HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-24 Parks & Recreation Commission Agenda PacketPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Council Chambers & Hybrid
7:00 PM
Parks and Recreation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to
attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still
maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate
from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the
meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in
person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and
report are available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community‐Services/Other‐
Services/Commissions/Parks‐and‐Recreation‐Commission.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99937899745)
Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for
inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing
in your subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To
uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage
devices are not accepted.
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the Board on matters within the jurisdiction of the City, but not on this agenda, may
do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
This is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add or change the order of the agenda to improve meeting
management.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of the Draft Minutes from the September 26, 2023, Parks and Recreation
Commission Regular Meeting – Action – Attachment – (5 min)
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
2.Department Report – (20 min)
BUSINESS ITEMS
3.Palo Alto Youth Council – Chris Sanchez – Discussion – Attachment – (45 min)
4.Park Dedication of Tower Well Site – Daren Anderson – Discussion – Attachment – (45
min)
5.Tree Protection Ordinance Update Review – Peter Gollinger – Discussion – Attachment
– (60 min)
6.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair Greenfield – Discussion – (15 min)
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingTuesday, October 24, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid7:00 PMParks and Recreation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option toattend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andreport are available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community‐Services/Other‐Services/Commissions/Parks‐and‐Recreation‐Commission.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99937899745)Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To
uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage
devices are not accepted.
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the Board on matters within the jurisdiction of the City, but not on this agenda, may
do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
This is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add or change the order of the agenda to improve meeting
management.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of the Draft Minutes from the September 26, 2023, Parks and Recreation
Commission Regular Meeting – Action – Attachment – (5 min)
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
2.Department Report – (20 min)
BUSINESS ITEMS
3.Palo Alto Youth Council – Chris Sanchez – Discussion – Attachment – (45 min)
4.Park Dedication of Tower Well Site – Daren Anderson – Discussion – Attachment – (45
min)
5.Tree Protection Ordinance Update Review – Peter Gollinger – Discussion – Attachment
– (60 min)
6.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair Greenfield – Discussion – (15 min)
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingTuesday, October 24, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid7:00 PMParks and Recreation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option toattend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andreport are available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community‐Services/Other‐Services/Commissions/Parks‐and‐Recreation‐Commission.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99937899745)Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.CALL TO ORDERPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public wishing to address the Board on matters within the jurisdiction of the City, but not on this agenda, maydo so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThis is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add or change the order of the agenda to improve meetingmanagement.APPROVAL OF MINUTES1.Approval of the Draft Minutes from the September 26, 2023, Parks and RecreationCommission Regular Meeting – Action – Attachment – (5 min)CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS2.Department Report – (20 min)BUSINESS ITEMS3.Palo Alto Youth Council – Chris Sanchez – Discussion – Attachment – (45 min)4.Park Dedication of Tower Well Site – Daren Anderson – Discussion – Attachment – (45min)5.Tree Protection Ordinance Update Review – Peter Gollinger – Discussion – Attachment– (60 min)6.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair Greenfield – Discussion – (15 min)COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
DRAFT
DRAFT 1
1
2
3
MINUTES 4
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING 6
September 26, 2023 7
In-Person & Virtual Conference 8
Palo Alto, California 9
10
Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield, Vice Chair Brown; Commissioners Anne Cribbs, 11
Shani Kleinhaus, Joy Oche, Bing Wei 12
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Nellis Freeman 13
Others Present: Vice Mayor Stone 14
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Javod Ghods 15
16
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 17
Chair Greenfield called the meeting to order and asked for a roll call. 18
PUBLIC COMMENT 19
Mark Weiss, Downtown North resident, talked about a private project of his called 20
Earthwise Productions that showcases public facilities, plazas, and parks in Palo Alto. 21
He detailed three upcoming events. 22
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 23
None. 24
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the August 22nd, 2023, Parks and Recreation 26
Regular Meeting 27
Commissioner Cribbs corrected the name of the foundation offering the swimming 28
scholarship on page 14, line 9 to Beyond Barriers Athletic Foundation. 29
Chair Greenfield stated there were typos such as “though” instead of “thought” and Mr. 30
1
Packet Pg. 4
DRAFT
DRAFT 2
Freeman should be changed to Commissioner Freeman. 1
Commissioner Cribbs moved to approve the minutes seconded by Chair Greenfield. The 2
motion passed by a 5-0 by a roll call vote with Commissioner Wei abstaining. 3
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 4
2. Department Report 5
Daren Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Services, presented slides outlining 6
recruitment updates, recreation programs and events, court policy update, project and 7
other updates and CIP updates. He made a correction to his last skate park update stating 8
they are not in contract yet after all but would be soon. 9
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought it would be nice to include cheerful updates about 10
wildlife in the Baylands and opportunities nonprofits offer for people to participate in the 11
Baylands, Arastradero or Foothills. 12
Commissioner Cribbs was curious if it would be possible to tell who are and are not Palo 13
Alto residents out of the 586 people on the special interest waiting list. She wanted to 14
confirm if the ribbon cutting was a ticketed event or if access to the museum afterward 15
was the ticketed event. 16
Mr. Anderson answered he did not have that information, but he would be happy to 17
inquire about it and that access to the JMZ after the ribbon cutting was ticketed. 18
Commissioner Oche wanted to know if they would be getting the Capital Improvement 19
Projects breakdown by email or if it would be posted online. She asked if there would be 20
a reminder for the public to not to touch a dead bat. 21
Mr. Anderson offered to send the breakdown in an email. He said there was no signage 22
in the preserve to remind public not to touch a dead bat but that was provided to the 23
public through ranger contacts. 24
Commissioner Wei was curious about the protocol for sending out a message to the 25
public about the bats. She wanted to know if the Commissioners were all invited to go to 26
the ribbon cutting. 27
Mr. Anderson answered for this incident where the bat was found sick, it was posted on 28
the website with signage in the preserve for two weeks per recommendation of Vector 29
Control. He offered to send out a follow-up email about the ribbon cutting and 30
coordinate with the manager of the JMZ to see if there is anything special, he can 31
forward to the Commission. 32
1
Packet Pg. 5
DRAFT
DRAFT 3
Chair Greenfield thought it would be great to get the department report PowerPoint 1
presentation linked onto the agendas. He felt it would be worthwhile to potentially show 2
them to the other liaisons. He inquired if judges were being sought for the Jack-O-Jaunt. 3
He asked for information about the Baylands Entrance Gate Project and the status of the 4
Cubberley Restroom Project and the Pearson-Arastradero Construction Project. He 5
wanted to know if there were issues or concerns with the big hills of construction dirt 6
right outside Greer Park where new construction is going on. 7
Mr. Anderson said that the Jack-O-Jaunt would be judged by the general public. He 8
stated that the Baylands Entrance Gate Project would be to replace the steel gate off of 9
Embarcadero that crosses the road and explained the need for it. His understanding about 10
the Cubberley Restroom Project was that Council approved the purchase and the order 11
had gone through. He would verify and give an update on how long that would be. With 12
regard to the Pearson-Arastradero Construction Project, he emailed the Utilities 13
Department for an update about the undergrounding and gas line repair projects in 14
Arastradero and Foothills and was awaiting an answer. With regard to the hills of dirt 15
outside Greer Park, he believed that was affiliated with the 2850 project and part of their 16
permits required cleanup of site and he would follow up with Planning regarding this. 17
Commissioner Kleinhaus added there was an area used to store construction materials at 18
Arastradero in desperate need of restoration and asked why there is now another one next 19
to it. 20
Mr. Anderson answered that the space was needed for the undergrounding projects. It 21
had originally been stipulated that it would have to be brought to original condition or 22
better and once the project is complete it will be returned to original state. 23
BUSINESS 24
3. Environment Volunteers Update – Toby Goldberg – Discussion – (30 min) 25
Toby Goldberg, Director of Programs and Partnerships with Environmental Volunteers, 26
provided a presentation on Environmental Volunteers. She gave a history of the 27
organization, its primary focus and described their staff and volunteers. She highlighted 28
the three main areas of partnership programs with information on each. 29
Commissioner Oche was curious to know if programs were offered that could be 30
included in the recreation programs publicized in the Enjoy! – catalog and if the results 31
of the BioBlitz were publicized. She suggested involving seniors and having a shuttle to 32
pick them up and suggested exploring Palo Alto Link for transportation. 33
Ms. Golberg stated the bulk of their programs are hands-on science programs for 34
students in K-6 classes, classroom-based programming, and field trips. They work with 35
1
Packet Pg. 6
DRAFT
DRAFT 4
50 to 80 schools in both San Mateo and Santa Clara County schools. They also have 1
programs they run for community partners and gave examples. They hope to leverage the 2
availability of Foothills Park and Baylands as a resource for some of their nature 3
experiences. One of their goals was to reduce barriers for people getting outside. She 4
said that one of their biggest challenges was arranging for transportation and having a 5
bus for seniors or families would be helpful. She stated she would look into Palo Alto 6
Link as a resource. She stated that, in theory, after every BioBlitz, a report was submitted 7
with the data, counts and information that was captured. It is posted on their website, but 8
she was not sure what happens to it once it is submitted as a report. She agreed it would 9
be a great opportunity to publish that. She stated they have a project that goes to 10
iNaturalist, but they submitted a regular report to the City, as well, as a part of the 11
Horizontal Levee Project. She was not sure where that report goes after it is submitted. 12
Mr. Anderson stated it did not go to him, but he would follow up on that. 13
Chair Greenfield stated another possibility would be to have a link on the City website to 14
iNaturalist. 15
Commissioner Wei echoed Commissioner Oche’s comments about cross-generation 16
learning and facilitation of transportation. She wondered if the senior homes would have 17
transportation. She was curious whether the new Foothills Trail Ambassador Program 18
worked with the Palo Alto Youth Council. She asked how the program was advertised. 19
She echoed Commissioner Oche’s Enjoy! – catalog suggestion. 20
Ms. Goldberg said they have a Teen Docent Program as part of the organization. There 21
were some challenges involving the teens in parts of the Trail Ambassador Program so, 22
as of that time, the trail ambassadors and volunteers at Foothills were only adults. They 23
would love to reintroduce the teens but there were concerns with liability and safety 24
issues that had not yet been resolved. She felt it would be interesting to see if they could 25
target a teen or senior’s walk. She stated the program did not currently have a marketing 26
staff member and they were struggling with that. They do a lot through Eventbrite. She 27
stated they are discussing working with the community calendars and making sure events 28
get posted in the appropriate community calendars. She mentioned they run nature walks 29
through the Palo Alto Adult School, as well, with the goal of getting people out into 30
nature. 31
Commissioner Cribbs asked how the City could help. She was particularly interested in 32
what they were able to do with teens. She wanted to know how the program was funded. 33
Ms. Goldberg stated they had touched on how the City could help them and she had 34
received some helpful suggestions. In terms of the Teen Docent Program, they have an 35
annual program recruiting high school students throughout the Bay Area to work with 36
them throughout the summer. They have a regular training protocol and enrichment 37
1
Packet Pg. 7
DRAFT
DRAFT 5
opportunities to learn about nature and the Baylands and train them on how to interact 1
with the public. They help run some programs they do at the Ecocenter and help support 2
them when they have different events. She said their funding comes from a lot of varied 3
sources to include government, corporate and foundation grants, Palo Alto Weekly 4
Foundation and Holiday Foundation, individual donors, fundraisers, and partnerships 5
with other local foundations. 6
Vice Chair Brown asked if she would like to highlight other community partners they 7
work with or any they would like to work with in the future. 8
Ms. Goldberg answered her long-term goal for the organization was that she would like 9
to have at least one or two community-based partners in every city in both counties and 10
be the go-to organization for any nonprofit, community-based organization. She 11
described some of the existing partnerships and programs. 12
Chair Greenfield asked for a review of a slide with some numbers talking about 13
programs and activities. He asked where this presentation would be found. 14
Mr. Ghods stated he would add the presentation as a supplement to the agenda. 15
Ms. Goldberg presented the Foothills Trail Ambassador Program and explained the 16
numbers given. 17
Chair Greenfield asked for more information about Sprout Up. 18
Ms. Goldberg gave detail on Sprout Up including the numbers of staff, board and 19
volunteer members. 20
Commissioner Wei asked how it worked when an individual who volunteered with them 21
started a new chapter. 22
Ms. Goldberg stated the Sprout Up national director provides a chapter packet that talks 23
about how many people will be needed, the curriculum to work with and provides 24
training virtually. They are working on how to reach new schools and college students. 25
Chair Greenfield asked if they had done any riparian programs aimed at elementary 26
school kids, for example at Bol Park. 27
Ms. Goldberg answered they do not have a specifically riparian program. They call it the 28
Foothills program and it encompasses things like riparian habitat, grasslands, and oak-29
woodlands. They had not looked at those specific locations, but they would be good 30
locations. She described some of the locations they have used. 31
1
Packet Pg. 8
DRAFT
DRAFT 6
Chair Greenfield asked if their access has changed regarding Foothills Nature Preserve 1
and the Baylands. 2
Ms. Goldberg said that Baylands has not changed but there has been an increased interest 3
due to the pandemic. One challenge of that is that people sign up for things but tend to 4
not show up. Foothills is a resource they have been able to tap into a little bit but there is 5
more they can take advantage of in the future. 6
4. Dog Park Update – Daren Anderson – Discussion – (75 min) 7
Mr. Anderson gave a PowerPoint presentation updating dog parks to include highlights 8
of the Parks Master Plan that talks about dog parks policy and program, existing dog 9
parks, dog parks that are in process, the Off-Leash Pilot Program, locations the dog park 10
liaison staff and stakeholders have explored in North Palo Alto and a next steps timeline. 11
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if the efforts to do an Off-Leash Pilot somewhere in a 12
park no longer being pursued. 13
Mr. Anderson said it was still something that needed to be considered in the future but 14
presently the focus is a fenced dog park. 15
Christian Kalar, resident of Barron Park, thought Bol Park was a bad idea for a dog park 16
as the dogs would disturb the wildlife that are in the creek and a fence would impact the 17
view of the park. He suggested Briones Park would be an excellent choice. 18
Carole Lin shared a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the positive impact a dog park 19
could have on the community and a petition supporting a dog park in Barron Park with 20
community feedback. 21
Samir Tuma commented that dog ownership has increased during the course of the 22
pandemic which has increased not only the demand for dog parks but conflict. He 23
thought Off-Leash Pilot parks should be reexplored with temporary fencing. 24
Winter Dellenbach expressed opposition to a dog park at Bol Park and discussed her 25
reasoning including the donkeys that live in the park. She did not believe the survey 26
actually made it to their neighborhood so was not accurate. 27
Tami Cusi felt the need for a dog park was dire, especially after the pandemic. She said 28
her dogs do not bother the donkeys and she is disheartened when people yell at her for 29
having her dogs in the vicinity of a playground or schoolground. She liked the idea of a 30
pop-up in the interim. She also felt the existing dog parks were in need of an upgrade. 31
Herman Gyr, Barron Park resident, could imagine a dog park working within the 32
constraints of Bol Park. 33
1
Packet Pg. 9
DRAFT
DRAFT 7
John King, Barron Park resident and president the Barron Park Association, felt the need 1
for a dog park was dire. He liked the idea of a pop-up park. He expressed that the Barron 2
Park Association would like to be a stakeholder and help in any way they can. 3
Vice Chair Brown stated their purpose was to clarify community expectations as it 4
relates to dog parks in Palo Alto, the progress going on behind the scenes and to seek 5
community input on the direction they have been taking. Up until now, the focus has 6
been on North Palo Alto. They were looking at fenced dog parks as an option. She 7
thought Off-Leash dog park options could be considered as a tool but they had not 8
exhausted all of the options for identifying a fenced dog park. She would not want Staff 9
to stray away from focusing on that need by trying to do an Off-Leash Pilot Program at 10
the same time. She recommended Staff focus on individual projects. She stated they 11
heard Barron Park’s concerns and thought that could be a future priority after addressing 12
the North Palo Alto need. She advised them to form a consensus in terms of location. 13
She felt the temporary fencing was risky as bigger dogs could knock that over and it 14
would mess with community expectations. She recommended staying course focusing on 15
the North Palo Alto options and then moving forward to explore future options involving 16
a potentially Off-Leash Pilot Program or anything proposed by the Barron Park group. 17
Commissioner Cribbs agreed focusing on North Palo Alto was important. She was 18
intrigued with the mention of the location by the soccer field and Rinconada Park. She 19
was anxious to make sure that they help as Commissioners to move along whatever 20
bidding process needed to go through to improve the current parks. 21
Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Anderson to speak to the Staff resources question in terms of 22
taking on an additional dog park project beyond the current work at Mitchell Park, 23
Boulware and in search of North Palo Alto. 24
Mr. Anderson agreed with Vice Chair Brown’s assessment that in addition to that they 25
would be stretched very thin and would compromise the work on the aforementioned 26
projects. 27
Commissioner Wei spoke about a report by National Library of Medicine which gives 28
pros and cons in identifying dog park design and management. 29
Commissioner Kleinhaus echoed the importance of dog creating community in a 30
neighborhood. She believed they needed to keep development, including dog parks, 31
away from the riparian corridors which meant Bol Park, San Francisquito and Matadero 32
Creek were not good candidates. She thought Briones may be a good place in Barron 33
Park but agreed they should look first at North Palo Alto and should consider El Camino. 34
She suggested the City look at purchasing homes for dog park locations. She agreed that 35
temporary fencing was not a good idea because they would create expectations. She 36
1
Packet Pg. 10
DRAFT
DRAFT 8
thought it was a good idea for the Barron Park group to come to consensus, but she 1
advised not including Bol Park in that discussion. 2
Commissioner Oche wanted to ask if the survey Ms. Dellenbach referred to could be 3
redone to cover more target audience in the Community. She was curious to know if 4
there might be grants to explore to make the existing parks better. She asked for more 5
information about advancing enforcement in parks and was curious to know what is next. 6
Mr. Anderson answered the conversation that mentioned enforcement was around the 7
Pilot Program idea. He said there would be enforceable issues but there would be no one 8
there during those hours to enforce them. There is a very limited amount of animal 9
control officers, and they cannot be at all the places at once to enforce the rules. With 10
regard to what is next, finishing the two already in process before moving forward to 11
North Palo Alto. 12
Commissioner Wei was curious what the time range would be if they do have a Pilot 13
Program. 14
Mr. Anderson said for now it would be kept as a tool and not actively pursued at the 15
moment. 16
Chair Greenfield agreed that it was important to stay the course with the priorities they 17
have established. He felt Bol Park had potential conflicts and controversy and should not 18
be considered. Regarding the North Palo Alto sites, he commented the grass area of El 19
Camino Park was used for soccer warmups on occasion. He agreed with the concerns 20
regarding temporary fencing. 21
5. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair Greenfield – Discussion (15 22
min) 23
Commissioner Kleinhaus stated she asked Staff for a list of projects happening in the 24
Baylands. There were 11 large projects at different stages of development. That did not 25
include ongoing maintenance and operations or events and activities. She would like to 26
see a presentation on that. She mentioned that the fact that the beavers were back in Palo 27
Alto made national news and having them back was a big deal. The Baylands projects 28
include the tide gate repair, the advanced water purification system, the horizontal levee, 29
the sewer line rehabilitation project, parts of Bixby Park that are not finished, other levee 30
repairs, water quality control plant and golf course projects. 31
Mr. Anderson commented the key leaders of each project for the different departments 32
were aware of the other projects and, to a degree, there was a little coordination of not 33
having too much overlap. In some cases, there is not a lot of flexibility. 34
1
Packet Pg. 11
DRAFT
DRAFT 9
Chair Greenfield clarified that the tide gate project had been shelved in lieu of taking a 1
more holistic approach. 2
Mr. Anderson answered the four-year full replacement has been shelved and they are 3
looking at other structural repairs they can do to the existing facility. 4
Chair Greenfield questioned why that decision was made. 5
Mr. Anderson did not have all the facts at hand to give that answer. 6
Commissioner Cribbs commented that the racquet ad-hoc was interested in getting 7
pricing for temporary or permanent lighting for the Cubberley Tennis Courts. They are 8
also interested in the composition of a racquet court committee. 9
Commissioner Oche said that Commissioner Wei and she met with Kayla for the 10
recreational program to discuss next steps to help achieve the goal to expand more 11
affordable programs on the Enjoy! – catalog. They requested reports to help break down 12
target audience, program time and different categories. They were unable to get that but 13
Kayla shared a link with them and she believed the next steps would be for 14
Commissioner Wei and she to do a deep dive and have a working session going through 15
the trends to see how many programs and recommend opportunities they could explore. 16
She followed up on a question Commissioner Kleinhaus asked the previous month about 17
insurance. Cayla clarified that the City will cover individual volunteers who are willing 18
to offer programs but would not cover any organization that requires insurance. The 19
volunteer would need to go through the City’s screening process to meet their 20
requirements. 21
Commissioner Wei hoped after they have done the deep dive to be able to put out a 22
proposal to see how they could balance extending the oversubscribed Enjoy! – catalog 23
program versus looking to a more affordable program and bring volunteers onboard 24
without taking too much Staff time. She stated the ad-hoc for the grants had a meeting 25
with Kristen to get a ballpark amount and to understand the main challenges applying for 26
grants besides grant management and Staff bandwidth and how to address the Staff’s 27
concern and provide a solution to not bother more City Staff. The City has hired a 28
consultant to look into grants for all departments. She asked if they have information 29
what the consultant is working on in order to avoid duplication efforts and if they can 30
piggyback on grants other departments, such as Public Works, were working on. 31
Mr. Anderson said the consultant does have a spreadsheet of grants they are tracking and 32
recommending as possibilities for different areas within the City and he would send it to 33
Commissioner Wei. He thought it was possible to piggyback with Public Works. 34
1
Packet Pg. 12
DRAFT
DRAFT 10
Commissioner Cribbs commented they have created a list of potential foundations in 1
their area. They have put together a short list of things they know they would love to 2
have that grants could help with. She listed some of those things. They will be having a 3
meeting with the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to understand how and why 4
they give grants and if Palo Alto is appropriate for any of their grants. 5
Commissioner Wei asked about the Commissioner’s relationship versus local elected 6
officials and if they have funds for local parks and what the protocol would be in 7
reaching out to them. 8
Mr. Anderson suggested they discuss that with Kristen. 9
Chair Greenfield shared comments Commissioner Freeman sent him regarding 10
Cubberley stating that not much has changed. Staff is going to City Council on October 11
16 to get direction on next steps related to the City possibly acquiring more acreage at 12
Cubberley. With enhanced efforts to inform and educate golfers on encroaching in areas 13
where they should not be, the issue has greatly improved. They are being reminded of 14
the importance to stay out of a sensitive habitat at either check-in or starting point. In 15
addition to ropes, red stakes and fencing throughout the course, 40 signs were installed in 16
July advising golfers to stay out of sensitive areas. Additional fencing has been added 17
during the summer, as well. Regarding the State Water Board and monitoring of Wetland 18
areas of the golf course, an ecology consultant is performing an updated survey of plant 19
species in the Wetlands and developing a plan to bring the golf course into compliance 20
per the Water Board’s requirements. Regarding the status of the partner agreement with 21
First Tee, Staff and First Tee continue to discuss a partner agreement. In the interim, 22
other related matters are being addressed such as updating a co-sponsorship for facility 23
use to further continue the relationship between the City and the First Tee of Silicon 24
Valley. 25
Vice Chair Brown commented on park dedication stating that they were working with 26
Mr. Anderson and Staff to bring this back next month or the month after. 27
Commissioner Oche gave an update for the Youth and Sustainability Liaisons. 28
Commissioner Wei and she had a meeting with Christopher a few weeks prior. They had 29
interviews the previous month and were able to start up their first meeting and team 30
leadership group earlier this month. A few days ago, he shared the calendar with them, 31
and they are hoping to be able to give them advanced notice and pay a visit to the Youth 32
Council and the Teen Advisory Board in one of their meetings. For the Sustainability 33
Liaison, she had a productive working session with Jeanette per Mr. Anderson’s 34
recommendation. They reviewed the preassessment for the Institute of Sustainability 35
Infrastructure. Leeds is for buildings, but Institute of Sustainability Infrastructure is for 36
projects. They did a preassessment for Boulware Park and they already qualify for a 37
Silver Award that she believed the City should leverage on and find out ways to explore 38
1
Packet Pg. 13
DRAFT
DRAFT 11
that opportunity in order to meet their sustainability goals. They also had a meeting with 1
the Institute of Sustainability Infrastructure team and they are happy to collaborate with 2
them and organize an information session to find out how they can leverage on this 3
opportunity to help the City get more awards for some of the upcoming projects. The 4
next steps will be for Jeanette and her to do more reading into the guide and have another 5
working session to match supporting documents that would be helpful for the award and 6
to see what the City Staff recommendations will be for the next steps in terms of the 7
information session they are offering. They have also been told they are happy to train 8
City Staff for free. She would be glad if the City could make the best use of that 9
opportunity. 10
Chair Greenfield stated he met with Peter Gollinger, Urban Forester, and got an update 11
on where they are with looking to present to both this Commission and the Planning and 12
Transportation Commission regarding potential updates to the Title Eight Preordinance 13
as directed by City Council. They will likely be meeting with PTC and Parks and Rec 14
either the following month or potentially in November. Regarding Hawthorn Midpen 15
area planning, the Public Access Working Group will be meeting again on October 26 at 16
the Midpen headquarters on El Camino in Los Altos at 6 p.m. Regarding Safe Routes, 17
the following Sunday will be Bike Palo Alto. This will be the first time the event has 18
been held since the pandemic. It will start off at Fairmeadow Elementary School and will 19
be available to highlight the safe and less commonly known bike routes within the City. 20
It will also include some bike maintenance, helmet fitting and bike tune-ups. 21
22
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 23
ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 24
25
Commissioner Oche expressed curiosity about what the next steps should be in terms of 26
the informational session the organization she just spoke about was willing to offer, what 27
the protocol should be and if it is something that can be explored. 28
29
Mr. Anderson stated he would need to discuss it with Jeanette some more and see what 30
Staff capacity is. He would get back to her on that. He commented that Evan Howard 31
mentioned the Teen Advisory Council could give an update presentation in October. 32
Other potential items included Park Dedication, Tree Protection Ordinance and Foothills 33
Nature Preserve PIO. 34
35
Chair Greenfield suggested they look to bring three of those items to the October 36
meeting. He hoped they could do a Master Plan Review and Recreation Programs in 37
November. He asked about the Wellness Center. 38
39
1
Packet Pg. 14
DRAFT
DRAFT 12
Commissioner Cribbs stated she had no additional information on the Wellness Center. 1
She is waiting for Peter to schedule a Community meeting, which will have to take place 2
before the presentation to the Commission. There is a tentative date for the meeting in 3
October, but it has not been confirmed yet. 4
5
Chair Greenfield stated that hopefully in November they would have whichever one of 6
the four items falls out of the October potential list. He added there is potential for an e-7
bike update or grant opportunities. 8
9
Commissioner Cribbs hoped they would be able to do something on the Wellness Center 10
in November. 11
12
Mr. Anderson thought that would be a possibility. 13
14
Chair Greenfield thought it was realistic to expect that the Community meeting would be 15
before Thanksgiving. 16
17
Commissioner Cribbs asked if the dates had been confirmed for November and 18
December yet. 19
20
Chair Greenfield stated they normally end up rescheduling the November and December 21
meetings to avoid conflicts with Thanksgiving and holidays at the end of December. He 22
felt November 28 worked out well for them this year. For December, the 26th would not 23
be a good date. There was availability on the 12th and the 19th. He thought the preference 24
would be the 19th so there would be three weeks between the November and December 25
meetings. He asked if that date was a problem for anyone and stated they would 26
tentatively aim for Tuesday, December 19 but would need to check with Commissioner 27
Freeman. 28
29
Commissioner Wei stated she will be out of the country on the 19th. She would see if she 30
could Zoom in. 31
32
Commissioner Cribbs stated December 12 does not work for her. 33
34
Chair Greenfield asked Commissioner Wei to send him an email if she had further 35
thoughts on this. 36
37
Commissioner Cribbs stated she received a text from the former president of the Palo 38
Alto Pickleball Club, Monica Williams. She had her hand raised but did not get to speak. 39
She suggested that she send an email to the Commission to be distributed. 40
41
ADJOURNMENT 42
1
Packet Pg. 15
DRAFT
DRAFT 13
1
Meeting adjourned at 10:06 P.M. 2
1
Packet Pg. 16
2023-2024
Study Session
1
3
Packet Pg. 17
Who We Are
▣4 Committees
▣22 Palo Alto teens
□Gunn, Paly, Castilleja, Nueva, Ocean Grove, Priory
▣Objectives
□Connect and educate youth through events, initiatives, and
resources
□Communicate city affairs and global affairs to youth
□Champion youth concerns to the City Council & Parks and
Recreation Commission
■Increase collaboration with council & commission
□Conduct relevant research on teen issues
2
3
Packet Pg. 18
Members & Officers
▣President: Olivia Chiang
▣Vice President: Natya Chandrasekar
▣Secretary: Melinda Huang
▣Public Information Officers : Priscilla Chan, Joshua Kao
▣Members:
Alyssa Lin, Anika Raffle, Anthony Ho, Connor Chin, Dolly Wu, Jillian
Ascher, Keerath Pujji, Lara Dumanli, Maddie Park, Matt Lee,
Michael Matta, Rhea Josulya, Siyona Dhingra, Vin Bhat, Vivian Lin,
Zara Mukhtar, Zoya Raza
3
3
Packet Pg. 19
2022-2023
4
3
Packet Pg. 20
Themes
1. Mental Health 2. Civic Education 3. Climate Change
5
3
Packet Pg. 21
Mental Health Resource Guide
6
▣Objective
□Mental health education & awareness
▣Contents
□Terminology
□Health Risks
□Community Resources
▣Online and Physical copies
□Michael Park Teen Services Website
□Michael Park Teen Services Instagram
3
Packet Pg. 22
Final Study Cram Slam
▣Objectives
□Academic support
□Anxiety relief
□Community bonding
▣Offerings
□Study groups
□Free tutoring
□Silent study & game room
□De-stressing activities: therapy
dogs, slime-making, etc
□Free dinner & snacks
7
3
Packet Pg. 23
Monthly Political Newsletter
▣Objectives
□Increase civic literacy & engagement
▣Contents
□Nov: council & school board elections
□Dec: politics opportunities
□Jan: flood education
□Feb: sister cities
□Mar: summer work opportunities
8
3
Packet Pg. 24
City Official Meet & Greet
▣Objectives
□Youth-city communication
□Civic education
▣Panelists
□Mayor, Vice Mayor,
Councilmember
□City Manager
□Community Services Director
□Fire & Police department
□Parks & Rec Commissioner
9
3
Packet Pg. 25
Voter Pre-registration
▣Objectives
□Increase voter turnout
▣Offerings
□Online registration
■Paly, Gunn
□In-Person
■Farmer’s Market
10
3
Packet Pg. 26
Environmental Movie Night
▣Objectives
□Climate education & advocacy
□Community bonding
▣Offerings
□The Lorax showing
□Free entry
□Free snacks
11
3
Packet Pg. 27
2023-2024
12
3
Packet Pg. 28
Themes
1. Mental Health 2. Civic Engagement
13
3
Packet Pg. 29
Mental Health Census
14
▣Objectives
□Quantify # of youth experiencing disorders
■Anxiety, depression, bipolar, PTSD
□Understand barriers to treatment & advocacy
▣Contents
□City-wide survey
□Inform city council & commission
3
Packet Pg. 30
Short Mental Health Films
15
▣Objectives
□Offer resources & techniques
□Increase awareness & advocacy
□Highlight youth perspectives & experiences
▣Interviewees
□Mental health professionals
□PA young people
3
Packet Pg. 31
Final Study Cram Slam
▣Objectives
□Academic support
□Anxiety relief
□Community bonding
▣Offerings
□Study groups
□Free tutoring
□Silent study & game room
□De-stressing activities: therapy
dogs, slime-making, etc
□Free dinner & snacks 16
3
Packet Pg. 32
Youth Issues Census
▣Objectives
□Champion youth concerns to the City Council & Parks
and Recreation Commission
▣Questions
□Climate change
□Affordable housing
□Mental health
□School reform
17
3
Packet Pg. 33
“Palo Alto-gather” Newspaper
▣Objectives
□Make current events accessible &
engaging
□Foster civic literacy & engagement
▣Contents
□Global affairs, city events, resources
▣Issues
□Sept: Trump indictment
□Oct: Israel-Gaza conflict
18
3
Packet Pg. 34
Appreciations
▣City Council Representative: Julie Lythcott-Haims
▣Parks & Rec Representative: Anne Cribbs, Nellis
Freeman, Jeff Greenfield, Bing Wei, Joy Oche
▣Advisor: Chris Sanchez
▣The Mitchell Park Community Center
19
3
Packet Pg. 35
Questions
▣What are P&R’s primary objectives this year?
▣How does P&R currently communicate with
youth?
▣How can PAYC best serve P&R?
▣What will collaboration look like between PAYC
and P&R?
□Attending meetings
□Study sessions
20
3
Packet Pg. 36
Thank you
21
3
Packet Pg. 37
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2023
SUBJECT: PARK DEDICATION OF THE TOWER WELL SITE AT 201 ALMA
STREET
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) review and discuss whether
to recommend that the City Council adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance for the Tower Well site,
.19 acres of land (8,437 square feet) at 201 Alma Street.
BACKGROUND
The PRC 2023-2024 Work Plan includes a goal of conducting a broad review and assessment of
potential sites within our community to recommend dedicating as parkland.
A Park Dedication Ordinance reserves the land for park, recreation, or conservation purposes.
Article VIII of the City Charter states: “All lands owned or controlled by the city which are or
will be used for park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes shall be dedicated for such
purposes by ordinance.” Additionally, the Charter states that all dedicated parklands shall be
listed, with their legal description and map, in Section 22 of the Municipal Code.
DISCUSSION
The PRC Park Dedication Ad Hoc Committee (Ad Hoc) has met with staff multiple times to
discuss potential sites for park dedication. While the Ad Hoc and staff continue to investigate
several potential sites, the Tower Well site, an 8,437 square foot property located 201 Alma
Street at the corner of Alma Street and Hawthorne Avenue, has been identified as a location that
should be dedicated now.
Located on the property is the 79-foot-high Tower Well, an adjoining 210 square foot building, a
decomposed granite trail, native plants, two park benches, an antique water pump display, and
four interpretive signs. There are on-site electric and fiber utility infrastructure that will have to
remain and could require maintenance or replacement in the future. Some of the infrastructure is
above-ground equipment that is serving the area and adjacent areas.
The Tower Well was built in 1910 to store Palo Alto’s water supply. In 1988, the City Council
approved a staff recommendation to abandon the Tower Well. On March 9, 1992, the City
Council approved a Request for Conceptual Proposals (RFCP) for reuse and disposition of the
Tower site and directed staff to solicit conceptual proposals. On December 15, 1992, three
proposals were received.
4
Packet Pg. 38
On August 18, 1993, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) passed a motion requesting that the
City Council designate the Tower Well site as a Category II building on the City’s Historic
Structure Inventory because of its historical significance. On February 28, 1993, the City Council
determined not to designate the Tower Well site as a Category II building on the Palo Alto
Historic Building Inventory and rejected the conceptual proposals. Instead, the City Council
directed that the property be “land banked” and a beneficial use considered in the future, and that
if there were a good idea in the community for use of the property, the City should let it emerge.
On February 5, 1996, the City Council reviewed three unsolicited proposals for use of
the Tower Well site and directed staff to prepare an RFP for an option to purchase the site. On
June 10, 1996, the City Council approved an RFP for an option to purchase the site for use and
development, including the following criteria: 1) require the preservation of the tower; 2)
recognize that public benefit may be provided through direct use of the site and/or through
dedication of the proceeds from the sale of the site to an identified public need; and 3)
recognize single-family use as an appropriate use of the site. In February 1997, the City Council
decided not to sell the property (Attachment A).
In 2000, a decomposed granite pathway, park benches, and interpretive signs were added to the
property.
TIMELINE
• November/December 2023-- PRC Recommendation of a Park Dedication Ordinance
• January/February 2023 – Park Dedication Ordinance to City Council
ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment A: February 3, 1997 City Council staff report: Subject: Recommendation to
Accept Proposal for an Option to Purchase the Tower Well Site, 201 Alma Street
4
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Summary Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 3, 1997 CMR:108:97
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT PROPOSAL FROM
THOMAS AND KATHLEEN TAYLOR FOR AN OPTION TO
PURCHASE THE TOWER WELL SITE, 201 ALMA STREET
REOUEST:
This report: 1) transmits the proposals submitted in response to the Request for Proposals
(RFP) for an option to purchase the Tower Well site, located at the comer of Alma Street
and Hawthorne Avenue in Palo Alto; and 2) transmits the recommendation of the Tower
Well Site Proposal Evaluation Committee (Committee) that the Council approve the
proposal submitted by Thomas and Kathleen Taylor for a single live/work space and public
plaza on the site.
Due to their length, copies ofthe proposals and letters are provided only for Council and ~
Library packets. A summary of the proposals is provided in all packets (Attachment B).
Complete copies of the proposals are available for review in the Real Property office on
the fourth floor of City Hall, as well as at all libraries except the Children's Library.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that Council approve the proposal submitted by Thomas and Kathleen
Taylor for a live/work space and public plaza on the site and direct staff to negotiate an
option to purchase with the Taylors, prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EL&)
for the Taylor proposal and remm to Council for approval of the EIA and option to
purchase.
The recommendation does not represent any changes to existing City policy and is
eomistent with past Council action. All the proposals, including the recommended
CMR:108:97 P~ge I of
4
Packet Pg. 40
proposal, are consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan.
policies relating to the site and the proposals are as follows:
Housing:
Policy 3:
Policy 6:
Policy 7:
Comprehensive Plan
Protect andenhance those .qualities which make Palo Alto's
neighborhoods especially desirable.
Increase the overall supply of rental housing.
Encourage and foster the development of new and existing housing
units affordable to low, moderate and middle income households.
Policy 16:Study surplus school and institutional sites to determine possibility of
more affordable housing.
Program 17: Evaluate commercial and industrial properties with intention of
rezoning to housing where appropriate.
Employment:
Policy 2:Encourage the construction of more housing primarily on or near
industrial and commercial sites.
Urban Design:
Policy 2:Encourage private preservation of buildings which have historic or
architectural merit or both.
Program 16: Seek innovative ways to apply the spirit of current codes and ordinance
to older buildings.
Schools and Parks:
Policy 3 & 4:Provide parks sites and facilities of different sizes and types within
walking distance for residents within the urban portion of Palo Alto.
CMR:108:97 Page 2 of 18 °
4
Packet Pg. 41
All the proposals provide housing units in varying numbers in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan Housing and Employment elements, and all the proposals preserve the
tower in accordance with the Urban Design policies. All proposals, except for the Phillips
proposal, provide park sites in accordance with the Schools and Parks policy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR~Z:
In response to Council direction given on June 10, 1996, staff advertised an RFP for an
option to purchase the Tower Well site for use and development. In response to the RFP,
four proposals to purchase the site were received, along with one proposal to develop and
manage the site and two letters suggesting alternatives to the RFP. These proposals and
letters are summarized in Attachment B to the staff report. A committee consisting of City
staff (Real Property Manager, Senior Financial Analyst, Building Inspection Supervisor,
Assistant Planning Official, and Senior Engineer) and a member of the Historic Resources
Board (HRB) evaluated the proposals and interviewed the proposers, evaluating responses
based on the criteria included in the RFP. Based on this evaluation, the Committee
recommends that Council approve the proposal submitted by Thomas and Kathleen Taylor
to purchase the Tower Well site for use and development as a single live/work space and
public plaza. If the proposal is approved, staff will return to Council for approval of the
option to purchase the site following preparation of an EIA and completion of a structural
investigation of the tower.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No impact at this time. Once the option is awarded, the City will receive $5,000 as a
purchase price of the option. If the option is granted to and exercised by the recommended
.proposer, Thomas and Kathleen Taylor, the City will receive a purchase price of a
minimum of $1,000 to a maximum of $100,000, depending upon the cost of structural
engineering and rehabilitation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: .....
An environmental assessment required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) will be performed in conjunction with Council's approval of an option to purchase
the site. Staff anticipates that the issues most likely to come from the environmental
assessment of the recommended proposal concernvisual and aesthetic impacts.
CMR:108:97 Page 3 of 18
4
Packet Pg. 42
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A - Summary of the RFP for Sale of the Tower Well Site
Attachment B - Summary of Proposals in Response to RFP
Attachment C - Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Attachment D - Proposal Summary Chart
Proposals - (Council and Library packets only)
PREPARED BY:Janet Freeland, Senior Financial Analyst, Administrative Services
Department
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Emily
Deputy City Manager,
Administrative
Manager
CC:Tower Well Site Subcommittee Mailing List
Proposers
Historic Resources Board
Related CMR's: CMR:324:93, CMR:167:92, CMR:290:91, CMR:289:91, CMR:545:0,
CMR:374:0, CMR:351:0, CMR:497:9, CMR:267:8, CMR:162:94, CMR:133:96;
CMR:276:96.
CMR:108:97 Page 4 of 18 "
4
Packet Pg. 43
City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager's Report
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT PROPOSAL FROM THOMAS AND
KATHLEEN TAYLOR FOR AN OPTION TO PURCHASE THE TOWER WELL
SITE, 201 ALMA STREET
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that Council approve the proposal submitted by Thomas and Kathleen
Taylor for. a live/work space and public plaza on the site and direct staff negotiate an
option to purchase with the Taylors, prepare an EIA for the Taylor proposal and return to
Council for approval of the EIA and option to purchase.
In 1988, Council approved a staff recommendation to abandon and dispose of four of the
City's ten wells, including the Tower Well, an 8,437 square foot site located at the corner.
of Alma Street and Hawthorne Avenue. On March 9, 1992, the City Council approved
a Request for Conceptual Proposals (RFCP) for reuse and disposition of the Tower Well
site and directed staff to solicit conceptual proposals over a nine-month period. On
December 15, 1992, three proposals were received. On August 18, 1993, the Historic
Resources Board (HRB) passed a motion requesting that the City Council designate the
Tower Well site as a Category II building on the City's Historic Structure Inventory
because of its historical significance. On February 28, 1993, the Council determined not
to designate the Tower Well site as a Category 2 building on the Palo Alto Historic
Building Inventory and rejected the conceptual proposals. Instead, Council directed that
the property be "land' banked" and a beneficial use considered in the future, and that if
there were a good idea in the community for use of the property, the City should let it
emerge. On February 5, 1996, Council reviewed three unsolicited proposals for use of
the Tower Well site which staff felt should be brought before the Council for-
consideration, and directed staff to prepare an RFP for an option to purchase the site. On
June 10, 1996, Council approved an RFP for an option to purchase the site for use and
development, including the following criteria: 1) require the preservation of the tower; 2)
recognize that public benefit may be provided through direct use of the site and/or through
dedication of the proceeds from the sale of the site to an identified public need; and 3)
recognize single-family use as an appropriate use of the site.
CMR:108:97 Page ~ of 18 ~
4
Packet Pg. 44
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The recommendation does not represent any changes to existing City policy and is
consistent with past Council action. All the proposals, including the recommended
proposal, are consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan
policies relating to the site and the proposals are as follows:
Housing:
Policy 3:Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto's
neighborhoods especially desirable.
Policy 6:
Policy 7:
Policy 16:
Program 17:
Increase the overall supply of rental housing.
Encourage and foster the development of new and existing housing
units affordable to low, moderate and middle income households.
Study surplus school and institutional sites to determine possibility of
more affordable housing.
Evaluate commercial and industrial properties with intention of
rezoning to housing where appropriate.
Employment:
Policy 2:Encourage the construction of more housing primarily on or near
industrial and commercial sites.
Urban Design:
Policy 2:Encourage private preservation of buildings which have historic or
architectural merit or both.
Program 16: Seek innovative ways to apply the spirit of current codes and ordinance
to older buildings.
CMR:108:97 Page 6 of 18 "
4
Packet Pg. 45
Schools and Parks:
Policy 3 & 4:Provide parks sites and facilities of different sizes and types within
walking distance for residents within the urban portion of Palo Alto.
All the proposals provide housing units in varying numbers in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan Housing and Employment elements, and all the proposals preserve the
tower in accordance with the Urban Design policies. All proposals, except for the Phillips
proposal, provide park sites in accordance with the Schools and Parks policy.
Solicitation Process
In June 1996, RFP information flyers were sent to interested persons and organizations,
and the RFP was advertised in the _Palo Alto Weekly. A summary of the RFP is attached
(Attachment A). In response to this advertising, approximately 30 proposal packages were
mailed or given to interested parties. Proposals were due September 10, 1996, and on that
date, the following proposals for the option to purchase were received:
Bernard F. Carter and Jonathan T. Carter propose to convert the tower to a single
family owner-occupied home with a public plaza along Alma Street. The proposed
purchase price is $45,000.
2.Susan and Tim Gray propose one of the following three options:
Option 1:Add two stories to the tower well to make eight. Grounds to be a
sculpture garden and landscaped park. The first floor of the tower
would be for art and function as a public space. Floors 2 through
6 contain ten one-bedroom hotel suites, and floor 6 to 8 would be
a 2-story residential unit. Proposed purchase price is $500,000.
Option 2:No two story addition, but includes all eight stories of Option I by
shortening the ceilings. Same use as Option 1. Proposed purchase
price is $450,000.
Option 3:Duplicates the configuration of Option 2, but converts'the hotel
rooms to ten 350 .square foot studio apartments. Includes moving
a small historic home, scheduled to be demolished, onto the site.
Proposed purchase price is $450,000.
CMR:108:9"/Page 7 of 18 "
4
Packet Pg. 46
Donald A. Phillips proposes to convert the tower into a 6-story archive for the
purpose of archiving/storing/exhibiting historical materials and to construct (along
the Alma/Hawthorne corner of site) a 2 and 3-story residential structure with six
apartment units and a ground floor autocourt for parking. Proposed purchase price
is $100,000.
4.Thomas and Kathleen Taylor propose one of the following two options:
Option 1:Convert the tower into live/work space with a small apartment
above a place of business and a public plaza along Alma Street.
Proposed purchase price is $1,000 to $100,000 depending upon
costs for a structural engineer and rehabilitation.
Option 2:Convert the tower into a single family residence and construct a
garage with a small apartment above and a public plaza along Alma
Street. The proposed purchase price is $50,000 to $200,000
depending upon costs of a structural engineer and rehabilitation.
In addition to the above proposals to purchase the site, two letters and a proposal to
develop and manage the site were submitted. Those submissions are discussed below in
the "ALTERNATIVES" section of this report.
Due to their length, copies of the proposals and letters are provided only for Council and
Library packets. A summary of the proposals is provided in all packets (Attachment B).
Complete copies of the proposals are available for review in the Real Property office on
the fourth floor of City Hall, as well as at all libraries except the Children's Library.
Evaluation of Proposals
The six member Committee formed to evaluate the proposals and make a recommendation
to the Council was composed of staff from the Administrative Services Department (Real
Estate Division); Department of Planning and Community Environment (Planning and
Building Inspection Divisions); Public Works Department (Engineering Division), and
member of the Historic Resources Board. The Committee's evaluation of the proposals
included a review of the written proposals and interviews with each of the proposers.
The proposals were evaluated based upon the criteria include in the RFP and listed in
Attachment C. It should be noted that all the proposers provided financial information
verifying that each could pay the amount bid for the purchase pdee of the option.
Information concerning the backgrounds of the proposers and their development teams is
included in the proposals and the proposal summaries (Attachment B). A discussion of the
Committee's evaluation of the proposals in terms of the RFP criteria follows:
CMR:108:97 Page 8 of 18"
4
Packet Pg. 47
Bernard F. Carter and Jonathan T. Carter:
Satisfies Public Need/Provides Public Benefit:
The Carter proposal provides the public benefit of one unit of single family housing and a
public area designated to be used by the Arts Commission for the display of art compatible
with the tower. In addition, the proposer will place deed restrictions on the property which
guarantee that 25 percent of the net profit from any future sales of the property be contributed
to the arts or Palo Alto Historic Association. The Committee considered the concept of the
City receiving a percentage of the net profit from future sales of the property to be a unique
and positive public benefit.
Preservation of the Tower:
The tower will be preserved as a single family, owner-occupied home. Although the
proposal includes a site plan only, the proposers state that the tower will be preserved
physically with little change to the exterior other than necessary windows.
Consistency with City Goals and Objectives:
The proposal is consistent with existing City goals and objectives as set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, provided the property is rezoned to Planned
Community Zone District (PC). As shown on the proposed site plan, the garage probably
encroaches into the Hawthorne Street setback and may require a variance. In terms of
building code compliance, although no plans were submitted for this proposal, it sounds
similar to the Taylor Option 2 proposal, and the same code issues may apply (see below).
Impact on the Neighborhood, Community and the Environment:
The impact on the neighborhood, community and environment from the proposed single
family use in the existing tower and a small public art plaza is minimal. The garage will be
located back on the site with access from Hawthorne and will be compatible in material and
design with the Tower structure, Along with the. Taylor proposals (discussed below), this
proposal is among those requiring the least change to the site, the least parking and
generating the least traffic. The proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood, which
includes single and multi-family residential and neighborhood commercial uses. In terms
of design, the Committee preferred the location of the Carter's garage (dose to Hawthorne)
to the Taylor Option 2 location (next to the North Face building).
CMR:108:97 Page 9 of 18"
4
Packet Pg. 48
History and Assessment of the Proposer's Ability to Carry Out Project:
This proposal includes significantly less detail than the other proposals concerning both the
proposed improvements and the proposer's background and ability to caxry out the project.
The proposers have completed several rehabilitation projects (storage house to commercial
office space and rehabilitation of a warehouse) and have recently constructed their own
home. Bernard F. Carter is retired from the commercial real estate business. Jonathan Carter
is a medical student at Stanford and would live in the tower.
Monetary Consideration to City:
Proposed purchase price is $45,000.
Susan and Tim Gray:
Satisfies Public Need/Provides Public Benefit:
Each of the Gray proposal options would provide the public benefit of a park with gardens
and art and public space on the ground floor of the tower. Options 1 and 2 would each
provide a 2- story single family residence and ten hotel units. Option 3 would provide the
2- story single family residence and ten apartment units and a possible additional residential
unit in a relocated historic house. The Committee noted that the provision of housing
satisfies an identified public need and rated the multiple residential proposal highly in this
respect. The Committee also considered the public access to the tower to be a significant
public benefit. However, the Gray's hotel use options were not rated highly for public benefit
because, although Palo Alto has a high demand for hotel space, the Committee did not
consider this a public need appropriate for this site.
Preservation of the Tower:
In all three Gray options, the tower would be modified by the addition of an elevator, two
enclosed staircases and many window openings, The elevator and staircases would be at the
rear of the tower so as not to impede the view of the tower. In Option 1, two stories would
be added to the top of the tower. In Option 3, a small historic house would be moved to the
site adjacent to the North Face building. The Committee felt the Gray proposal options
afforded the least preservation of the tower due to the number of windows, stairs and
possibly floors to be added and because of the questions concerning the structural feasibility
of the proposed uses (see below),
CMR:108:97 Page ~.0 of 18"
4
Packet Pg. 49
Consistency with City Goals and Objectives:
The proposed use is consistent with existing City goals and objectives as set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, provided the property is rezoned to Planned
Community Zone District (PC). The Option 3 proposal for multi-family residential would
be subject to the requirement that 10 percent of the units be below-market-rate. For all
options, a height variance would be required for the top residence, stairs and elevator and
possibly a setback variance for parking which may be in the required Hawthorne Street
setback. For options 1 and 2, sixteen parking spaces would be required, and nine are shown
on the plans. For option 3, nineteen spaces would be required, and nine are shown. Locating
the cottage on the site would raise additional zoning issues and requires added parking. In
addition, the proposal options (lst floor gallery/reception, hotel guest rooms floors 2-6 or
studio apartments; residence on added floor 7 and 8) raise several design issues related to the
building code. All occupants in all guest rooms need to be able to access two separate exits,
which are not included in the current design. The addition of the 7th and 8th floors raises
structural concerns, and the 8th floor's only exit is a spiral stair which is not allowed in this
situation.
Although all the proposals have some non complying zoning issues, most are solvable
through redesign or variance. Most of the proposals' building code issues, assuming
structural investigation of the tower results are adequate, are also solvable. The Gray
proposals have the most issues and problems related to zoning and building codes, which
altogether could require so much redesign, construction cost or a combination of both that
the project would likely be infeasible.
Impact on the Neighborhood, Community and Environment:
This proposal, along with the Phillips proposal (see below), would have more impact on the
neighborhood in terms of traffic, parking and use/design compatibility than the single family
proposals. Traffic generation and parking demand for this proposal will benefit from the
proximity of the site to downtown and the bus and train station; however, no detailed traffic
analysis of the proposals has been done, and this proposal requires more parking than is
shown on the proposed plans. Concerning compatibility of the use with the neighborhood,
the Committee concluded that the multi-family residential option (Option #3) is more
compatible than the hotel uses (Options 1 and 2). Concerning design, the Committee felt that
the Option 1 (two added stories to the tower) and Option 3 (addition of historic house saved
from demolition) were too much for the site in terms of aesthetics, zonhag and building
codes.
CMR:I08:97 Page 11 of 11~"
|
4
Packet Pg. 50
History and Assessment of Proposer's Ability to Carry Out Project:
Through their work with non-profit corporations and their present jobs at Lucile Salter
Packard Children's Hospital, Tim and Susan Gray have experience in operations planning,
financial and staffmanagement, accounting, community consensus building, negotiations and
historical preservation. Their experience also includes establishing a community art studio
(Harmony Studio) on E1 Camino Real in the former Casa Real Mexican restaurant. Although
the Grays have a demonstrated commitment to the Palo Alto community and the arts as
evidenced though their work with non-profits and the establishment of the community art
studio, the Committee was concerned about their lack of development experience combined
with the ambitiousness of the proposed development in terms of both complexity and
expense.
Monetary Consideration to City:
Proposed purchase price for Option 1: $500,000
Option 2 and 3" $450,000 for each.
The highest monetary consideration offered by any of the proposers for the purchase of the
site is the Grays' bid of $500,000 for Option 1. The second highest bid is the Gray's bid of
$450,000 for Options 2 and 3.
Donald A. Phillips:
Satisfies Public Need/Provides Public Benefit:
The Phillips proposal offers the public benefit of the archive facility and services, and it
provides six additional housing units. The Committee found the archive use to be an
intriguing and particularly appropriate use of the tower, and the provision of housing
satisfies an identified public need. For these reasons, the proposal was rated highly in this
criterion.
Preservation of the Tower:
Modifications to the tower include a tile roof, an elevator, some exterior openings and an
open. fi:amework staircase. A six-unit residential structure would be situated at the comer of
Alma Street and Hawthorne. The proposed archive use has the advantage of requiring
relatively few exterior openings cut into the tower, and although the proposal includes the
addition of another significant building on the site, the development is well designed in the
way that it links the tower to the residential and does not overwhelm but rather enhances the
tower. The Committee felt the improvements complement the tower architecturally.
CMR:108:97 Page 12 of 18"
4
Packet Pg. 51
Consistency with City Goals and Objectives:
The proposal is consistent with existing City goals and objectives as set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance providing the property is rezoned to PC. The
multi-family use would be subject to the requirement that 10 percent of the units be below-
market-rate. The proposed design would require a height variance for the tower roof, stairs,
elevator and portions of the residential structure, and a variance for the setback along
Hawthorne. Eighteen parking spaces are required, and nine are provided. In terms of the
building code compliance of this proposal (new multi-residential building with tower well
uses as archive), the archive would be a storage occupancy and could extend to the 5th and
6th floors only if the tower well and improvements are determined to be an adequate type of
construction. Also, the 5th and 6th floors are each required to be provided with two exits,
and only one stair is currently indicated. Disabled access standards would apply to the
archive use.
Impact on the Neighborhood, Community and Environment:
Along with the Gray proposal options, this proposal would have more impact on the
neighborhood in terms of traffic, parking and use/design compatibility than the single family
residential proposals. Traffic generation and parking demand for the proposal will benefit
from the proximity of the site to downtown and the bus and train station; however no detailed
traffic analysis of the proposals has been done, and this proposal requires more parking than
shown on the proposed plans. Concerning compatibility of the use and design with the
neighborhood, the proposed use is compatible with the existing mixed use neighborhood
which includes both multi-family residential and neighborhood commercial uses.
Concerning design compatibility, the Committee was impressed with this proposed design.
Although it includes the addition of a new multi-residential structure on the site, the design
avoids much of the appearance of mass by stepping the building from two to three stories,
and including window bays and varying roof elements, and it successfully deals with parking
by creating an interior auto court. In spite of the successful design, however, the Committee
was still concerned about the possible impacts of this relatively large development on the
site.
History and Assessment of Proposer's Ability to Carry Out Project:
Donald A. Phillips, a developer since 1970, is a very strong proposer in terms of~story and
assessment ofproposer's ability to carry out the project. Mr, Phillips has developed many
projects involving both renovation and new construction and has put together an experienced
development team for this project whiehis well-versed in the constraints and opportunities
of adaptive reuse and historic preservation. His proposal reflects a high degree of
CMR:108:97 Page 13 of
4
Packet Pg. 52
preparation, professionalism and commitment, and he provided the Evaluation Committee
with detailed qualifications for himself and his architect and engineer.
Monetary Consideration to the City:
Proposed purchase price:$100,000.
Thomas and Kathleen Taylor:
Satisfies Public Need/Provides Pubic Benefit:
Both Taylor proposal options provide the public benefit of a public plaza and at least one unit
of housing (Option 2 provides for two units). The Taylor's proposal is more detailed than the
Carter's concerning plaza size, elements and improvements. Like the Carter's, the Taylor's
plaza would include public art; however, the Taylor plaza is larger and would also include
interpretive elements emphasizing water and relating to the history of Palo Alto and its
utilities. The Committee considered the access to the tower provided by the-Taylor Option
1 proposal to be a significant public benefit.
Preservation of the Tower:
The Taylor Option 1 proposal involves few changes to the grounds with no out buildings to
impede the tower visually. Modifications to the tower impact less than one percent of the
exterior and consist of enlarging one window, and adding four doors and a set of exterior
stairs to the second floor. The most visible upper half of the tower will remain almost
unchanged with only the addition of a cornice on the upper rim. The Taylor Option 2
proposal includes the addition to the site of a garage with an apartment above. Option 2
modifications to the tower would impact less than two percent of the exterior and consist of
adding windows to the wails of the lower portion of tower, a set of exterior stairs and the
cornice to the upper rim. In both options, placement of stairs and windows will be made to
minimize visual impact. Along with the Carter proposal, the Taylor proposals involve the
least change to the tower and site.
Consistency with City Goals and Objectives:
The proposal is consistent with City goals and objectives as set forth inthe Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, provided the property is rezoned to PC, The Taylor Option
1 proposal require s nine parking spaces where six are shown on the plans, and one space
must be covered, In the Taylor Option 2; the added dome and possibly the staircase require
a variance, and three parking spaces are required where two are shown. In terms of building
code compliance, for the Taylor Option 1 proposal (art studio with dwelling on 2nd and 3rd
4
Packet Pg. 53
floor), the commercial studio would need to comply with accessibility standards. The 3rd
floor dwelling unit exceeds 500 square feet, and thus requires two exit stairs. For the Taylor
Option 2 (3-story single family dwelling with 4th floor storage area), the storage level would
probably be considered a 4th floor, and exit stairs would have to be provided from this floor.
Impact on Neighborhood, Community and Environment:
The Taylor proposal options for a single live work space and two family residence with small
public plazas would have little impact on the neighborhood, community and environment.
Similar to the Carter proposal, the Taylor options would require the least change to the site,
the least parking and generate the least traffic. The proposed uses and design are compatible
with the neighborhood, which includes single and multiple family residential and
neighborhood commercial uses.
History and Assessment of the Proposer's Ability to Carry Out Project:
The Taylors have a strong background and development team. They have developed two
Palo Alto underutilized commercial and industrial properties into residential uses. Mr.
Taylor is a Project/Program Manager for Hewlett Packard and has worked in the construction
trades. The architect for the project is a Palo Alto f'urn with experience in historic
preservation and rehabilitation and reuse of older buildings. The artist for the project is
familiar with the site and has experience creating public art installations.
Monetary Consideration to City:
Proposed purchase price: Option 1: $1,000 to $100,000"
Option 2: $50,000 to $200,000 *
*depending upon costs for structural engineering and rehabilitation.
Committee's Conclusion and Recommendation
As may be evident from the evaluation discussion above, the Committee did not have an easy
task indetermining which of the proposals to recommend, and the Committee's rating of the
proposals was very close. Atter much deliberation, the Committee determined to recommend
the Taylor Option 1 proposal for a single live/work space with a public plaza. Although it
is not the strongest proposal in all criteria nor was it rated highest by all members of the
Committee, overall it was rated the highest, and the Committee's recommendation is
unanimous. Its greatest strength is that it.involves the least change to the tower and the site
of any of the proposals and yet still maintains some public access to the tower itself. It is
also strong in terms of having minimal impact on the neighborhood, and strong in the history
CM~:108:97 Page 15 of 18 °
4
Packet Pg. 54
and assessment of the ability of the proposer to carry out the project. The proposed use and
improvements are consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan and have relatively few
problems with zoning and building code compliance. It is potentially the weakest proposal
in terms of monetary consideration to the City (the purchase price could be a minimum of
$1,000); however, the Committee felt its other strengths compensated for its weakness in
this area. The relative ranking and strengths and weaknesses of the other proposals are
discussed below:
Closely ranked to the recommended Taylor Option 1 were the carter proposal and Taylor
Option 2 proposals. The single family residential proposals have many similarities. The
Committee favored the Carter's due to its unique benefit of committing 25 percent of the net
profit from future sale of the property to the City, and it preferred the Carter site plan with
the garage back on the site along Hawthorne. However, the Taylor proposals were rated
more highly in terms of the history and assessment of the proposer's ability to carry out the
project. The Taylors are familiar with the local community and have redeveloped two Palo
Alto commercial properties for residential use. Their proposal is more informative and
specific and reflects considerable research into the unique characteristics and history of the
property.
Next in the dose ranking, the Phillips proposal was the strongest in terms of the history and
assessment of the proposer's ability to carry out the project. Mr. Phillips is a successful
developer and has an experienced development team and an impressive proposal. Another
of its strengths is the public benefit of its proposed use. The housing satisfies an identified
public need, and the archive is an appropriate use for the tower in that it would require few
openings cut into the tower, and the entire tower would be accessible to the public. Although
the Committee was very intrigued by the Phillips proposed use and design, its weakness is
that it is a large development for the site, and the Committee had concerns about its impact
on the neighborhood.
The Gray proposal options offer the highest bids for the purchase price and therefore the
highest monetary consideration to the City. However, the Committee did not consider the
Gray proposal options for a hotel use a significant enough public benefit to justify the degree
of alteration that would have to be done to the tower. The multi-family housing option
meets an identified public need, but this advantage was outweighed by the Committee's
concern about the feasibility of the proposal considering the number of significant problems
with. zoning and building code compliance and the Gray's relative lack of experience with
construction and development.
As stated above, the Committee liked the concept of the City continuing to share in the
value of the tower well site by receiving a percentage of the future profits from its sale.
Although the Committee did not wish to make this a condition of its recommendation, staff
CMR:108:97 Page I6 of 18
4
Packet Pg. 55
suggests that, if the Council approves the recommended proposal, it require the Taylors
to commit at least 10 percent of the profits from future sales of the property to the City
for a specified public purpose.
Structural Investigation and Option to Purchase
The RFP anticipated that any necessary structural investigation of the tower would be
performed by the optionee following Council award of the option. However, due to
questions raised during the proposal process concerning the unknown structural conditions
of the tower, staff believes that it would be to the advantage of both the proposer and the
City if the proposer undertook the structural investigation prior to the award of the option
to lease. This way, both the City and the proposer will know, prior to entering into the
option to purchase, whether any structural conditions exist that might affect the design or
feasibility of the proposed project. The investigation would be conducted by the proposer
at his expense through an appropriate license agreement which would require the proposer
to protect the City and provide necessaryinsurance. Results of the investigation will be
reported to Council when staff returns with the EIA and option to purchase.
This report evaluates the proposals for sale of the Tower Well site in accordance with the
RFP approved by Council in June 1996. Alternatives to the RFP for sale have been
presented in a proposal and two letters, as follows:
Tower Well Partners (TWP): TWP, a partnership between Roxy Rapp &
Company and Carrasco & Associates, proposes that the City retain the property,
preserve the tower and develop a 4-story mixed use facility (first floor office,
remaining floors six units residential) which will generate income. The proposer's
estimated construction cost is $1,556,245, which the City would finance. TWP
would provide property management services, and a development fee would be paid
to TWP for a turnkey project. Proposers estimate annual net income for the first
year to be $80,000, which TWP points out would be more :than triple the amount
the City would gain in annual interest on the sale of the property at an assumed
price of $350,000. TWP proposes the additional gains be used to support the
maintenance of the University Avenue Downtown Area and Downtown Park North
Neighborhood. In the event project revenues are unacceptable, TWP guarantees to
purchase the property from the City at market value, less the value of any
encumbrances existing at the time of the sale.
Foundation for Global Community (Foundation): The Foundation, which owns
the property on both sides of the tower, believes that it is in the interest of the City
to maintain ownership of the site for long-term needs which may not be known. The
CMR:108:97 Page 17 of 18 "
4
Packet Pg. 56
Foundation proposes that the City develop the site in the short term as an
interpretive park with the theme of water. Suggestions include developing the park
in conjunction with the Historic Society or some other appropriate organization; that
park features include a water sculpture; and that the interior of the tower be a
historical interpretive facility.
James Walter, Architect, explains why he decided not to submit a proposal in
response to the RFP and presents a design concept for the Tower Well site. The
design concept includes eight floors of rental apartments in the refurbished tower,
a Native American Arts Center and a relocated Palo Alto vintage cottage which
would be used for offices and a visitor's center.
No impact at this time. Once the option is awarded, the City will receive $5,000 as a
purchase price of the option. If the option is granted to and exercised by the recommended
proposer, Thomas and Kathleen Taylor, the City will receive a purchase price bid of a
minimum of $1,000 to a maximum of $100,000, depending upon the cost of the structural
engineer and rehabilitation.
ENVIRONMENTAL AS~:
An environmental assessment required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) will be performed in conjunction with Council's approval of an option to purchase
the site. Staff anticipates that the issues most likely to come from the environmental
assessment of the recommended proposal concern visual and aesthetic impacts.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:
The selected proposer will conduct a structural investigation of the tower under license
from the City, and staff will prepare an EIA. Staff will then return to Council for its
approval of the EIA and award of the option to purchase to the selected proposer.
CM11:108:97 Page 18 of 18 ' ~ .
4
Packet Pg. 57
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY - TOWER WELL SITE RFP
The Request for Proposals (RFP) consists of 1) the Information Flyer and II) the Proposal
Package.
The Information Flyer summarizes the offering and will be sent to interested persons or
organizations. The Information Flyer includes the following information:
A.A general description of the property for sale, including a location and site map.
B.. The place and date proposals are due (September 9, 1996).
C.Statement of intent of the RFPand guidelines and criteria for use.
D. ¯Proposal requirements and evaluation criteria.
Eo Summary of the terms of the option agreement.
Instructions for obtaining the proposal package.
II.Proposal Package
The Proposal Package summarizes the proposal requirements and procedures and lists the
evaluation criteria. It includes the Proposal Forms, Proposal Questionnaire, the Option
Agreement and the form of the Deed, including a facade easement.
Option Agreement - the term of the Option is 2 years, and it may not be exercised
until the Optionee has fulfilled the following conditions:
1.Paid the purchase price of the option ($5,000.00).
Submitted schematic plans of all proposed improvements within 2 months
of the commencement of the option.
Obtained approval of its development plans from the City's Historic
Resources Board, Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and
City Council.
Obtained approval from City for a change in land use zoning from PF
(Public Facilities) to PC (Planned Community) and appropriate change in
the Comprehensive Plan designation and any other land use permit
required. .~
4
Packet Pg. 58
Obtained approvals of the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official of
the construction drawings, including a construction schedule.
Obtained any necessary permits and environmental clearances for the
proposed development.
J
Satisfied the Real Property Manager that sufficient funds are available to
implement the plans approved by the City.
8.Obtained completion/performance bonds sufficient to ensure funds to
complete the approved plans.
Deed and Reservation of Facade Easement
Once the optionee has satisfied all the option conditions referred to above, escrow
will be opened, the purchase pdee paid and the tire to the property transferred.
The deed includes the reservation of a facade easement with the following
restrictions and conditions:
Grantee (owner) shall
Make no changes materially affecting the exterior appearance of the
structure (as depicted in the approved development plans) without prior
written approval of the City.
Make no changes, pruning, etc. which would materially affect the
appearance health or public view of the eucalyptus tree without prior
written approval of City.
Maintain property in a good state of repair and take all reasonable action
to minimize deterioration of the exterior appearance subsequent to
rehabilitation.
o Maintain fire and extended insurance coverage as required by the City
Risk Manager ............
In the event of damage to property, notify City, pursue in a timely manner
all available claims and remedies against any insurance policy covering,
and against any person or entity responsible for the damage, and use any
money derived fi~om any such claim to restore the damaged part of the
property adversely affecting City's interest as soon as possible to its pre-
existing condition, subject to the prior written approval of City.
Construct no structures or add planting which obstructs the view of ~he
building without prior written approval of City.
4
Packet Pg. 59
shall
Have the right to enter upon the property, after prior notice to Grantee, at
all reasonable times in order to inspect the property or exercise any or all
of its fights.
Have the right, but not the obligation to make improvements or repairs to
the building to preserve and enhance the property's historical authenticity
4
Packet Pg. 60
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
BERNARD F. CARTER AND JONATHAN T. CARTER:
Proposers:
Bernard and Jonathan Carter (father and son) have completed several rehabilitation projects,
including a storage house to a commercial office space and rehabilitation of a warehouse project,
and they recently constructed their own home. Their architect is Maurice Nespor, who has a
complete portfolio of projects and awards. Bernard F. Carter is retired from the commercial real
estate business. Jonathan T. Carter is a medical student at Stanford.
Proposed Use and Development:
Convert the tower to a single family owner-occupied home with a public plaza along Alma
Street. The plaza will provide an area to be used by the Arts Commission for the public display
of art compatible with the tower. A two-car garage will be built with access from Hawthorne
Avenue at a location as far from Alma Street as is practical. The tower will be preserved and
improved physically. The proposal includes a site plan only; however, modifications to the
tower are expected to include windows and minor items to support floors or other structures
within the building.
Financial Information:
Proposed purchase price: $45,000.
Proposed non-monetary consideration: The proposer is offering to place deed restrictions on the
property which will provide that one fourth of the net profit from any future sale of the
property be contributed for arts or historic preservation purposes in Palo Alto.
Estimated cost of improvements: $150,000.
Financing: The project is to be financed by a construction and permanent loan.
Proposed Development Schedule & Method for Involving the Neighborhood:
The project will begin as soon as possible after the option is granted and completed as soon as is
reasonably possible. The proposer will notice and hold a meeting with a rendering of the project
and neighborhood input will be sought.
Method of Operation:
The residence is to be owner-occupied by Jonathan Carter. Owners will maintain the plaza.
4
Packet Pg. 61
2.SUSAN & TIM GRAY:
Proposers:
Tim Gray and Susan Gray (husband and wife) have 35 years combined experience working with
non-profit corporations and a combined fourteen year tenure at Lucille Salter Packard Children's
Hospital where they have experience in operations planning, financial management, accounting,
conceptual design, staff management, community consensus building, legal negotiations and
historical preservation. In addition, Mr. Gray was successful in establishing a community art
studio (Harmony Studio) on E1 Camino Real in the former Casa Real Mexican restaurant. They
are collaborating with Russell Meeks of Meeks, Coates and Eaton, an architect with broad areas
of experience including historic preservation.
Proposed Use and Development:
The purpose of the proposal is a use which provides public benefit but which is also self-
perpetuating and continues to serve a community need without relying on external funding
sources. Because the exact configuration and business mechanics to achieve that ideal balance
cannot be determined without feedback from the community and City, the proposers offer three
options to serve as choices while the community unifies its vision for the use of the tower. The
ground floor in each option is a place for art; essentially the first floor is an indoor extension of a
public park with landscaped .gardens. If feasible, the pump apparatus of the tower would be
preserved. The gardens, public art display and access to the tower base chamber would be a gift
to the community.
Option 1: Add two stories to the tower well to make eight. The first floor would be for
art and functions as an indoor extension of a public park. Floors two through six would
contain two one-bedroom hotel suites per floor (ten in total). The top two floors would be
a two story residential unit. The floors would be accessed by an elevator as well as two
enclosed staircases to meet code requirements. The elevator and stairs would be situated
towards the back of the tower where they would be less visible.
Option 2: No two story addition, but includes all eight stories of Option 1 by shortening
the ceilings. Same use as Option 1.
Option 3: Duplicates the configuration of Option 2, but converts the hotel rooms tO ten
350 square foot studio apartments. Includes moving a small historic home, scheduled to
be demolished, onto the site.
Financial Information:
Proposed purchase price:Option 1:$500,000
Option 2 and 3: $450,000.
2
4
Packet Pg. 62
Proposed Non-monetary consideration:
garden
$ 55,000 in sculpture stone for public gardens.
$300,000 ground floor dedicated to public
$250,000 portion of landscape cost for public
Estimated cost of improvements: $1,120,000.
Assumes a construction loan of $800,000 with interest at 9% for 12 months.
Financing:Source of construction loan payment will be proceeds from community investors.
The proposer lists two options for financing: 1) $500,000 to be raised by
investments of not more than 30 people with the balance to be provided by
traditional lending sources; or 2) venture capital.
Proposed Development Schedule & Method for Involving the Neighborhood:
Estimated time to exercise the option is 18 months; estimated construction time is 3 to 5 months.
Neighborhood and community input would occur during proposal selection process.
Method of Operation:
The proposed hotel uses would be supported by qualified and trained staff. The proposer would
work with local corporations to form ongoing business relationships to assure the hotel's
economic viability. The art park and display area will be coordinated with local artist groups and
gardening enthusiasts from the neighborhood. The proposers/owners would live on the grounds
and manage the operations on an on-going basis.
4
Packet Pg. 63
3.DONALD A. PHILLIPS:
Proposer:
Donald A. Phillips, a developer since 1970, has developed many projects involving both
renovation and new construction and has put together a development team for this project which
is well versed in the constraints and opportunities of adaptive reuse and historic preservation.
Architects Sandy & Babcock, Inc. and Structural Engineers Culley Associates have worked
together numerous times on adaptive reuse and the sensitive seismic retrofitting of historic
structures. ( Sandy & Babcock, Inc. recently received an Honor Award from the national Trust
for Historic Preservation for an adaptive reuse project in San Francisco.) Mr. Phillips' projects
include Ocean House and Harbor House, high end 80+unit apartment developments in Monterey,
CA; and renovation of historic estates in Los Altos Hills and Atherton. Prior to becoming a
developer, he was Assistant Dean at the Stanford Business School.
Proposed Use & Development:
Convert the tower into a 6-story archive for the purpose of archiving/storing/exhibiting historical
materials and construct along the Alma/Hawthorne comer of the site a 2 and 3-story residential
structure with six apartment units and a ground floor autocourt for parking. The outward
appearance of the tower would change little; modifications to the exterior of the tower would
include a tile roof, an elevator, some exterior openings and an open framework staircase which
would accommodate building code issues and connect the tower to the residential component.
An exit door on each story would open to the stair tower. The archive would provide the public
with a facility where they could take historic materials (family records, artifacts, photos, etc.) and
receive assistance in organizing family histories and preserving them for their children and
grandchildren. The first floor of the archive would be a gallery where historical photos, artifacts
and art could be displayed. It could also serve as a meeting room for historical or art
associations and would serve as a workroom providing equipment and services essential to the
archiving process (duplication, binding, printers, etc.) The six floors above the gallery would be
devoted to rentable individual archive spaces and/or additional work areas. The residential
structure would be situated at the comer of Alma Street and Hawthorne and would step from.
two to three stories and include window bays and varying roof elements. It would be organized
around a vehicular andpedestrian court and include six market rate apartments: five 2-bedroom
units and one 1-bedroom unit.
Financial Information:
Proposed purchase price: $100,000.
Estimated cost of improvements: $1,638,112.
Financing:Project would be financed otit of personal cash reserves in an amount between
30% and 40% of total project cost. The remainder would be financed under a
4
4
Packet Pg. 64
long-term conventional loan.
Proposed Development Schedule & Method for Involving the Neighborhood:
Estimated total time from the date the option is awarded to completion of the project is 17
months. The proposer plans to work with City commissions and boards and interested citizens to
develop and implement a program designed to insure the tower's preservation and enhancement
as a valuable resource for years to come. He would also involve the Arts Commission and
various other constituencies in the development of the archive.
Method of Operation:
During design approval, Mr. Phillips will work with the City and neighborhood associations.
Sandy & Babcock Inc. will be responsible for overall design and preparation of working
drawings. Culley & Associates will conduct an investigation to determine what needs to be done
to bring the tower up to code and insure its structural integrity. Mr. Phillips will own and operate
the facility after development.
5
4
Packet Pg. 65
4.THOMAS & KATHLEEN TAYLOR:
Proposers:
Tom & Katy Taylor (husband and wife) are Palo Alto residents who have developed two
underutilized commercial and industrial properties into residential use. One project, the
proposer's current residence, is a 1,940 square foot 3-story single family residence which was
built on a small 3,100 square foot commercial lot. The second is a 4,000 square foot commercial
building which was converted to residential. Mr. Taylor is a Project/Program manager for
Hewlett Packard and has worked in the construction trades. The architect for the project is Cody
Anderson Wasney Architects, a Palo Alto firm with experience in historic preservation and
rehabilitation and reuse of older buildings. Artist for the project is Trevor Southey, a San
Francisco artist who has vised the tower site and whose experience includes creating 18 large
public art installations.
Proposed Use & Development:
Option 1) Tom & Katy Taylor's proposal (live/work space and public plaza):
Convert the tower into a live/work space with a small apartment above a place of
business and a 1,500 square foot public plaza along Alma Street. The work studio would
be on the ground floor, the apartment in two stories above. Modifications to the exterior
of the tower would include enlarging one window, adding four doors (to be placed to
minimize the visual impact from the street), and adding a set of stairs to the exterior back
side of the tower which would go to the second floor only. The most visible upper half of
the tower will remain almost unchanged except for the addition of a cornice on the upper
rim which was detailed in the original plan but eliminated dueto cost. Of the total
exterior of the tower, less than 1% will be impacted by the new window and doors. Few
changes would be made to the grounds; the plaza and parking for the site would leave the
tower visually unimpeded. The plaza would be open and accessible to the public as
would the ground floor of the tower during business hours of the person working/living
in that location. The public plaza would include public art and educational materials
about the history of the tower and the City. The art work would tie the tower to the plaza
in theme and purpose.
Option 2: Katy & Tom Taylor's proposal (single family residence) :
The second proposal by the Taylors is to convert the tower into a single family residence
and construct a garage with a small apartment above. The proposal also includes the
same public plaza as described in Option 1. The residence would be three stories.
Modifications to the exterior of the tower include cutting windows into the walls of the
lower portion of the tower, and adding a set of stairs to the exterior. A cornice and
widow's walk, which was detailed in the original plan but nqt actually built, will be
added as will upper windows for light and ventilation. Total exterior of the tower to be
6
4
Packet Pg. 66
impacted by new windows will be 2%. A garage with a residential rental unit will be
added to the site near the southeast property line (next to Northface building). In this
proposal the first floor of the tower would not have routine public access; however, the
owners would be willing to arrange for scheduled showings of the tower interior.
Financial:
Proposed purchase price:
Option 1 - minimum of $1,000 to a maximum of $100,000 depending upon costs
for structural engineer and rehabilitation.
Option 2: minimum of $50,000 to a maximum of $200,000 depending upon costs
for structural engineer and rehabilitation.
For both options the proposers guarantee the minimum; the maximum is the minimum
plus the moneys set aside for the structural engineer and the costs associate with the
structural rehabilitation of the tower: Should structural costs exceed the maximum
budget, the City would receive the minimum offer. Should the structural costs be less
than budget, the City would benefit by that amount.
Proposed non-monetary bid items: (for each option)
$64,000 - 1500 square feet of land for public plaza ($42.67 per square foot)
$30,000 - improvements for plaza
$25,000 - public art
6,000 - project design and management
$125,000 - Total Non-monetary bid
Estimated cost of improvements:Option I - $267,000 to $375,000
Option 2 - $369,000 to $643,000,
Financing:
Source
Both options assume a construction loan at 8% for six month period.
of loan payments will be a conventional construction loan or equity
loan from current property.
Proposed Development Schedule and Method of Involving the Neighborhood:
Both options would take three years to complete. The proposers point out that neighbors have
spoken in support of the project, and they intend to work with the Art Commission and local
historic groups, the City Utilities Department and Arborist on the site development and plaza.
Proposed Method of Operation:
Option 1: The property would be a rental targeted toward a craftsperson or professional with a
7
4
Packet Pg. 67
desire to work adjoining their living space. It could serve as a gallery below for an artist above, a
small architectural firm or a designer. The owner would maintain the public plaza.
Option 2: The property would a single family residence for the Taylor family. The apartment
over the garage would be rented. The owner would maintain the public plaza.
4
Packet Pg. 68
5.TOWER WELL PARTNERS:
Proposer:
Tower Well Partners is a partnership between Roxy Rapp & Company and Carrasco &
Associates. ~Mr. Rapp is a Palo Alto retailer and real estate developer who has 9 successful
developments along University Avenue and an office/retail development in Mountain View. Mr.
Rapp has experience with historic structures through his work on the Decker Oaks project and
with the Museum of American Heritage. Mr. Carrasco is an award-winning Palo Alto architect
who has served on the City's Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, the Palo Alto
Downtown Study Committee and the Urban Design Committee. His experience includes many
historical renovation projects.
Proposed Use & Development:
In a departure from the City's RFP to purchase the property, TWP proposes a development plan.
where the City retains and develops the property. The proposal is to preserve the tower and
develop the property into a 4-story mixed use facility (1 st floor office, remaining floors
residential) which will generate income, stated by the proposer to be an ongoing and increasing
cash flow, after expenses, starting at $80,000 per year. The six residential loft apartments will be
above the first floor office use (2,500 square feet) and will appeal to apartment dwellers due to
design, proximity to downtown and office use on first floor.
The tower will be seismically strengthened and repaired, with 4 windows added to the tower's
rusticated base. This rusticated space will house a skylit first floor office space. The first floor
will link the Tower to a new 4 story structure, connecting the old to the new for an exciting
visual presentation. Tower modification will be virtually undetectable from the exterior with the
exception of the four added windows.
.Financial Information:
The proposer's figures include an estimated construction cost of $1,556,245, which the City
would finance. Annual net income for the fh'st year is estimated to be $80,000, which,
according to the proposer, is more than triple the amount the City would gain in annual interest
on the sale of the property at an assumed price of $350,000. TWP proposes that the additional
gains be used to support the maintenance of the University Avenue Downtown Area and
Downtown Park North Neighborhood.
Proposed Development Schedule & Method for Involving the Neighborhood:
Esiimated construction time is 9 months.
Method of Operation:'
4
Packet Pg. 69
The proposal is to develop the Tower Well site into a positive cash flowing asset for the City.
Project financing will be provided by the City, property management services provided by TWP,
with a development fee paid to TWP for a turnkey project. In the event project revenues are
unacceptable, TWP guarantees to purchase the property from the City at a value equal to the
existing encumbrances.
6.FOUNDATION FOR GLOBAL COMMUNITY:
As owners of the property on both sides of the Tower, the Foundation for Global Community
(Foundation) considered submitting a proposal to develop the property into a landscaped park,
but determined it would be beyond its current capabilities. Instead, it has submitted a proposal
for an alternative to. selling the property. Feeling that it is in the interest of the City to maintain
ownership of the property for long term, but as yet unknown, needs, the Foundation is proposing
that the City retain ownership and develop it in the short term as an interpretive park with the
theme of water. The Foundation suggests it be developed in conjunction with the Historical
Society or ~another appropriate organization and that features include native ground cover,
flowers and shrubs, a water sculpture, appropriate identification and that the interior of the tower
be a historical interpretive facility.
7.JAMES WALTER~ ARCHITECT:
Mr. Walter also considered submitting a proposal but did not because he felt there were too many
unknown variables involved in the RFP. He presents a design concept for the site and suggests
that if the City is interested in seeing more detail on the concept, he will be glad to meet with
staff to discuss strategies. The design concept retains the tower, converting it into eight floors of
rental apartments. Also on the site is parking, a Native American Arts Center and a vintage
cottage rescued from demolition and used for offices and a visitor's center.
10
4
Packet Pg. 70
ATTACHMENT C
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
1.The extent to which the proposed use satisfies a public need;
o The extent to which the proposed use and development preserves the tower;
Consistency of the proposed use with existing City goals and objectives (set forth
in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code);
o The impact of the proposed use (compatible uses, traffic impacts, noise impacts,
energy conservation, etc.) upon:
The immediate neighborhood,
The community generally,
The environment;
The history and assessment of the proposer's ability to carry out the construction
and operation of the facility and services as proposed; and
6.The monetary consideration to be provided to the City.
4
Packet Pg. 71
H
~0~
o0~0
o0~0
O.H.u oh,~ h ~J
o
4
Packet Pg. 72
.H
0
0
o
o J G ~
0
0
0
oc)
o
0o
o
4
Packet Pg. 73
Parks and Recreation Commission
Staff Report
From: Peter Gollinger, Urban Forester Public Works
Meeting Date: October 24, 2023
TITLE
Tree Protection Ordinance Year One Review and Recommendations
BACKGROUND
Title 8 of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) contains regulations governing street trees, shrubs
and plants (Chapter 8.04), weed abatement (Chapter 8.08), and tree preservation and
management (Chapter 8.10).
The Tree Protection Ordinance updates made in 2022 focused on implementation of Council
approved policies contained in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Natural Environment Chapter),
and the Urban Forest Master Plan. Additional code updates included changes prompted by
State law, specifically Executive Order B-29-15, also known as the Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance. Changes made to the ordinance ranged from significant policy changes,
like expanding the types of protected trees and revising allowances for tree removal, to more
clerical updates, like updating authorized officers and accounting for recent changes in other
development-related codes.
Implementation of the new Tree Protection Ordinance began in July 2022 and is still in progress.
During the adoption of the updated Tree Protection Ordinance in June of 2022, Staff was
directed by Council to review the ordinance with the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC)
and Planning and Transportation Committee (PTC) near the one-year mark. As directed by
Council 1, Staff has evaluated the updated ordinance over the course of the first year and are
presenting the findings to this body, requesting feedback on staff recommend changes to Title 8.
ANALYSIS
Proposed Ordinance Updates
During the first year of ordinance implementation staff noted any areas of the updated code that
might warrant edits to increase clarity. Many of the proposed updates that are included in the
attached Draft Updates to PAMC Chapter 8.10 center around this goal.
The following areas have proposed changes to increase clarity or simplify the wording of the code.
•8.10.020(d) – Designated Arborist
•8.10.020(l)(4) – Protected Trees - Designated Trees
1 Action Minutes from June 6, 2022 Council Meeting:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=12239&compileOutputType=1
5
Packet Pg. 74
• 8.10.040(b) – Tree Disclosure Requirements
• 8.10.050(a)(1) – Clarification on type of permits needed
• 8.10.050(a)(2) – Clarification on details of three-year development moratoriums
• 8.10.050(d)(1) – Twenty-Five Percent Rule
In addition to the areas listed above requiring clarification, other areas have more substantial
proposed changes. These changes are being proposed to address issues that arose during the first
year of implementation.
Some of the issues raised centered around the 2023 winter storm season. The series of storms
the Bay Area saw last winter was very unusual. The storms included high rainfall totals in very
short time spans and strong winds from non-prevailing directions with little or no time for
recovery in between events. Many citizen concerns centered around the permission to remove a
hazardous tree. The ability of a tree owner to remove a hazardous tree is already contained in the
ordinance. Staff created a new list of FAQ’s 2 to try and address some of the concerns.
8.10.050 Removal of Protected Trees
Several changes are proposed to 8.10.050. Under 8.10.050(a)(1), item (ii) has been separated into
(ii) and (iv). The proposed (ii) and (iv) now read:
(ii) It is a detriment to or is crowding an adjacent protected tree.
(iv) It is impacting the foundation or eaves of a residence or any covered parking required
under Title 18.
This change allows (ii) to be cited as a reason for removal during a development project, while
isolating the use of (iv) to removal in the absence of development only.
A new reason for removal is being proposed as 8.10.050(a)(1)(iii). This reason for removal is
intended to address some of the issues that presented during the first year of ordinance
implementation. Occasionally situations arise where removal and replacement of an existing
protected tree would be appropriate, yet the existing code does not allow for its removal. The
proposed (iii) would address most of these situations.
(iii) It (the tree) is at risk for retrenchment or other tree decline coping processes, or is
structurally incompatible with its immediate environment.
Some specific examples of where 8.10.050(a)(1)(iii) might be applied include the following:
• A protected tree with a structure that negatively impacts its surroundings but does not
qualify for removal under current code. This could be a tree that has a lopsided and
unrepairable canopy that encroaches on a home but does not meet criteria as either a
hazard tree or as directly damaging foundation or eaves.
• A protected tree that has entered end-of-life decline but does not qualify for removal
under current code. This could be a tree species that is known to have a shorter life span
in a landscape setting and may begin to drop limbs as a coping mechanism when in
decline. The tree may not yet present as a hazard tree. As with all reasons listed under
8.10.50(a)(1), treatments and corrective practices must be infeasible to invoke (iii) as a
reason for removal.
2 Palo Alto Urban Forestry FAQs: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Public-Services/Palo-
Altos-Urban-Forest/Frequently-Asked-Questions
5
Packet Pg. 75
A new reason for removal is also being proposed under 8.10.050(b)(2). This involves the inclusion
of the “25% Rule” to residential projects. Historically this reason has been used on residential
projects. This change is intended to recognize this and to correct the oversight.
Clarification to the language defining the “25% rule” has also been added, both in the proposed
new location of 8.10.050(b)(2) and the existing location of 8.10.050(d)(1). The changes center
around how the impact to the buildable area is calculated. The proposed changes to both codes
now read:
Retention of one or more trees would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible
buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially
feasible design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree(s), where financially
feasible means an alternative that preserves the tree(s) unless retaining the tree(s) would
increase project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree or ten percent of
the given project valuation, whichever is greater. All tree protection zones impacting
buildable area are included in the reduction of buildable area calculation.
The last new reason for removal being proposed is under 8.10.050(d)(3). This is intended to
address concerns first raised by Stanford University staff during the review of the Tree Ordinance
in May and June of 2022. The concern presented was that the ordinance as proposed in 2022 did
not allow for discretion regarding tree removal and replacement on larger projects that were
subject to the regular planning approval process.
During the 2022 ordinance review process, staff believed that a reading of the existing Title 18
code included the needed discretion surrounding protection and removal of trees on these larger
projects. Further review of the code over the last year has determined that discretion regarding
the protection and removal of trees on these types of projects is not explicitly granted under Title
18. To resolve this, staff is proposing to add the following reason for removal under
8.10.050(d)(3):
(3) Discretionary development approval determines that the final project would result in
either net tree canopy increase on the property within fifteen years, or replacement of
trees, shrubs, and plants consistent with Urban Forest Master Plan Goal 2: "Re-generated
native woodland and riparian landscapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest
with focus on native species and habitat," and climate adaptive, drought tolerant, non-
native species, and right tree in the right place principles.
This addition seeks to include the specific type of discretion that was already being applied to
larger commercial projects under both versions of the Tree Protection Ordinance.
The final proposed change seeks to address the issue of exemptions to excessive pruning
requirements. Some horticultural and arboricultural practices may exceed the maximum pruning
limits outlined in 8.10.020(j). These may include trees that have been grown and maintained as a
hedge, trees that are being purposefully reduced on a regular basis to fit a growing space, or trees
subject to specific cultural practices such as pollarding or espalier training. The exemption
language as proposed would be located under 8.10.070(c):
(c) Any requests to exceed the limits for pruning set forth in Section 8.10.020(j)(1) or (2)
shall be submitted to the urban forester by the property owner or their designee at least
fourteen days prior to pruning a protected tree. Each request shall be accompanied by a
5
Packet Pg. 76
statement explaining why exceedance of the limits is warranted. No pruning that exceeds
the limits set forth in Section 8.10.020(j)(1) or (2) shall take place without the approval of
the urban forester.
Potential Additional Actions
While staff has presented potential updates to Chapter 8.10 intended to address issues
encountered during the first year of ordinance implementation, there are other actions that
could be considered. These options are being presented as potential additional actions in
response to concerns raised by citizens and Council Members during the 2023 storm season and
during the June 19, 2023 City Council study session on Tree Ordinance Implementation 3.
Changes to the Definition of Protected Trees
Staff could explore proposing changes to the definition of protected trees. This could potentially
involve one or more of the following options:
• Elimination of one or more specific protected native species
• Increasing the diameter threshold for protected native species (currently 11.5”)
• Increasing the diameter threshold for coastal redwood (currently 18”)
• Increasing the diameter threshold for all other species (currently 15”)
Depending on the changes proposed, the total number of protected trees would decrease in
differing amounts based on changes in protected species or protected diameters. Under the
current ordinance, the definition of a Protected Tree includes the following:
Specific native species protected at 11.5” diameter at breast height (DBH):
• Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple)
o Calocedrus decurrens (Incense Cedar)
o Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak)*
o Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak)
o Quercus kelloggii (California Black Oak)
o Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)*
• Species protected at 18” DBH:
o Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood)*
• Protected Mature Trees at 15” DBH:
o includes all species not listed above except:
Invasive species per Cal-IPC
High Water Users per WUCOLS (Excluding Redwood)
• Other protected tree categories:
o Any tree designated for protection during review and approval of a development project
o Any tree designated for carbon sequestration and storage and/or for
environmental mitigation purposes
o Any replacement mitigation tree or other tree designated to be planted due to the
conditions listed in this ordinance
3 June 19, 2023 City Council Agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1170
5
Packet Pg. 77
* species protected prior to July 21, 2022
Using a dataset of almost 10,500 private trees as a representative sample, staff used an average
of several calculation methods contained in the 2017 California Urban Forest Study by Greg
McPherson4, to estimate species and size distribution for our entire private tree urban forest. If
changes to the definition of protected trees are explored, estimates of the impact to the total
number of protected trees can be made using our existing sample data set. Totals shown in the
table below represent the estimate of total protected trees under the current ordinance.
Total Urban Forest Tree Estimates
Total Trees Estimate (excluding WUI area) 600,000
All Private Proposed Protected trees based on total trees #
Species Count %
COAST LIVE OAK =/> 11.5 DBH 35,580 5.93%
VALLEY OAK =/> 11.5 DBH 5,640 0.94%
REDWOOD =/> 18" DBH 40,500 6.75%
BIG LEAF MAPLE =/> 11.5" DBH 60 0.01%
INCENSE CEDAR =/> 11.5" DBH 1,860 0.31%
BLUE OAK =/> 11.5" DBH 240 0.04%
CA BLACK OAK =/> 11.5" DBH 60 0.01%
ALL OTHERS =/> 15" (Minus CalIPC/WULCOS) 140,160 23.36%
New Protected Tree Total 224,100 37.35%
Old Protected Tree Total 81,720 13.62%
Changes to Allowable Reasons for Removal
Staff could explore more substantial changes or additions to the allowable reasons for removal.
While staff believes the proposed changes included in Attachment A address many of the
concerns raised by both staff and the public in the wake of this past winter’s storms, additional
changes could be considered.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff is requesting feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission on the proposed changes
to Chapter 8.10 of PAMC as outlined in this report and included as Attachment A, as well as
feedback on the potential additional actions.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
4 McPherson G.E., 2017. The structure, function, and value of urban forests in California communities. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening 28 (2017) 43-53;
https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_2017_mcpherson005.pdf
5
Packet Pg. 78
The proposed changes to Chapter 8.10 should have no additional impact on staff resources.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Chapter 8.10 of PAMC - Draft Proposed Changes 10.17.23
(redline)
5
Packet Pg. 79
DRAFT PROPOSED UPDATES TO PAMC CHAPTER 8.10 Chapter 8.10 TREE AND LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT Sections: 8.10.010 Purpose. 8.10.020 Definitions. 8.10.030 Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. 8.10.040 Disclosure of information regarding existing trees. 8.10.050 Removal of protected trees. 8.10.055 Tree replacement. 8.10.060 No limitation of authority under Titles 16 and 18. 8.10.070 Care of protected trees. 8.10.080 Development conditions. 8.10.090 Designation of heritage trees. 8.10.092 Tree removal in wildland- urban interface area. 8.10.095 Tree removal in Hospital District Zone. 8.10.100 Enforcement. 8.10.110 Remedies for violation. 8.10.120 Fees. 8.10.130 Severability. 8.10.140 Applications, notice, and appeals. 8.10.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect specified trees located on private property within the city, and establish standards for removal, maintenance, and planting of trees and landscaping. In establishing these procedures and standards, the city recognizes that trees and landscaping are an essential part of the city's infrastructure. Their benefits include promoting the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of the residents of the city; addressing climate change by sequestering carbon and providing a cooling effect; reducing air, water, and noise pollution; preventing soil erosion and stormwater runoff; providing wildlife habitat; and enhancing the aesthetic environment. It is the city's intent to
5
Packet Pg. 80
encourage both the preservation of trees and the proactive incorporation of trees and their benefits within development. 8.10.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, terms defined in Chapter 8.04 shall have the same meanings in this chapter, and the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section: (a) "Basal flare" means that portion of a tree where there is a rapid increase in diameter at the confluence of the trunk and root crown and trunk. (b) "Buildable area" means that area of a parcel: (1) Upon which, under applicable zoning regulations, a structure may be built without a variance, design enhancement exception, or home improvement exception; or (2) Necessary for construction of primary access to structures located on or to be constructed on the parcel, where there exists no feasible means of access which would avoid protected trees. On single-family residential parcels, the portion of the parcel deemed to be the buildable area for primary access shall not exceed ten feet in width. (c) "Building footprint" means the two-dimensional configuration of a building's perimeter boundaries as measured on a horizontal plane at ground level. (d) "Designated arborist" means an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or another nationally recognized tree research, care, and preservation organization, selected by the urban forester for inclusion in a list of approved arborists to be: hired by: (1) Hired by Aan applicant at their own expense, or (2) Chosen by Tthe city at an applicant's expense, if a project includes a public hearing. (e) "Development" means any work upon any property in the city which requires a subdivision, planned community zone, variance, use permit, building permit, demolition permit, or other city approval or which involves excavation, landscaping or construction within the dripline area of a protected tree or is subject to requirements of the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). (f) "Director of planning and development services" means the director of planning and development services or their designee. (g) "Director of public works" means the director of public works or their designee. (h) "Discretionary development approval" means planned community zone, subdivision, use permit, variance, home improvement exception, design enhancement exception, architectural review board approval, or any proposal or application that requires the discretion of the authorizing person or entity.
5
Packet Pg. 81
(i) "Dripline area" or “tree protection zone” means the area defined by the projection to the ground of the outer edge of the canopy or a circle with a radius ten times the diameter of the trunk as measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade, whichever is greater. (j) "Excessive pruning" of a protected tree means any of the following: (1) Removal of more than one-fourth (twenty-five percent) of the functioning leaf, stem, or root area of a tree in any twenty-four-month period. (2) Removal of more than fifteen percent of the functioning root area of any Quercus (oak) species in any thirty-six-month period. (3) Any removal of the functioning leaf, stem, or root area of a tree so as to cause a significant decline in health, increased risk of failure, or the unbalancing of a tree. (k) "Hazardous" means an imminent hazard which constitutes a high or extreme threat to the safety of persons or property as defined by American National Standards Institute A300, Part 9. (l) "Protected" tree means any of the following: (1) Any locally native tree of the species Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple), Calocedrus decurrens (California Incense Cedar), Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak), Quercus kelloggii (California Black Oak), or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. (2) Any Coast Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. (3) Any tree larger than fifteen inches in diameter (forty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade of any species except those invasive species described as weeds in Section 8.08.010 and those species classified as high water users by the wWater uUse cClassification of the lLandscape sSpecies (WUCOLS) list approved by the California Department of Water Resources (with the exception of Coast Redwood). (4) Any tree designated for protection during review and approval of a current or previously completed development project. On parcels zoned other than single-family (R-1) or low density (RE, R-2, or RMD) residential, species exempted under Section 8.10.020(l)(3) may be protected as a designated tree. (5) Any tree designated for carbon sequestration and storage and/or environmental mitigation purposes as identified in an agreement between the property owner and a responsible government agency or recorded as a deed restriction. (6) Any heritage tree designated by the city council in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
5
Packet Pg. 82
(7) Any replacement mitigation tree or other tree designated to be planted due to the conditions listed in Section 8.10.055. (m) "Protected tree removal permit" means a permit issued to allow a person to remove a protected tree. (n) "Remove" or "removal" means: (1) Complete removal, such as cutting to the ground or extraction, of a tree; or (2) Taking any action foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health; including but not limited to excessive pruning, cutting, topping, girdling, poisoning, overwatering, underwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree, or trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the dripline area of a tree. (o) "Tree report" means a report prepared by a designated arborist. (p) "Tree and Landscape Technical Manual" means the regulations issued by the city manager to implement this chapter. 8.10.030 Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. The city manager, through the urban forestry section, and public works and planning and development services departments, shall issue regulations necessary for implementation and enforcement of this chapter, which shall be known as the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Title 8 and the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, this Title 8 shall prevail. The Tree and Landscape Technical Manual will be made readily available to the public and shall include, but need not be limited to, standards and specifications regarding the following: (a) Protection of trees during construction. (b) Replacement of trees allowed to be removed pursuant to this chapter where such replacements: (1) Prioritize the use of locally native species, as listed in Section 8.10.020(l)(1), consistent with Urban Forest Master Plan Goal 2: "Re-generated native woodland and riparian landscapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with focus on native species and habitat;" (2) Include climate adaptive, drought tolerant, non-native species as needed to satisfy right tree in the right place principles; and (3) Incorporate a secondary goal of net tree canopy increase on the property within fifteen years. (c) Maintenance of protected trees (including but not limited to pruning, irrigation, and protection from disease).
5
Packet Pg. 83
(d) The format and content of tree reports required to be submitted to the city pursuant to this chapter. (e) The criteria for determining whether a tree is hazardous within the meaning of this chapter. (f) Landscape design, irrigation, and installation standards consistent with the city's water efficient landscape regulations. 8.10.040 Disclosure of information regarding existing trees. (a) Any application for development or demolition shall be accompanied by a statement by a designated arborist which discloses whether any protected trees exist on the property which is the subject of the application, and describing each such tree, its species, size, dripline area, and location. This requirement shall be met by including the information on plans submitted in connection with the application. (b) In addition, the location and species of allany other trees which is four inches in diameter (thirteen inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade shall be shown on the plans if the tree is: (1) oOn the property andor in the adjacent public right-of-way, which are and is within thirty feet of the building footprint proposed for development, or (2) and trees lLocated on adjacent property within thirty feet of the proposed building footprint, or (3) Close enoughwith that its canopyies overhangsing the project site, shall be shown on the plans, identified by species. (c) The director of public works or urban forester may require submittal of such other information as is necessary to further the purposes of this chapter including but not limited to photographs. (d) Disclosure of information pursuant to this section shall not be required when the development for which the approval or permit is sought does not involve any change in an existing building footprint nor any grading, trenching, paving, or any change in landscaping which could alter water availability to established plants, hedges, shrubs, or trees. (e) The urban forester or the designated arborist for a project shall add identified protected trees into the city's tree inventory database, and in coordination with the planning and development services departments, into city parcel reports. (f) Knowingly or negligently providing false or misleading information in response to this disclosure requirement shall constitute a violation of this chapter. 8.10.050 Removal of protected trees.
5
Packet Pg. 84
It shall be a violation of this chapter for anyone to remove or cause to be removed a protected tree, except pursuant to a protected tree removal permit issued under Section 8.10.140 consistent with the following: (a) In the absence of proposed development: (1) A protected tree shall not be removed unless the urban forester grants a protected tree removal permit, or on parcels zoned other than single-family (R-1) or low density residential (RE, R-2, or RMD), the director of planning and development services issues permission for removal through staff level architectural review pursuant to Section 18.76.020(b)(3), having determined, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that treatments or corrective practices are not feasible, and that the tree should be removed because any of the following apply: (i) It is dead, is hazardous, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050 of this code. (ii) It is a detriment to or is crowding an adjacent protected tree., or is impacting the foundation or eaves of a residence or any covered parking required under Title 18. (iii) It is at risk for retrenchment or other tree decline coping processes, or is structurally incompatible with its immediate environment. (iv) It is impacting the foundation or eaves of a residence or any covered parking required under Title 18. (2) In the event a protected tree is removed pursuant to a protected tree removal permit granted under this subsection, the director of planning and development services in consultation with the urban forester may issue a temporary moratorium on development of the subject property may be issued by the urban forester for up not to exceed thirty-six months, or by the director of planning and development services in consultation with the urban forester for more than thirty-six months, from the date the tree removal occurred. Completion of required mitigation measures included in the tree removal permit does not remove or shorten any such moratorium. A moratorium may be terminated early only with approval of the urban forester and may require additional mitigation measures. Mitigation measures included in the protected tree removal permit and any additional mitigation measures required to shorten a moratorium For any moratorium less than thirty-six months, the urban forester shall determine appropriate mitigation measures for the tree removal, and ensure measures are incorporated into any future development approvals for the property. Mitigation measures as determined by the urban forester shall be imposed as a condition of any subsequent permits for development on the subject property. (b) In the case of any development on a single-family (R-1) or low density (RE, R-2, or RMD) residential zoned parcel, other than in connection with a subdivision, a protected tree shall not be removed unless determined by the urban forester, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that any of the following apply: (1) The tree is so close to the proposed development that construction would result in the death of the tree, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would
5
Packet Pg. 85
permit preservation of the tree, where financially feasible means an alternative that preserves the tree unless retaining the tree would increase project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. (2) Retention of one or more trees would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree(s), where financially feasible means an alternative that preserves the tree(s) unless retaining the tree(s) would increase project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. All tree protection zones impacting buildable area are included in the reduction of buildable area calculation. (32) The tree could be removed due to the conditions listed in Section 8.10.050(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) and treatments or corrective practices are not feasible. (c) In the case of development involving a proposed subdivision of land into two or more parcels, a protected tree shall not be removed unless determined by the urban forester, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that either of the following apply: (1) Removal is unavoidable due to restricted access to the property or deemed necessary to repair a geologic hazard (landslide, repairs, etc.), in which case only the protected tree or trees necessary to allow access to the property or repair the geologic hazard may be removed. (2) The tree could be removed due to the conditions listed in subsection (a)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) and treatments or corrective practices are not feasible. (d) In the case of development requiring planning approval under Title 18, and not included under subsections (b) or (c), a protected tree shall not be removed unless determined by the urban forester, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that either of the following apply: (1) Retention of one or morethe trees would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree(s), where financially feasible means an alternative that preserves the tree(s) unless retaining the tree(s) would increase project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. All tree protection zones impacting buildable area are included in the reduction of buildable area calculation. (2) The tree should be removed because it is dead, hazardous, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050. In such cases, the dripline area of the removed tree, or an equivalent area on the site, shall be preserved for mitigation purposes from development of any structure. (3) Discretionary development approval determines that the final project would result in either net tree canopy increase on the property within fifteen years, or replacement of
5
Packet Pg. 86
trees, shrubs, and plants consistent with Urban Forest Master Plan Goal 2: "Re-generated native woodland and riparian landscapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with focus on native species and habitat," and climate adaptive, drought tolerant, non-native species, and right tree in the right place principles. (e) In any circumstance other than those described in subsections (a), (b), (c), or (d), a protected tree shall not be removed unless determined by the urban forester, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that the tree is dead, is hazardous, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050. 8.10.055 Tree replacement. (a) In the event a protected tree is removed pursuant to Section 8.10.050(a)(1)(i), mitigation for the removed tree, replacement tree ratio, in lieu fees, or a combination thereof shall be determined by the urban forester, based on factors including but not limited to the species, size, location, and specific reason for removal of the protected tree, in accordance with the standards and specifications in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. (b) In the event a protected tree is removed pursuant to Section 8.10.050(a)(1)(ii), (iii) or (iv), (b), (c), (d), or (e), the tree removed shall be replaced in accordance with the standards and specifications in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, including but not limited to prioritization of locally native species, satisfaction of right tree in the right place principles, and incorporation of a secondary goal of net tree canopy increase on the property within fifteen years. The urban forester shall approve the number, species, size, and location of replacement trees. 8.10.060 No limitation of authority under Titles 16 and 18. Nothing in this chapter limits or modifies the existing authority of the city under Title 18 to require trees, shrubs, hedges, and other plants not covered by this chapter to be identified, retained, protected, and/or planted as conditions of the approval of development. In the event of conflict between provisions of this chapter and conditions of any permit or other approval granted pursuant to Title 16 or Title 18, the more protective requirements shall prevail. 8.10.070 Care of protected trees. (a) All owners of property containing protected trees shall follow the maintenance standards in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, including avoiding any action foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health; including but not limited to excessive pruning, cutting, topping, girdling, poisoning, overwatering,
5
Packet Pg. 87
underwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree, or trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the dripline area of a tree. (b) At least seven days prior to pruning a protected tree, other than that required to remove a dead, diseased, or broken branch or branches, the property owner or their designee shall prominently post a notice on the property, in one or more locations readily visible to the public, that includes standards for pruning and a description of the tree including tree species, size, location, the date of work, and a contact phone number. The form for such notice will be available on the city's website as a printable document. Protected trees less than five years old are exempt from this provision. (c) Any requests to exceed the limits for pruning set forth in Section 8.10.020(j)(1) or (2) shall be submitted to the urban forester by the property owner or their designee at least fourteen days prior to pruning a protected tree. Each request shall be accompanied by a statement explaining why exceedance of the limits is warranted. No pruning that exceeds the limits set forth in Section 8.10.020(j)(1) or (2) shall take place without the approval of the urban forester. (cd) The standards for protection of trees during construction contained in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual shall be followed during any development on property containing trees. (de) The urban forester shall add identified protected trees into the city's tree inventory database and, in coordination with the planning and development services departments, into city parcel reports. 8.10.080 Development conditions. (a) Development approvals for property containing protected public trees shall include appropriate conditions as set forth in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, providing for the protection of such trees during construction and for maintenance of such trees thereafter. Trees may be designated for protection that are significant visually or historically, provide screening, or are healthy and important to the nearby ecosystem. (b) It shall be a violation of this chapter for any property owner or agent of the owner to fail to comply with any development approval or building permit condition concerning preservation, protection, and maintenance of any tree, including but not limited to protected trees. 8.10.090 Designation of heritage trees. (a) Upon nomination by any person and with the written consent of the property owner(s), the city council may designate a tree or trees as a heritage tree. (b) A tree may be designated as a heritage tree upon a finding that it is of importance to the community due to any of the following factors:
5
Packet Pg. 88
(1) It is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species. (2) It is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto. (3) It possesses distinctive form, size, age, location, and/or historical significance. (c) After council approval of a heritage tree designation, the city clerk shall notify the property owner(s) in writing. A listing of trees so designated, including the specific locations thereof, shall be kept by the departments of public works. (d) Once designated, a heritage tree shall be considered protected and subject to the provisions of this chapter unless removed from the list of heritage trees by action of the city council. The city council may remove a tree from the list upon its own motion or upon written request by the property owner. Request for such action must originate in the same manner as nomination for heritage tree designation. 8.10.092 Tree removal in wildland-urban interface area. Tree removal and relocation in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) area, as defined in Section 15.04.190, shall be subject to the provisions in Chapter 15.04. To the extent Chapter 15.04 is inconsistent with this chapter, Chapter 15.04 shall control. 8.10.095 Tree removal in Hospital District Zone. Tree removal and relocation in the Hospital District (HD) shall be subject to the provisions in Section 18.36.070. To the extent Section 18.36.070 is inconsistent with this chapter, Section 18.36.070 shall control. 8.10.100 Enforcement. (a) Violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in this code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished. (b) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter, including but not limited to leveling fines under the city's administrative penalty authority: assistant director of public works public services division, urban forester, project manager in the urban forestry section, landscape architect, and code enforcement officer. 8.10.110 Remedies for violation. In addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law, the following remedies shall be available to the city for violation of this chapter:
5
Packet Pg. 89
(a) Stop Work - Temporary Moratorium. (1) If a violation occurs in the absence of proposed development pursuant to Section 8.10.050(a)(1), or while an application for a building permit or discretionary development approval for the lot upon which the tree is located is pending, the director of planning and development services in consultation with the urban forester shall issue a temporary moratorium on development of the subject property, not to exceed five years from the date the violation occurred. The purpose of the moratorium is to provide the city an opportunity to study and determine appropriate mitigation measures for the tree removal, and to ensure measures are incorporated into any future development approvals for the property. Mitigation measures as determined by the urban forester shall be imposed as a condition of any subsequent permits for development on the subject property. (2) If a violation occurs during development pursuant to Section 8.10.050(b), (c), (d), or (e), the city shall issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading, demolition, and/or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the director of planning and development services in consultation with the urban forester, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s), and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security. The mitigation plan shall include measures for protection or repair of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for replacement of each tree removed on the property or at locations approved by the urban forester. The replacement ratio shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, and shall be at least twice the prescribed ratio required where tree removal is permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. (b) Civil penalties. (1) As part of a civil action brought by the city, a court may assess against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this chapter a civil penalty in the following amount: (i) Ten thousand dollars per tree, or twice the reproduction cost of each tree, whichever amount is higher, for the complete removal of a tree, as defined in Section 8.10.020(n)(1). (ii) Ten thousand dollars per tree, or the reproduction cost of each tree, whichever amount is higher, for any of the actions set forth in Section 8.10.020(n)(2). (iii) Ten thousand dollars per tree, or twice the repair cost of each tree, whichever amount is higher, for damage to a tree protected or regulated by this chapter which can be rehabilitated. (2) Penalties shall be payable to the city. (3) Reproduction or repair cost for the purposes of this chapter shall be determined utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
5
Packet Pg. 90
(c) Administrative penalties. Persons listed in Section 8.10.100(b) may issue citations for violations of this chapter that level fines under the city's administrative penalty authority. (d) Injunctive relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation. (e) Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter in which the city prevails, the court shall award to the city all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action, and reasonable attorney fees. (f) The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive. 8.10.120 Fees. Tree reports required to be submitted to the city for review and evaluation pursuant to this chapter shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed therefor in the municipal fee schedule. 8.10.130 Severability. If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are declared to be severable. 8.10.140 Applications, notice, and appeals. (a) Applications. (1) All applications for removal of a protected tree pursuant to Section 8.10.050 shall be filed in accordance with this section and any applicable provisions of Chapter 18.77. Applications for removal of protected trees on non-residential zoned properties will follow review guidelines set forth in Section 8.10.050(d) and Section 18.76.020 and will follow the process set forth in Section 18.77.070. (2) The application form shall be prescribed by the urban forester and shall contain a list of information that must be submitted in order for the application to be deemed complete. (3) Each application must be signed by all owners of the real property containing the protected tree, or an agent of the owner of record of the real property on which the protected tree occurs, when duly authorized by the owner in writing.
5
Packet Pg. 91
(4) No application shall be deemed received until all fees for the application as set forth in the municipal fees schedule have been paid, and all documents specified as part of the application in this chapter or on the application form have been filed. (5) Protected tree removal permits shall automatically expire after twelve months, unless otherwise provided in the permit, from the date of issuance of the permit if within such twelve-month period, the proposed tree has not been removed. (b) Notice. (1) All applications for removal of a protected tree pursuant to Section 8.10.050 shall give notice in accordance with this section, the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, and any applicable provisions of Chapter 18.77. (2) After submittal of an application to remove a protected tree, notice shall be given consistent with subsection (b)(4) and shall include the date of the proposed removal and the basis for the application. (3) Upon determination of a protected tree removal application, notice shall be given consistent with subsection (b)(4) and shall include a description of the decision and how to appeal it. (4) Notices required pursuant to this section shall include the address of the property, a description of the protected tree, including species, size, and location, and urban forestry contact information, and shall be given as follows: (i) In writing to all owners and residents of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the property containing the protected tree, and to all principal urban forestry partner organizations. (ii) By posting on the property, in one or more locations visible to the public. (iii) By posting on the city's website. (c) Appeals. (1) Any person applying to remove a protected tree in the absence of proposed development pursuant to Section 8.10.050(a), and any owner or resident of property within 600 feet of the exterior boundary of the property containing the protected tree, may request a public hearing by the director of public works to review the urban forester's decision, and may appeal the director of public works' determination to the city council. Any such request or appeal shall be filed with the public works department in a manner prescribed by the urban forester. (2) Any person applying to remove a protected tree pursuant to Section 8.10.050(b), (c), (d), or (e), and any owner or resident of property within 600 feet of the exterior boundary of the property containing the protected tree may appeal the director of planning and development service's decision in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.78.
5
Packet Pg. 92
(3) All appeals must be filed within fourteen days of posting of notice on the property pursuant to subsection (b)(4)(ii).
5
Packet Pg. 93