes under consideration. The following
four workshops were convened:
Workshop I - November 1, 1997
Attendance: 25 to 30.
Purpose: To introduce the project to the community, conduct a site tour, and to
gather ideas about potential uses, need for, and potential considerations of a
gateway facility.
Resultx Attendees discussed the essential qualities of the Preserve that needed to
be maintained; and identified how the gateway facility could enhance these
qualities. ~
Workshop ~. - January 13th, 1998
Attendance: 30.
Purpose." To review and comment on design goals, a design program, and to
identify potential suitable sites for the facility.
Results: Attendees provided detailed comments on the draft goals and program and
expressed generalsupport for a modest facility.
Workshop 3 - April 30th, 1998
Attendance: 25.
Purpose: To review and comment on the Preferred Draft Conceptual Design.
Results: Attendees expressed general support for the draft design and provided
comments on potential design changes.
Planning Process Overview 1-3
Participatory Web Site
The Web Site described the project and provided a full opportunity to review and
comment on preliminary designs at the same time as the Public Workshops. The Web
Site was listed in the Palo Alto Weekly and on the City’s Web Site. Comments
received were incorporated into the summary of public input.
1.4
Task Force Meetings
The public was encouraged comment opportunities at each Task Force meeting.
Several community members attended Task Force meetings regularly and contributed
their views on topics under discussion. Their comments were considered by the Task
Force in its deliberations.
Results of the Consensus Process
At the outset, Task Force members had diverse and conflicting views about the
facility. Through meetings and public workshops, the Task Force exchanged ideas and
listened to the community and each other and crafted a vision that incorporated.
everyone’s views and yet was different than what anyone had envisioned when the
design process began.
The Task Force reached agreements in a stepwise manner: each agreement was used to
.guide development of the next step in the design process. The Task Force first ratified
a series of process agreements to guide its work and deliberations. Then, the following
agreements were made in this order:
Design Goals which outline criteria for the design and siting of the facility.
Design Program which guides the size, function, and elements of the facility.
Recommended Uses which specifythe type of activities suitable for the facility.
Site Plan which shows the location .of structures and landscaPe improvements..
Elevations and Description o£Structures which illustrates the design, materials,
and functions of the buildings and structures.
Estimated Costs which provide general construction costs.
In addition to these work products, the Task Force agreed that the long term funding
and maintenance of the facility will require diverse sources and should be a shared
responsibility of the community, the Preserve Steward, and the City. A lasting
outcome of this consensus process is a cooperative tone among diverse community
1-4
groups to work to restore Arastadero Preserve while providing an educational and
recreational resource to the community.
Planning Process Overview 1-5
Section 2
ARASTRADERO PRESERVE DESCRIPTION
2.1 History
In August 1969, Arastra Ltd., the owners of the Arastradero property, applied for a
Planned Comm ,unity zone change for Construction of 1,776 dwelling units. The City
~denied this proposal. During this same period, the City hired a consultant to study
land use and the ability of the City to provide services to potential foothills
developments.
The City Council amended the Comprehensive Plan in June 1971, to include most of
the foothills area in "Open Space - Controlled Development." An Open Space Element
for the General Plan was subsequently adopted in April 1972. That year the City also
adopted an Open Space zone district which required an average of ten acres per
dwelling unit. In September 1972, Arastra sued the City claiming $15.6 million in
damages, plus interest, attorney’s fees and costs.
Litigation proceeded for the next three years. In September 1975, the U. S. District
Court ruled in Arastra’s favor that the zoning amounted to a "taking" of Arastra’s
property and that all that remained to be completed was determination and payment of
the value of the" land as of September 1972. The City was ordered to purchase the land.
Arastra and City officials met several times and reached agreement out of court to
settle the suit~ A settlement fee of $7,475,000 was paid to Arastra in July 1976, and
ti~e City became thefee owner of the property, which, in addition to the
approximately 510 acres, included a six-bedroom house, a large barn and a second,
small two-bedroom house.
In 1981, the Council adopted an ordinance dedicating. 432.781 acres of the Arastradero
Preserve as park land. In 1992, the Council dedicated 77.219 acres of the Preserve as
park land. In addition, in 1982 the Council dedicated 99.002 acres of the Hewlett:
Mullen property as park land. Although not officially a part of the Arastradero
Preserve, the Hewlett:Mullen property is included as part of this Management Plan. "
The total acreage for the area is approximately 609 acres.
Arastradero Preserve Description 2-1
2.2 Management and Operations Policy
At its meeting of June 20, 1983, the City Council adopted a Conceptual Master Plan
for the creation of a "low intensity and minimal cost park, .with emphasis on the
natural and open space amenities of the land and sensitivity to the fragile foothills
ecology. Uses planned .for the park should not duplicate those provided in urban
neighborhood or regional parks~" The conceptual master plan was based, in large part,
on the recommendations of an eight member Arastra Citizens Advisory Committee.
This statement became and remains the mission statement for the Preserve.
The City of Palo Alto Management Plan for Arastradero Preserve (1996) incorporates
habitat preservation as its primary goal while providing for appropriate public access
and activities. In instances where public access and activities conflict with the natural
values of the Preserve, the preservation of the natural values of the Preserve shall
prevail. The 1996 Management Plan is a comprehensive document that describes
specific guidelines for interpretive and research activities, open space management and
habitat protection, construction and maintenance of facilities, and City department and
Steward responsibilities On the Preserve.
Management Responsibilities
The Community Services Department has primary responsibility for implementing
the Management Plan. Enforcement of the City’s Municipal Code as it relates to the
Arastradero Preserve is the responsibility of the park ranger staff, with support from
other City departments. Park rangers also have the primary role for responding to fh’e
and medical emergencies on the Preserve.
The Preserve Steward, Bay Area Action, is a local non-profit, community-based
organization which has entered into a contractual agreement for shared stewardship
responsibilities in the Preserve. Working closely with City staff, Bay Area Action iS
responsible for habitat restoration, removal and control of non-native, invasive weeds,
trail maintenance and repair, educational activities, research, and riparian habitat
management. Funding for these activities is the responsibility of the Steward, through
donations of cash and in-kind services, volunteer activities, and grants and other
sources. The Arastradero Steward Work Plan 1998/99 specifies in greater detail the
responsibilities of the Steward.
2.3
The Department of Public Works is responsible for the oversight and coordination of
capital improvement projects on the Preserve. The Utilities Department is
responsible for maintenance of electric, gas, water and wastewater facilities on the .
Preserve. The Fire Department is responsible for wildlands fire prevention and
suppression on the Preserve through implementation and revision of the Foothills Fire
Management Plan. The specific responsibilities for each of these departments are
described in the Management Plan for Arastradero Preserv~
Description of Arastradero Preserve
Arastradero Preserve is approximately 609 acres in size and is located west of
Interstate 280, between Alpine Road and Page Mill, on Arastradero Road. The
property consists of a mixture of rolling savanna grassland and broad leaf evergreen
forest. It varies in elevation from 275 feet in the northeast to 775 feet in the southwest.
The major valley crossing the preserve from north to south was formed by Arastradero
Creek which is seasonal and flows only during wet winters. ’ The preserve also has an
additional seasonal creek, a small lake, and a pond.
The Preserve is accessible to the public primarily from a parking lot on Arastradero
Road, and also from John Marthen’s Lane. The parking lot has a capacity of
approximately 35 spaces and has one egress/ingress road. Across from the parking lot
is a private in-holding known as the Bressler property.
Arastradero Preserve Description 2-3
Section 3
PROJECT BACKGROUND
3.1 Arastradero Main House and Barn Demolition
In March 1992, staff requested City Council direction to advise onthe future of the
existing residential and barn structures in the preserve. The Council directed staff to
solicit proposals for alternative uses of the structures. Several different proposals were
submitted for review by the City Council. Local neighbors, however, opposed the
proposed uses which eventually led to the City ceasing further .consideration of
alternative uses.
In March 1996, the Council approved funds to demolish the structures and to conduct
restoration in the preserve. The Council directed staff to: 1)proceed with removal of
the structures with the focus on reuse and recycling of the materials from the
structures; 2) explore the possibility of a public/private partnership for both the
structural work and habitat restoration steps with respect to a park "stewardship"
concept; 3) pursue the gift from individualswho expressed an interest in donating
$350,000 to the City in connection with implementing this recommendation; 4)
conduct habitat restoration in the areas where the structures were located; and 5)
explore the potential for a new modest facility as a gateway to the Arastradero
Preserve with potential reuse of existing materials from the residential and barn
structures.
3.2
In July 1997, Bay Area Action and the City worked together to remove the structures
where building materials were salvaged for future use on the preserve.
Arastra Fund
The Arastra Fund was formed when neighbors contributed $350,000 to implement the
City’s recommended demolition and restoration actions identified above. The fund is
legally held by the Peninsula Community Foundation and has an advisory committee
that reviews and approves disbursements. The committee consists of a representative
from the Palo Alto City Council, the City Attorney’s office, the City Manager’s
office, and two residents.
Project Background 3= 1
3.3
The intended uses of the fund is to aid the City’s efforts in maintenance, habitat
restoration, and design and implementation of the gateway facility. The fund has
approximately $500,000 available for grants as of September 1998. The fund is
managed to protect principal and collect interest through money market funds.
City Council Resolution for the Gateway Facility
On April 28, 1997 the City Council discussed the proposed gateway facility and
possible design approaches. The Council favored the idea of conducting a design
process that involved the community t.o develop a conceptual design for referral to the
. Planning Commission. Council authorized staff to solicit consultant proposals to
provide facilitation and architectural services related to the facility and that the facility
should be considered and defined as the gateway facility. The Council also specified
that the work should be consistent with the City’s design guidelines for development
in the Open Space Zone and that the facility be no more than 1,200 to 1,500 square
feet.
On July 28, 1997 the Council approved a consultant contract with Bluhon Planing
Group ((with Arkin Tilt Architects as a subconsultant) for services to facilitate
discussions with community groups and others to design a modest gateway facility.
The contract also provided allowances for architectural services to prepare conceptual
drawings of potential facilities.
3-2
Section 4
DESIGN GOALS, PROGRAM
THE GATEWAY FACILITY
AND USES FOR
4.1 -Design Goals
[Ratified 1/26/98.]
The Arastradero Gateway Task Force ratified the following goals to guide design of the
proposed Gateway Facility. These goals are also intended to guide the detailed design
of the facility.
Overall Goal of the Facility
Orient and educate visitors about Arastradero Preserve and inspire stewardship of and
respect for its natural resources.
Goals and Criteria
1. Uses and Functions
Provide space and amenities for visitors and volunteers to gather and learn
about the Preserve and conduct habitat restoration. ’
a) Provide ADA-compliant parking and access to the gateway area.
b) Create a resting space where people can prepare for or rest after using the park.
Provide restrooms and potable water.
c) Provide for flexible uses to accommodate habitat restoration, educational, and
maintenance activities. Uses may include (but not be limited to): space for meetings
and lectures associated with the Preserve; monitoring and research of restoration
work on the Preserve; school group visits; storage space for data collection
instruments and maintenance tools; and work space for rangers and stewards.
d) Provide information and amenities necessary for the Safe use of the Preserve by all.
users.
Design Goals, Program and Uses 4-1
2. Site Planning Criteria
Integrate the gateway into the natural landscape with minimum impact to
visual and .ecological resources and existing infrastructure. Create a sense of
peace and coexistence with the natural surroundings.
a) Acknowledge the natural topography i.n establish buildinglines.
b) Minimize erosion impacts to creeks, swales, and natural habitat. Avoid flat
expanses of impervious surface and minimize the need for cut and fill.
c) Avoid impacts to native botanical resources.
d) Locate amenities in already disturbed areas whenever possible.
e) Site the gateway facility within the Arastradero Road corridor and within a five
minute walk from the main parking area.
f)Consider solar access and breezes when siting the facility.
g) Landscape and restore areas around amenities with native plants and trees.
h) Design service access paths with a rural character.
3. Building Design Criteria
Create a simple, natural, flexible facility_which stimulates reverence and
curiosity for the Preserve’s resources. Use ecological design principles as a way
to.conserve resources, minimize maintenance costs, and educate visitors.
.a) Create a connection between interior spaces and the surrounding landscape.
b) Use passive solar heating, cooling and daylightingand incorporate renewable
energy technologies.
c) Reuse salvaged materials from former Preserve structures and elsewhere.
d) Use natural materials and subdued colors. Isi
[Footnotes ~l~l- refer to the City’s Open Space Development Criteria, October 20, 1986.]
4.2 Design. Program
[Ratified 1/26/98.]
The following elements will be part of the Gateway Facility and be designed consistent
with the Design Goals above.
Site Amenities
1)ADA*-compliant route from parking area to gateway facility within 5 minutes
walking distance of existing parking area using few or no switchbacks.
4-2
2)Outdoor displays about the Preserve including interpretive, safety, restoration,
and community information, accessible when gateway facility is open or closed.
3)Staging area with seating and protection from sun and rain.
4)Potable water accessible for humans, horses, anddogs.
5)Horse ties near the facility and near restrooms.
6)Bicycle parking area with racks near the facility and restrooms.
7)Emergency vehicle access as required by local jurisdictions.
8)Pay.phone..
Facility Functions and Components
9) Limit enclosed space to the minimum necessary to meet design goals and program.
(The maximum limit is 1,200 to 1,500 square feet.)
10) Meeting space for up to 30 people that has cover and can be enclosed when
required.
11) Outdoor gathering and seating area sheltered from the weather to accommodate
about 30 people for a presentation or discussion (with electrical outlets).
12) Accessible restrooms (up to 2 users each or 4 unisex).
13). Small, secure work space for up to 2 people to accommodate telephone,
computer, files, and records pertaining to public safety or park activities:
14) Countertop with sink to accommodate environmental education or restoration
demonstrations.
15)Small indoor lockable storage area for equipment, supplies, and tools.
16)Secure sto.rage space accessible from outdoors to accommodate supplies and tools
for park maintenance, restoration, and public safety activities.
4.3 Recommended Uses
[Ratified 1/26/98.]
The Conceptual Design of the Gateway Facility was designed around the following
intended users and activities:
1)Meeting space for groups and discussions associated with: maintenance of trails
on the Preserve; restoration and monitoring on the Preserve; and general use of the
Preserve.
Design Goals, Program and Uses 4-3
4.4
2)Educational groups and activities including school groups and volunteers.
Educational needs may include slide shows, lectures, and demonstrations.
3)Staging area for habitat restoration activities including: monitoring and research;
and storage for hand tools, field tools, data collection tools, and data samples.
4)Amenities for general users including the display of information exhibits regarding "
.the Preserve and other environmental issues related to the Preserve, restrooms,
seating, horse ties, and bicycle lockers.
5)Trail maintenance needs including storage for tools and an area for demonstrating
trail maintenance techniques on the Preserve
¯ 6)Ranger and Steward work spaceinduding ¯desk and phones for ranger check-in and
desks and docking capabilities for portable computers.
Role of Gateway Facility in the Preserve Management Plan
[x/xx/98.]
~ext to be developed at 10/~’0/98 Task Force meeting.]
4=,4
Section 5
RECOMMENDED DESIGN
[Ratified rdxx/98]
5.1 Overview
The Task Force’s recommended design is a cluster of three main structures and a small
storage area situated about 50 yards to the east of the existing parking lot on
Arastradero Road. The building layout creates a welcoming experience for Preserve
users and provides spaces for educational activities, informational displays, and a
staging area for the Preserve. The design and layout of the Gateway Facility are
intended to appear open and welcoming to the general public as well as to staff and
preserve volunteers.
The facility provides functions for visitors, volunteers, and staff in one compact area.
Educational displays will allow visitors to learn about the resources of the Preserve;
and several amenities will provide a more safe experience in the Preserve including.
restrooms, sitting areas, bike racks, and horse ties. The Preserve Steward will also
benefit from the facilityby having different types of storage space and gathering areas
inside and outside to carry out restoration and educational activities. An outdoor
gathering space.will allow the Steward and other groups to train volunteers about
restoration techniques or give a presentation about natural resource topics. An indoor
meeting space will allow school groups and volunteers to learn and discuss issues
associated with restoration.
The Gateway Facility consists of three.groupings of structures: (1) a staging area at the
east end of the parking 10t; (2) the main facility east of the parking lot; and, (3) a small
group of benches and interpretive signs located uphill (to the north) of the crosswalk
which enters the Preserve. These three areas are located along the mainpath of entry t~
the preserve.
Visitors will have a convenient and informative area at the existing parking lot to begin
their visit to the Preserve. At the east boundary of theparking lot, a pay phone,
shaded seating area, informational boards about Preserve activities, and bicycle lockers
will be installed.
Recommended Design 5-1
5.2
The main facility is a cluster of three structures and a small storage shed situated about
o0 yards to the east of the. parking lot. The facility consists of a meeting room, small
office, restrooms, and storage. The grouping of benches and interpretive signs above
the crosswalk offers a beautiful panoramic overview of the Preserve. It is an ideal site
for resting and for learning about the topography, habitat, climate, and history of the
preserve.
Section 5.2 below discusses the site plan and landscape improvements of the main
facility. Section 5.3 describes the physical design of the structures of each of the three
subareas. Drawings and plans of the Conceptual Design follow Section 5.3.
Site Plan and Landscape of Main Facility
The site of the main facility was selected to address several environmental and safety
goals: (1) to limit changes to the existing grade or the location of the ingress/egress of
the parking lot; (2) to locate the facility a safe distance from automobiles on
Arastradero Road; (3) to the site facility at the same contour level as the parking lotto
limit visual impacts; andl (4) to create a relatively level building site convenient t’or
mobility impaired’visitors.
The goal of the landscape plan is to create a restored native landscape using locally
indigenous trees, shrubs, and grasses. Placement of trees and shrubs will be informal
and mimic the natural landscape of the more vegetated areas of the Preserve. (In
addition, some trees will be placed in areas to screen the building from Arastradero
~ Road.) Tree and shrub species that may be planted include:
°Aesculus californica, California Buckeye
o Heteromeles arbutifolia, Toyon
¯Quercus lobata, Valley Oak
¯Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak
°Quercus douglasii, Blue Oak
°Quercus coccinea, Scarlet Oak
o Baccharis pilularis, Coyote Brush
o Lupinus (various locally indigenous species)
Grass species that may be planted include:
°Nassella pulchra, Purple Needle Grass
°Leymus triticoides, Wet Meadow Wild Rye
5-2
¯Elymus glaucus, Blue Wild Rye
¯Bromus carinatus, California Broom Grass
o Elymus moides
o Hordmun brachyantherum, Meadow Barley
°Melica californica, California Melic
5.3
The main trail from the parking lot is eight to ten feet in width and follows a gentle
grade in conformance with the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The path material may consist of a three inch layer of decomposed granite (or
similar material) compacted over a four inch layer of crushed rock. Geotextile fabric
should be placed under the crushed rock. The decomposed granite should be coated
with "Road Oyle," a natural resin material which hardens to create an impervious
surface that resists erosion. A small, at-grade bridge, surfaced with rot-resistant wood
will cross the swale between the parking lot and facility.
Description of Structures
5.3.1 Orientation of Main Facility
The orientation of the structures wi]] optimize passive heating and cooling
opportunities while also creating usable outdoor spaces.
1. The workspace is oriented slightly east of south and features an awning system
consisting of seasonally adjustable photovoltaic panels which simultaneously generate
power and shade the office from the hot summer sun. A trellis shades the west facing
office windows and softens the view from the parking lot.
2. The meeting room is oriented east of south with a covered porch to the south and
west which pr.ovides both overflow meeting space as well as appropriate shade from
the summer sun (while allowing winter sun to penetrate deep into the space, heating
the floor). An east facing dormer balances the light in the meeting room.
3. A covered bench links the meeting room to the restrooms and creates a comfortable,
¯ public outdoor space. The long axis of the restroom building is north-south.
Daylighting will be provided via high windows to the East and transoms windows over
the doors to the West, which will be shaded by a covered porch. This strategy will
keep the restrooms from overheating.
Recommended Design 5-3’
5.3.2 Description of Rooms
Meeting Room
The meeting room is approximately 18 feet wide by 24 feet long and has an open
framed ceiling which is about 16 feet at the peak. There are 2 storage closets for tables
and chairs, and some changeable display space along the Northeast wall. Two large
sliding doors open up the southwest wall to a covered porch. A wood stove
supplements the passive Solar heating in the wintertime.
Restrooms
Three unisex restrooms are proposed: two are 4 feet by 7 feet and the third is 7 feet by
7 feet and ADA compliant. All restrooms include a toilet and a sink. Attached as part
of the restroom building is a small utility room and drinking fountains at the south end.
Workspace
The workspace is a 9 foot by 19 foot space which includes desk space with room for
filing cabinets below, some shelving, and phone and computer hookup. For security,
sliding wood doors cover the windows and doors when the office is not in use. There is
a utility sink and countertop at the east end of the structure. A door panel closes this
area off; and, when it is open the back side of the door can be used for display.
Storage
There are three storage areas which are accessible from the outdoor teaching space. The
storage area at the end of the office building is approximately 7 feet by 7 feet, At the
back of the meeting room is a storage space of about 17 feet by 3 feet deep, while an
additional 56 square feet is located in a free-standing structure.
5.3.3 Building Systems
Roof
The roof will be a Class C fh’e-rated, possibly corrugated galvanized metal, treated to
reduce reflectivity. Exposed framing and trellises will be constructed .of salvaged
redwood for natural rot-resistance.
Walls
Two wall systems will be used:
5-4
1) The north wall of the office building, the east wall of the meeting room, and the
north and east walls of the restrooms are to be straw bale with a soil-cement finish.
This wall system has high insulation value as well as high fire retardance. Further
information on this straw bale system is available,.
2) The rest of the walls will be wood framed, preferably with salvaged, lumber and
finished with salvaged siding or resawn boards in a board and batten or board on board
pattern. The siding will be stained to increase longevity. (Wood salvaged from the
former house and barn on the preserve may be used to the best extent possible.)
Floors
Floors will be concrete slab typically. Some areas may be stained, and all concrete will
be sealed for easy clean-up. Restrooms will be broom-finished for slip resistance.
Power
Electric power for the facility will be provided by a photovoltaic array at the awning
of the office building. Photovoltaic cells collect energy from the sun and output
electrical current. This power is stored in.batteries which are monitored with a state-
of-the-art charge controller. The 12 volt DC power is transformed into 110 volt AC
(typical house/building) current with an inverter, and distributed to the buildings.
Because of the minimal use and power needs of the facility, the cost of this system is a
fraction of the utility hook-up fees. The photovoltaic equipment (inverters and
batteries) are on display behind a window, also with a sliding door for security.
Water
Domestic water needs for the facility will be met through the city’s water network. A
main water line is located along Arastradero Road. Gray water from the restroom and
utility sinks could be plumbed to provide a source of irrigation water for the landscape
adjacent the facility.
Sewage
A number of options are currently being studied. While the Task Force, City Staff,
and the Preserve Steward have all expressed interest in the consideration of composting
toilets or some other alternative means of sewage treatment, this openness is coupled
with concerns for ongoing maintenance, and its corresponding costs. Other options
include an on-site septic tank and leach lines, or disposing sewage into the. city sewer
system. The main trunk line is located in the private parcel across Arastradero Road,
Recommended Design 5-5
5.4
5.5
5.6
and hook-up will require either acquisition of an easement, or connection beyond this
parcel.
Staging Area at Parking Lot
The east side of the parking lot wi]] have a 70 foot long by 20 foot wide area for
amenities which may include:
=six to eight enclosed bicycle lockers in roofed enclosures;
¯informational signs with a trellis above to post information about the Preserve
and allow posting of messages by Preserve users.
= benches with nearby shade trees
¯pay phone.
Benches and Signs above Crosswalk
Approximate]y 80 feet to the west of the crosswalk and along the main trail a path
wig fork to the north and follow a gentle uphill contour not exceeding 5% slope. This
trail wi]] travel approximately 70 tO 80 feet and end with a small space for a bench and
placement of low wayside interpretive signs. The space should be approximately 8
feet by 12 feet and allow for up to about 10 people to gather.
Crosswalk Enhancements
At the crosswalks, two improvements are recommended to improve crossing safety
and to inform those traveling on Arastradero Road that they have entered a natural
preserve area. The Task Force recommends that a flashing yellow light and additional
caution signs be .placed on either approach to the crosswalk to slow automobiles. (This
recommendation will be considered in greater detail by the City Engineering
Department.) Also, a visual marker such as tree plants, a large sign, or other vertical
object(s) be placed in the vicinity of the crosswalk to inform those entering the area
that they have entered a special, natural area which requires respect for the
environment and for the safety of pedestrians.
5-6
k ~PRELIMINARY DRAFT - For intemal review byStaff only.
Section 6
COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES
6.1 Estimated Costs
The estimate of costs is based on the conceptual design described in Chapter 5. The
summary of costs and the assumptions used to prepare the estimate are discussed
below. Possible adjustments are itemized in Table 6.1. The detailed cost breakdov~ is
in Table 6.2.
Construction Estimate Assumptions
The general nature of a conceptual design means that the cost estimate can only be a
general gauge of likely costs. Precise cost estimates can only be prepared once detailed
design and engineering are complete. Also, the detail design phase can be used to either
increase or decrease construction costs through specification of more efficient building
technologies and less expensive materials.
The cost of labor ~n the estimate assumes the "prevailing wage" is paid. Since this is
not a requirement of the City of Palo Alto, labor costs may be reduced by up to
$20,000. If funding is procured from government entities, that require a prevailing wage
contract, however, then the labor cost assumed in Table 6.2 is accurate.
To provide a useful baselinereference to determine final costs, the estimate does not
account for likely volunteer labor, in-kind donations of material, or reuse of materials
fromthe former barn and residence. As itemized in Table 6.1, costs could decrease
significantly if volunteer labor or in-kind material donations are procured..
Summary of Costs
Total costs for design, engineering, site preparation, and construction of the buildings
is $374,756.00. This includes a $10,000.00 allowance for a septic system and a
$10,000.00 allowance for a solar photovoltaic energy system. Additional site work of
high priority items of $16,712 (landscaping and trails) would increase the construction
total to $391,468 which assumes a prevailing wage contract. Since a prevailing wage
contract will not likely be required, this estimate could decrease by up to $20,000 for a
revised total estimate of $371,468.
Costs and Funding Sources 6-1
Factors in Adjusting, Cost Estimate
Construction costs for the Gateway Facility will depend on several factors which will
be clarified during construction document preparation and project implementation. For
this reason, the estimated costs should be viewed as a measure of the relative
magnitude of cost of each element of the Gateway Facility. These key factors and the
extent to which they may increase or decrease costs in Table 6.2 are listed below:
Table 6.1 - Cost Factors of Gateway Facility
Note:
Detailed Design
Final design and construction specifications can
be made to increase or substantially decrease the
estimated costs.
Volunteer Labor
Volunteer labor for discreet projects could include
landscaping, trail installation, site improvements,
and painting.
In-Kind Material Donations
Materials or equipment may be solicited and/0r
procured by Bay Area Action, other community
organizations, or the City.
Materials salvaged from the residence and barn
on the Preserve could be employed.
Piers and Grade Beams
It is highly unlikely that piers and grade beams will
be required. This will be determined by the City
and ProJect Engineer.
Prevailing Wage Condition
If project funding is procured by City and other
local private sources, Prevailing wages are not
requi~ed.
$0 to -$30,000
$0 to - $30,000
$0 to - $35,000
+ $23,400
- $20,000 of total
%" indicates upper limit by which cost in Table 6.2 could increase.
"-" indicates lower limit by which cost in Table 6.2 could decrease.
Construction Estimate
The following table includes labor and material costs throughout. Tlie costs are
or.ganized by division of building systems per the Construction Specification Institute
requirements. The estimate is based on the design in Chapter 5.
Table 6.2: Arastradero Gateway Facility Construction Estimate
Division 1. General Requirements
¯ Project manager.$20,000
¯ Job trailer, phone/fax, supplies, temporary fencing.$8,550
Division 2 - Site Work
¯ Excavation/grading for buildings. (See Additional Item 1, below.)$13,620
Division 3. Concrete
¯ Slab on grade and footings for buildings.
, Retaining wall footings and walls.
$35,441
$15,400
Division 6. Wood and Plastics
¯ Sc~’een for existing storage container. (Add $1,000 if stand alone
enclosure is constructed.)
¯ Rough carpentry for all buildings.
¯ Finish carpentry and shelving.
$3,512
$51,105
$16,650
Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
¯ Corrugated metal roofing and insulation.$11,707
Division 8- Doors and Windows
¯ Doors, barn doors, and installation.
¯ Windows and installation. .
$21,000
$8,000
Division 9 - Finishes
¯ Sheetrock, paint and sealer of buildings.$22,500
Division 10 - Specialties
¯ Wood burning stove.
¯ Restroom accessories.
$3,000
$1,660
Division 15. Mechanical
¯ Propane heater for office.
¯ Wind-driven roof fans.
¯ Septic system.
¯ Plumbing for office, meeting room, and restroom
$1,500
$450
$10,000
$8,480
Division 16 - Electrical
¯ Photovoltaic system.
¯ Phone lines.
¯ Electrical for all rooms.
$10,000
$1,200
$9,000
Building Construction Cost Subtotal
$28,550
$13,620
$50,841
71,267
11,707
29,000
22,500
4,660
20,430
20,200
$272,775
Table 6,2: Arastradero Gateway Facility Construction Estimate
Building Construction Subtotal
Contractor 10% Overhead and Profit
10% Construction Contingency
Total incl. Construction w/Contingency
$272,775
$27,278
Design Construction Fees
¯ Architecture and Engineering Fees
¯ Testing and Site Inspections
¯ Performance Bonds (for construction contract).
$39,607
$1,000
$4,092
Grand Tota~o~ C~nstruction and Desi n .
$300,053
$3O,OO5
$330,058
$44,699
$374,756
(Includes labor, material and contingency.
Additional Item 1. Required Site Improvements
¯ Construction of bridge over drainage swale.
¯ Installation of ADA-compliant trails. ’
$4,712
$9,000
Additional Item 2 - Possible Site Amenities
Benches.
Trees and shrubs.
Trash Cans.
Displays/signs,
Installation of bike lockers and screens.
Trellis entry structure and enclosure at phone,
Pay phone hookup and installation.
$1,500
$3,000
$500
$4,000
$5,00O
$4,604
$25,000
Additional Item 3. Piers
¯ Drilling and pouring ol~ piers [or buildings if engineering requires.
(Price may vary..)
$23,400
$13,712
$43,604
$ 23,400
6.2 Funding Sources
The Task Force recommends that the City request seed money from the Arastra Fund
to construct the Gateway Facility. At the time of ratifying this conceptual plan,
approximately $350,000 remains in the Arastra Fund after expenditures for steward
services are subtracted. Staff recommends that $189,000 be allocated from the
Arastra Fund to apply to construction expenses and that the remainder of $161,000 be
retained in the Fund as an endowment for maintenance.
The Task Force envisions that the additional $100,000 to $150,000 necessary to
construct the facility be solicited from a diversity of sources which may include
community foundations, corporate grants, in-kind donations, government grants, and
personal contributions. The Task Force specifically recommends that the .City and
Bay Area Action coordinate a fundraising effort to raise the additional funds and
materials.
Costs and Funding Sources