Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-04-24 City Council (11)
TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT APRIL 24, 2000 ~CMR:226:00 ARASTRADERO PRESERVE GATEWAY FACILITY (98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17). SITE AND DESIGN, VARIANCE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS BY THE PALO ALTO COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A ,VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER (GATEWAY FACILITY), INCLUDING OFFICE AND MEETING SPACE, STORAGE AREAS, PUBLIC RESTROOMS, BICYCLE LOCKERS, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON CITY- OWNED PROPERTY WITHIN THE ARASTRADERO PRESERVE. THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW A REDUCED SETBACK FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 20.08.020 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL Q UALITYA CT (CEQA) RECOMMENDATION Staff, the Architectural Review Board, and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the subject Site and Design, Variance, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications based upon the findings provided in Attachments A and B and subject to the conditions of approval specified in Attachment C. Additionally, staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate a contract with Arkin-TiltArchitects for final, design and plans for the Arastradero Gateway facility, for a fee not to exceed $50,000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Gateway Facility consists of a cluster of three modestly-scaled, single-story structures, approximately 1,200 square feet in area, that would serve visitors, park rangers, and open space stewards using the Arastradero Preserve open space area. (Attachments D CMR:226:00 Page 1 of 4. and E of this report and the document, Consensus Design Recommendations for the Arastradero Gateway Facility, provide a more extensive description of the proposal and the design process for the facility.) The facility also includes a numb.er of related site improvements, including landscaping, pedestrian pathways, bicycle lockers, and informational signage. The Gateway Facility would be located on a 77-acre parcel in the northern portion of the Arastradero Preserve adjacent to an existing unpaved public parking lot that takes access from Arastradero Road. The facility would be able to connect to the existing parking lot without the necessity of expanding or paving the parking surface. The proposed project siteis not proximate to any existing development; the closest structure being a single-family residence in Los Altos Hills, approximately one-quarter mile to the east. The principal issue associated with the Gateway Facility project is the need for a variance that would allow the proposed structures to have a reduced setback from Arastradero Road. The entire Arastradero Road corridor situated within the city is subject to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 20.08.020, known as the Setback Map. The Setback Map requires a minirhum building setback of 200 feet along scenic corridors, such as Arastradero Road; as designed, the Gateway Facility structures are within 75 feet of the Arastradero Road right-of-way, necessitating approval of a variance (see Attachment B for requisite variance findings). The rationale for locating the facility where it is proposed is related to the topography and existing conditions of the site. The proposed Gateway Facility site, near Arastradero Road, is relatively flat and lacks mature landscaping; however, further from the roadway, to the north, both the slope and elevation of the hillside increases. Therefore, construction of the facility 200 feet or more from the Arastradero Road corridor would entail the use of more environmentally damaging construction methods (e.g., more extensive grading; construction of a new emergency access road) and would make the project more visibly prominent on the hillside, in conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan "Open Space Development Criteria." PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Gateway Facility project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on January 12, 2000. The staff report for this Planning Commission meeting is included as Attachment E and the minutes from the meeting are included as part of Attachment D. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Gateway Facility project’s site and design, variance, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications with the additional request that the Police Departmentreview the proposal and provide comments concerning safety-related issues (i.e., vandalism, after-dark loitering, arson) raised at the hearing by a number of Los Altos Hills residents who reside in the vicinity. The Police Department completed its review and did not find that additional measures were needed to address these concerns. CMR:226:00 Page 2 of 4 The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Gateway Facility as a preliminary application on August 19, 1999 and again as a formal review and recommendation, excluding the variance application,, on February 17, 2000. At the February meeting, the ARB recommended approval of the project’s design subject to further review of minor architectural/construction and landscaping details. This additional ARB review will take place subsequent to Council’s determination on the project. RESOURCE IMPACT The initial consultant estimate to designand construct the proposed facility, including sewer and phone utility connections, was estimated to be at least $289,756. This figure assumes that building materials that were salvaged from the former house and barn on the Preserve could be incorporated into the final design, and that the f’mal design would pare down costs for doors and windows. Costs may be further reduced by the use of volunteer labor on certain portions of the facility construction or landscaping. The cost estimate was based on preliminary plans, using 1998 construction costs. As the final design is developed, a plan for the use of volunteers as well as a more accurate inventory of available recycled materials will ¯ bc completed. The actual construction cost may be higher than anticipated if the use of volunteers or recycled materials is less than originally planned.. On February 11, 2000, the Arastra Fund Board of Directors reviewed the proposed project and unanimously authorized the expenditure of up to $289,900 from the Arastra Fund in this fiscal year for the final design and construction of the building, with the recommendation that staff seek an additional $75,000 of matching grants and donations for construction expenses. Based on preliminary discussions with local foundations, staff is confident that the goal of $75,000 in matching grants will be achieved. Council approved the allocation of $289,900 in the 1999-2000 FY Capital Improvement Project budget, provided that the $289,900 would be offset by contributions or grants of at least the same amount. Approval of the CIP was also contingent on Council’s final approval of the project, as included in the recommendations of this report. The design costs, of an amount not to exceed $50,000, are included in the estimated expense of $289,756. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Site and Design Findings Attachment B:Variance Findings Attachment C:Conditions of Approval Attachment D:Architectural Review Board Staff Report, February 17,¯ 2000 Attachment E:Planning Division Staff Report to Planning Commission, January 12, 2000 Attachment F:Architectural Review Board Minutes, February 17, 2000 Project Plans and Consensus Design Recommendations for the Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility document (Council Members only) CMR:226:00 Page 3 of 4 Prepared By: Manager Review: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Ray Hashimoto, Zoning Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:G. EDWARD/C~~/~GAW~ ~:~ ~J /.of Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~ ~~ EMILY’HARRISON Assistant City Manager cc:Peter Bluhon, Bluhon Planning Group Arkin-Tilt Architects, 1062 Stannage Avenue, Albany, CA 94706 CMR:226:00 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Co SITE AND DESIGN FINDINGS Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility 98-D-7; 99’V-10; 99-EIA-17 The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites in that the Gateway Facility is designed as an ancillary feature of an open space area and will not intensify the. degree or types of land uses presently occurring on the project site or in the vicinity. The project will ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent area in that the proposed Gateway Facility will provide a needed amenity to an existing open space area accessible to the general public. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed with this project in that sensitive site planning minimizing potential impacts to the site’s hillside, open space setting was the principal objective of the project during the design process of the Gateway. Facility. This is manifested in the project’s re- use of building materials, non-reflective roofing, and sustainable energy fac.ilities. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed Gateway Facility augments the Arastradero Preserve open space area which is designated "Publicly Owned Conservation Land" on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Circulation Map. Moreover, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s "Open Space Development Criteria" and other relevant Comprehensive Plan policies referenced in the report. 6 ATTACHMENT B VARIANCE FINDINGS Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility 98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the project site is located in the Public Facilities Zoning District with a Design overlay and is designated as "Publicly Owned Conservation Land" on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Circulation Map. The property is also subject to the 200-foot setback requirement of Section 20.08:020 (Setback Map) of the PAMC. This combination of Zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations is unique to the project site, which is part of the Arastradero Preserve open space area, and Foothills Park. The property also has several unique physical characteristics. One, the property’s topography is unlike others in the vicinity in that it is relatively fiat near Arastradero Road, but becomes steeper and increases in elevation further from the roadway. Two, unlike surrounding properties, the subject property lacks mature landscaping. The dearth of trees on-site makes it infeasible to adequately screen the proposed Gateway Facility whether it was located 200 feet or more from Arastradero Road or 75 feet, as proposed. Moreover, if the Gateway Facility was located 200 feet or more from the roadway, a new emergency access road would need to be constructed, increasing the project’s visibility. Given the absence of existing, mature landscaping and the higher elevation of the hillside 200. feet or more from the roadway, the facility would actually be more prominent and involve more intensive grading and construction techniques if re-located in compliance with Setback Map provisions. Finally, unlike other properties in the vicinity, the subject property already contains a public parking lot. The parking lot is situated near the main entry to the Arastradero Preserve (it is also within the 200-foot setback) and is intended to accommodate visitors while ¯ minimizing the intrusion Of automobiles into the open space area, which is primarily used by pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. As designed, the new Gateway Facility buildings are positioned adjacent to the parking lot, allowing the project to tie-in to existing infrastructure and further minimize potential impacts to the hillside environment. Also, by locating the Gateway Facility adjacent to the parking lot, and closer to the roadway, its role as a "gateway" to the open space area is emphasized. Given the subject property’s unique land use designations and geographical traits, the proposed location of the Gateway Facility is the portion of the property that is most capable of balancing development needs with the preservation of the surrounding natural environment. And, more importantly, the proposed location allows the project to comply with the "City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria" found on 7 ¯ page N-5 of the Comprehensive Plan. In short, if the Gateway Facility were developed 200 feet or more from Arastradero Road and in compliance with PAMC, Section 20.08.020 provisions, the project would violate the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the application, is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that unlike most properties zoned for public facilities use, the subject property is part of the Arastradero Preserve and use of the property is limited to recreational/open space purposes. The preserve needs a facility such as the one proposed to act as a gateway and to provide essential services (i.e., bathrooms, drinking fountains, informational signage, rest area) for users of the open space area. According to the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the primary purpose of open space areas is to balance the needs of recreational users with the preservation of the natural environment. As designed, the project achieves this purpose, but would not otherwise do so if redesigned to comply with the 200-foot setback requirement of PAMC, Section 20.08.020. Also, as noted above, the Gateway Facility cannot be located 200 feet or .more from Arastradero Road without violating the City’s officially adopted "Open Space Criteria." These criteria are applied to all proposed projects through the City’s development review process. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in. that the project is of a modest scale and aesthetically unassuming design, indicative of its ancillary role in relationto the site’s primary use .as public open space. The total building area of the project is only 1,177 square feet, with masses broken up into three individual structures connected via breezeways. The siting of the buildings will minimize their visibility from residential development--the nearest residence is approximately one-quarter mile away in Los Altos Hills--and users-of the surrounding open space areas. Architecturally, the colo~s and materials chosen for the Gateway Facility buildings will soften their appearance against the natural hillside backdrop. Moreover, as noted abovel the Gateway Facility will tie-in to an existing parking lot, clustering development and avoiding further intrusion intb the more sensitive hillsides located 200 feet or more from the Arastradero Road corridor. ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility 98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 Planning: The project will be constructed and maintained in compliance with all plans approved by the City Council and kept on file at the office of the Planning Division. Any subsequent alterations to the project are subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. o Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file a revised landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist and Planning Division, showing plant materials compatible with open space areas. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, planting details shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist, showing planting wells a minimum of four times the width of the rootballs of all planting materials. All trees shall be double-staked and provided with an automatic irrigation system consisting of two bubblers per tree. Any modification to this condition is subject to approval by the Planning Arborist. Public Works: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the contractor shall contact the Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and obtain their approval prior to any work performed in the Arastradero Road public right-of-way. During construction, storage of any construction-related materials or equipment in the public right-of-way is prohibited without prior approval by the Public Works Engineering Division. The applicant shall require all contractors to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMPs with respect to the applicant’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMPs with respect to the applicant’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris, including, but not limited to soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, and chemicals or other waste materials 9 into gutters or storm drains. o ¯ All construction within the public right-of-way, easements, or other property under City of Palo Alto jurisdiction shall conform to the Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Fire: 9.Fire sprinklers are required as part of this project and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. 10. The project shall comply with the Uniform Fire Code regarding site access. Building: 11.The design of the project shall comply with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Utilities: 12.If included in the project and utilized, the project’s solar energy system shall be in conformance with the City’s Performance and Aesthetic Standards. 13.Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide a single,line diagram for review to the Utilities Engineering Electrical Division. 14.Should the project utilize electrical connections other than the proposed photo-voltaic panels/solar energy system, the applicant shall provide; to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineering Division, evidence of appropriate protection measures ensuring that the back-feeding of electrical current into the City’.s electrical distribution system will not occur. 10 Attachment D ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: February l7,2000 Architectural Review Board Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility (98-D-07; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17): Site and Design, Variance, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by the Palo Alto Community Services Department for the development of a visitor information center (Gateway Facility), including office and meeting space, storage areas, public restrooms, bicycle lockers and associated site improvements on City-owned property within the Arastradero Preserve. The Variance would allow a reduced setback fi’om the provisions of Section 20.08.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend City Council approval of the subject Site and Design and Environmental Impact Assessment applications based upon the findings in Attachments A and B, and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment D. The Variance application does not require.ARB action, thereftre, the Variance findings included as Attachment C are for informational purposes only. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location The project site is located on a 77-acre parcel in the northern portion of the 609-acre, Arastradero Preserve. The proposed Gateway Facility is situated ort the north side of Arastradero Road, approximately 2,000 feet south, of Interstate 280 and 2,500 feet west of Page Mill Road. The site is adjacent to the main entry of the preserve, hence the name Gateway Facility. Located amid a publicly owned open space preserve, there is no development immediately near the project site. The closest development is single-family residences in Los Altos Hills, over one-quarter mile to the east. Just south of the Gateway Facility site across Arastradero Road, and surrounded on all sides by the preserve, is a privately-owned, 13-acre parcel. Though privately held, the property is.at present S :Plan/Piadiv/ARB/Reports/ArastraderoGateway Page 1 11 undeveloped and is designated for open space uses on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Circulation Map. The 13-acre property, is also subject to the Williamson Act. Presently, the project site is undeveloped except for a gravel-surfaced public parking lot. The parking lot is .approximately 100 feet west of the nearest proposed Gateway Facility building. The lot accommodates approximately 35 vehicles and would serve the facility without having to be expanded or paved. While the slope varies greatly on the project parcel, the terrain is relatively flat where development of the facility is proposed, allowing traditional slab-on-grade construction methods for the proposed structures. The site’s slope increases, however, further from Arastradero Road, north of the project site. Proposed Gateway Facility The Gateway Facility is designed as a cluster of three, single-story structures totaling 1,177 square feet. The main building will be used primarily as a visitor center and meeting space and will be connected via a breezeway to a smaller building, containing restroom facilities. The remaining free- standing structure will be used as a work area for open space stewards and volunteers; this building is designed with a small equipment storage area as well. Buildings will be a combination of traditional wood-frame and innovative straw bale construction techniques. Exterior finishes will consist of wood laid in a board-and-batten manner, including wood materials salvaged from the residence and barn that previously existed on the site (see "Background," below). Non-reflective, corrugated metal roofing will be used on all of the structures, including the breezeway. All roofs are designed with deep eaves to shield visitors from sun and inclement weather. In addition to the three structures, the Gateway Facility project includes a variety of site improvements, including: trails and walkways leading from the existing parking lot to the buildings; an at-grade pedestrian bridge spanning a swale that separates the parking lot and the facility buildings; bicycle lockers; benches; informational signage; drinking facilities, accommodating both open space users and-animals (horses;. dogs)..Landscaping materials will consist principally of native plant species. A small demonstration planting garden, emphasizing planting materials appropriate for hillside areas, is also proposed. BACKGROUND On April 28, 1997, the City Council discussed the possible development of a visitor information center, referred to as the "Gateway Facility," at the Arastradero Preserve, following the demolition of a large, unoccupied residence and bam which then existed on the site (the residence and bam were demolished in the Summer of 1997). At this time, th~ Council recommended the construction of a modestfacility, with a building area between 1,200 and 1,500 square feet, the design of which would include input from the community. On July 28, 1997, the Council approved a consultant contract with Bluhon Planning Group to facilitate discussions with the community regarding the design of the Gateway Facility. The contract also provided for architectural and site design services with Arkin-Tilt Architects. The community-based design process was initiated in September 1997 with the formation of the Arastradero Gateway Task Force. The ten-member task force was comprised of individuals representing a wide range of interests related to the development and use of the proposed Gateway Facility and surrounding open space areas. From Fall 1997 through Spring 1998, the task force, City representatives, and the consultant team conducted interviews with community S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 2 stakeholders and held a number of public workshops and meetings regarding the.siting, design, and use of the proposed facility. On October 26, 1998, the current design of the Gateway Facility went before the City Council for conceptual approval. The Council, without giving any indication of approval, adopted a motion that the Gateway Facility project be referred to the ARB and Planning Commission prior to their reconsideration. On August 19, 1999, the ARB preliminarily reviewed the Gateway Facility proposal and indicated strong, unanimous support for the.project as currently designed. The only modification recommended by the ARB was that additional landscaping, primarily trees, be provided than was currently shown on the project’s landscape plan. The ARB was also concerned that the project be fully accessible to physically handicapped individuals. At its Regular Meeting on January 12, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the Gateway Facility (see Attachment F, January 12, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes) proposal and recommended approval of the project with the additional request that the Police Department include comments concerning safety-related issues. It is anticipated that Police’s comments will be available prior to the tentatively scheduled March 20, 2000 City Council hearing on the project. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan As noted above, the project site is part of the City-owned Arastradero Preserve and, accordingly, is designated "Publicly Owned Conservation Land" on the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Circulation Map. The primary purpose of this land use designation is the preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plant and animal life. However, the Comprehensive Plan specifies that compatibly designed and operated resource management, recreational, and educational uses are allowable under this land use designation. The proposed Gateway Facility is consistent with this range of allowable uses and has been designed to integrate with the surrounding open space areas. Moreover, as designed, the project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy L-69 (preservation of the scenic qualities of established roadways and trails); Policy N-1 (management of open space areas so that habitat protection, public safety, and low-impact recreational goals are met); Policies N-6 and N-7 (establishing development criteria to ensure that new development is of a high aesthetic quality that minimizes adverse visual impacts to hillside open space areas); Policy C-25 (ensuring that infrastructure improvements in open space areas are necessary and compatible with the natural environment). Municipal Code The project site is located in the Public Facilities, or PF, zoning district, with a Design (D) overlay. All governmental facilities, whether owned or leased, are allowed by right under this zoning designation. As proposed, the project is consistent with all of the requirements of.the PF(D) district, but is subject to the special setback requirements contained in Section 20.08.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), otherwise known as the "Setback Map." This special setback requires that new structures proposed for development along scenic corridors, such as Arastradero Road, be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the right-of-way. As designed, all of the proposed Gateway Facility structures are less than the required 200 feet from Arastradero Road, the closest being S:Plan[PladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway P~e3 13 approximately 75 feet away. Therefore, in order to construct the Gateway Facility as currently designed, it will be necessary to approve a Variance for the project site that would allow a reduced setback from the special requirements of the Setback Map. The rationale for approving the project at its proposed location, within the 200-foot setback, is discussed below. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The environmenta! issues intrinsic to open space/hillside development.have been addressed through an inclusive design process and sensitive site planning. The remaining significant issue associated with the proposed Gateway Facility is whether the project should comply with the requirements of PAMC, Section 20.08.020, discussed above. As previously stated, the Setback Map provisions, do not allow any structures within 200 feet of scenic corridor rights-of-way; this includes all of the Arastradero Road corridor located within the City of Palo Alto. The purpose of this extensive setback is to maintain the visual quality of the corridor and to prevent the obstruction of scenic views. While the proposed Gateway Facility is situated entirely within this 200-foot setback area, there are substantive reasons why the proposed location is preferable to one that would comply with the provisions of the Setback Map. The reasons are as follows: Relatively Flat Topography. The proposed location is one of the most level areas of the 77-acre subject parcel..Both the elevation and the slope of the parcel increase as one moves further from Arastradero Road, north of the project site. Therefore, if the Gateway Facility Were relocated in compliance with the 200-foot setback, the buildings would be in a more visually prominent location higher up the hillside, and their construction would involve more extensive grading. Comprehensive Plan Consistency. The 200-foot setback requirement is intended to work in conjunction with the previously discussed Comprehensive Plan policies relating to the preservation and enhancement of open space areas. However, under the particular circumstances of the Gateway Facility, adherence to the Setback Map provisions would make the project less consistent with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies, particularly the "City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria" contained in Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (Attachment E)~ For instance, "Open Space Development Criteria 1" states that new development in open space areas should not be visually intrusive from roadways and should be hidden from view as much as possible. "Criteria 4" states that such development should be clustered to reduce impacts on the natural environment, and "Criteria 7" states that all new development in open space areas should minimize the need for grading to the greatest extent feasible. Conversely, if the proposal were altered to conform to the 200-foot setback, it would be more visible on the hillside, less clustered and further from existing facilities (i.e., the parking lot), and would involve significantly more hillside grading. Clustering of Uses. As noted above, the Comprehensive Plan calls for new development in open space areas to be clustered, or closely grouped, as much as possible. This makes particular sense with the current proposal given that a public parking lot already exists adjacent to the proposed Gateway Facility location and would be able to serve the facility with minimal improvements. Also, if the proposed buildings were to be relocated outside the 200-foot setback, a new emergency access road would need to be constructed; the access road would be required if any development is proposed greater than 150 feet from Arastradero Road, in accordance with building and fire codes. Construction of an access road would further conflict with Comprehensive Plan open space S:PlanlPladivlPCSR[arastraderoGateway Page 4 development policies, which call for access roads only when absolutely necessary, and further undermine the project’s sensitive site design that strives to minimize human intrusion into the open space preserve. Overall, the proposed Gateway Facility complies with the relevant City policies for development of this type, as indicated by the findings attached below. TIMELINE Following this ARB hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled for review and action by the City Council on March 20, 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed Gateway Facility project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study prepared for the project determined that it would not have a significant impact on the environment at its proposed.location and that a Negative Declaration should be prepared. A dratt Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project (Attachment I) and circulated for public review. The formal 20-day public review period closed October 11, 1999. One comment letter, opposing the project and its environmental review process, was received during the public review period. It is appended to this report as Attachment J. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation and via mailed notifications to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Site and Design Findings Attachment B: ARB Standards for Review/Findings for Approval Attachment C: Variance Findings Attachment D: Conditions of Approval Attachment E: City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria Attachment F: Planning Commission Minutes, January 12, 2000 Attachment G: City Council Minutes, April 28, 1997 Attachment H: City Council Minutes, October 26, 1998 Attachment I: Location Map Attachment J: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)/Negative Declaration Attachment K: Letter from Herb Borock, dated October 6, 1999 Attachment L: Letter from David Smemoff, dated January 4, 2000 Project Plans and Consensus Design Recommendations for the Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility document (ARB members only) Prepared By: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Manager Review: Ray Hashimoto, Acting Zoning Administrator S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 5 16 ao ATTACHMENT A SITE AND DESIGN FINDINGS Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility 98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or ne~trby sites in that the Gateway Facility is designed as an ancillary feature of an open space area and will not intensify the degree or types of land uses presently occurring on the project site or in the vicinity. bo d. The project will ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent area in that the proposed Gateway Facility will provide a needed amenity to an existing open space area accessible to the general public. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed with this project in that sensitive site planning minimizing potential impacts to the site’s hillside, open space setting was the principal objective of the project during the design process of the Gateway Facility. This is manifested in the project’s re-use of building materials, non-reflective roofing, and sustainable energy facilities. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed Gateway Facility augments the Arastradero Preserve open space area which is designated "Publicly Owned Conservation Land" on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Circulation Map. Moreover, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s "Open Space Development Criteria" and other relevant Comprehensive Plan policies referenced in the report. S:PlanlPladivlpCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 6 18 ATTACHMENT B ARB STANDARDS FOR REVIEW/ FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 The design and architecture of the proposed Gateway Facility and associated site improvements furthers the goals and purposes of the Architectural Review Ordinance since the improvements comply with the "Standards for Review" as specified in Section 16.48.120 of the Municipal Code. The design.of the proposal is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages high- quality, .creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The design of the proposed Gateway Facility was arrived at through extensive community involvement and sensitivity to the surrounding open space environment. (ARB Standard #al) The design of the project is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the proposed facility .was planned with the primary goal of minimizing the project’s impacts through the development of buildings of limited scale. (ARB Standard #a2) The design is appropriate to the function of the project since the proposed Gateway Facility structures will serve a variety of uses equally well without adversely ¯ impacting the surrounding open space area. (ARB Standard #a3) The planning and siting of the various functions on the site creates an internal sense of order and providesa desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community in that the facility meets the need of a variety of users without creating points of conflict between them. (ARB Standard #a7) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the site in that the proposed facility is situated amid a large, publicly- owned open space area. (ARB Standard #a8) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and are compatible with the project’s .design in that secondary elements such as storage areas and bicycle lockers are appropriately incorporated into the design of the overall project. (ARB Standard #a9) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the facility is designed to accolnmodate all modes of open space u, sers and is situated adjacent to an existing vehicle parking area. (ARB Standard #alO) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project in that the facility was designed to have the minimal possible impact on the natural environment.. (ARB Standard #a11) The landscape design concept for the site creates a desirable and functional environment and depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site in that both the landscape and building materials strive to create a natural looking environment appropriate to their open space area setting. (ARB Standard #a13) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant in that nearly all proposed planting material is native to the area and adapted to the climate and conditions of the site. (ARB Standard #a14) The design is energy efficient and incorporates a building orientation and design elements that optimize passive heating and cooling opportunities while maintaining usable outdoor spaces. (ARB Standard #a15) ARB Standards #a4, #a5, #a6, and #a12 are not applicable to the subject proposal. S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastrader°Gateway Page 8 20 ATTACHMENT C VARIANCE FINDINGS Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility 98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 ¯ There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the project site is located in the Public Facilities Zoning District with a Design overlay and is designated as "PubliclyOwned Conservation Land" on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Circulation Map. The property is also subject to the 200-foot setback requirement of Section 20.08.020 (Setback Map) of the PANIC. This combination of Zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations is unique to the project site, which is part of the Arastradero Preserve open" space area, and Foothills Park. The property also has several unique physical characteristics. One,. the property’s topography is unlike others in the vicinity in that it is relatively fiat near Arastradero Road, but becomes steeper and increases in elevation further from the roadway. Two, unlike surrounding properties, the subject property lacks mature landscaping. The dearth of trees on-site makes it infeasible to adequately screen the proposed Gateway Facility whether it was located 200 feet or more from Arastradero Road or 75 feet, as proposed. Moreover, if the Gateway Facility was located 200 feet or more fi’om the roadway, a new emergency access road would need to be constructed, increasing the project’s visibility. Given the absence of existing, mature landscaping and the higher elevation of the hillside 200 feet or more from the roadway, the facility would actually be more prominent and involve more intensive grading and construction techniques if re-located in compliance with Setback Map provisions. Finally, unlike other properties in the vicinity, the subject property already contains a public parking lot. The parking lot is situated near the main entry to the Arastradero Preserve (it is also within the 200-foot setback) and is intended to accommodate visitors while minimizing the intrusion of automobiles into the open space area, which is primarily used by pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. As designed, the new Gateway Facility buildings are positioned adjacent to the parking lot, allowing the project to tie-in to existing infrastructure and further minimize potential impacts to the hillside environment. Also, by locating the Gateway Facility adjacent to the parking lot, and closer to the roadway, its role as a "gateway" to the open space area is emphasized. Given the subject property,s unique land use designations and geographical traits, the proposed location of the Gateway Facility is the portion of the property that is most capable of balancing development needs with the preservation of the surrounding natural environment. And, more importantly, the proposed location allows the project to comply with the "Ci.ty of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria" found on page N-5 of the S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 9 21 Comprehensive Plan. In short, if the Gateway Facility were developed 200 feet or more from Arastradero Road and in compliance with PAMC, Section 20.08.020 provisions, the project would violate the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to preveni unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that unlike most properties, zoned for public facilities use, the subject property is part of the Arastradero Preserve and use of the property is limited to recreational/open space purposes. The preserve needs a facility such as the one proposed to act as a gateway and to provide essential services (i.e., bathrooms, drinking fountains, informational signage, rest area) for users of the open space area. According to the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the primary purpose of open space areas is to balance the needs of recreational users with the preservation of the natural environment. As designed, the project achieves this purpose, but would not otherwise do so if redesigned to comply with the 200ofoot setback requirement of PAMC, Section 20.08.020. Also, as noted above, the Gateway Facility cannot be located 200 feet or more from Arastradero Road without violating the City’s officially adopted "Open Space Criteria." These criteria are applied to all proposed projects through the City’s development review process. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or . improvements, in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the project is of a modest scale and ¯ aesthetically unassuming design, indicative of its ancillary role in relation to the site’s primary use as public open space. The total building area of the project is ¯ only 1,177 square feet, with masses broken up into three individual structures connected via breezeways. The siting of the buildings will minimize their visibility from residential development--the nearest residence is approximately one-quarter mile away in Los Altos Hills--and users of the surrounding open space areas. Architecturally, the colors and materials chosen for the Gateway Facility buildings will soften their appearance against the natural hillside backdrop. Moreover, as noted above, the Gateway Facility will tie-in to an existing parking lot, clustering development and avoiding further intrusion into the more sensitive hillsides located 200 feet or more from the Arastradero Road corridor. S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 10 Planning: .ATTACHMENT D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility 98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 The project will be constructed and maintained in compliance with all plans approved by the City Council and kept on file at the office of the Planning Division. Any subsequent alterations to the project are subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file a revised landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist and Planning Division, showing plant materials compatible with open space areas. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, planting details shall be provided, to the. satisfaction of the Planning Arborist, showing planting wells a minimum of four times the width of the rootballs of all planting materials. All trees shall be double-staked and provided with an automatic irrigation system consisting of two bubblers per treel Any modification to this condition is subject to approval by the Planning Arborist. Public Works: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the contractor shall contact the Public Works Deparlrnent, Engineering Division, and obtain their approval prior to any work performed in the Arastradero Road public right-of-way. During construction, storage of any construction-related materials or equipment in the public right-of-way is prohibited without prior approval by the Public Works Engineering Division. 7. The applicant shall require all contractors to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMPs with respect to the applicant’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMPs with respect to the applicant’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris~ including,, but not S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 11 23 24 POLICY N-7: All development in the foothiH portion of the P]~ Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should be consistent with the following criteria: N-5 Attachment E Embracing the New Century 26 Attachment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 was noticed in the newspapers, both the Weekl) and the Daily, that we were going to be reviewing this tonight, but we will not. be doing so. Please check future agendas if you are interestedin that particular item. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. None. NEW BUSINESS. Chairman Schmidt: The next item is New Business, Public Hearings. Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility (98-SD-07; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17): Review and recommend approval of Site and Design, Variance and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by the City of Palo Alto Community Services Department for a visitor information center (Gateway Facility), including office and meeting space, storage areas, public restrooms, and associated site improvements on city- owned property within the Arastradero Preserve open space area. The Variance will allow a reduced setback from the provisions of Section 20.08.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. This project has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the Architectural Review Board on ’ February 17, 2000 and the City Council on March 27, 2000. Chairman Schmidt: I would like to hear the presentation from ~taff. Lisa Grote, Acting Chief Planning Official: I would like to introduce Luke Cormolly. He is our senior planner, and he will be giving the staff report on this item. Luke Connoll),: Thank you. I know I have been before you before, but it has been a little while. I just want to reiterate that staff’s recommendation on this is that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Site and Design, Variance, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications based upon the findings in Attachments A, B, and C, subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment D. Rather than go into a reiteration of the staff report, I want to let the commission know that.Greg Betts from the Community Services Department is here, as well as Peter Bluhahn from Bluhahn Planning. They will be going through the process of how this project reached this stage. After that, we will be happy to answer any other questions. First, I want to make sure that there are a couple of items that everybody received. There was a letter from Mary Davey, a Los Altos Hills resident, that arrived today. I also want to note a couple of corrections. There was an Attachment G of the staff report, which were the City Council minutes of October 26, 1998. As it turned out, they were really a duplication of the April, 1997 minutes. Even though the font was different looking, it was of the same substance. If there was any confusion, this project has also gone through City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 the Architectural Review Board in August, 1999. Tl~e project was largely supported. The two major issues were handicap access mainly from the parking lot to the proposed facility, and there was aview that the project should include more landscaping than it presently did. With that, I will now turn this over to Greg Betts. Mr. Betts: Good evening. I am Greg Betts, the Superintendent of Open Space and Sciences for the city. I am very pleased to be able to bring this project before the commission, not only because it is a facility that meets the needs of a number of different park users, but because this has been a project that has been very methodically and carefully designed over the period of the last two-and-a-half years. The amount of public input that has gone into this project is really outstanding. In fact, the design process of including the task force to develop the booklet that was presented to the commission won a design award from the California Park and Recreation Society. I would like to do two things tonight before turning the microphone over to Peter Bluhahn. I want to talk a little about our motives for a gateway facility, why it is necessary, what it is going to do for the preserve, and why bother. Second, I want to talk a little bit about the process of how we tried to engender the participation of a number of different constituencies of the Arastradero PreServe. I am sure you know that the Arastradero Preserve was purchased through inverse condemnation, and for many years, the city did not know what to do with it. It was a park that was forced upon us. It is a very unique grassland habitat that abuts Foothills Park. It is 609 acres, and the preserve is extremely popular. It is popular for a number of different reasons, perhaps because of its. location to 1-280 and to the Stanford campus, to Portola Valley, which backs up on one side, and Los Altos Hills on another; perhaps because of its rolling topography. It is a very, very nice place to walk a dog, to stroll, to birdwatch, to mountain bike and to horseback ride. It is adjacent to the Portola stables, and perhaps it is because there is no entry fee or city requirement such as Foothills Park has, making this preserve perhaps twice as popular in terms of attendance than Foothills Park. Still, the goal of Arastradero was to try to keep the preserve in low use and low impact. For .that reason, as various . task forces have looked at the Arastradero Preserve, they have made a conscious point not to develop picnic areas, not to develop boating docks at the Arastradero Lake, and not to repeat facilities that are already available at Foothills Park, such as the Interpretation Center or the campground at Towle Camp. So when the City Council in 1997 decided to first create a stewardship agreement with Bay Area Action, they also created a five-point master plan for the preserve. One of the things was, of course, to remove a 5,000-square-foot colossal house and barn pretty much in the center of the preserve. That work was carefully done by Bay Area Action. The - barn,, the house, and the caretaker’s cottage were all dismantled, put into storage at Foothills Park in a container on site so that all of the material from that 5,000-square-foot house could be recycled and reused. Some of it was used for a church building. City of Palo Alto Page 3 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 The council gave two directions to staff. First of all, they asked that a task force be committed to look -at whether or not a gateway facility really was even necessary. Then secondly, the guideline was that it be no bigger than 1,500 square feet. I am very proud of the design that came forward from the task force, because it is about 1,100 square feet. Although there was initially a great deal of fear and trepidation that because of all of the different parties that wanted to have a stake in this facility, that it would be. a huge facility, something approaching the size of the former house on the property. But this is a very concise building. Over the process of a year-and-a-half, the task force was made up of ten members representing equestrians, bikers, hikers, neighbors of the preserve, park rangers, environmental educators, members of the community at large. The building serves a couple of key services for the park. As I mentioned, since this park was never really, designed as an open space park, we have nearly 20 miles of trails in that preserve, trails that are foot paths, deer paths, some trails that have been more formally made by the rangers, but some of them are very inappropriately steeped, sloped and sited, causing erosion in many areas. Volunteers have been very keen in trying to restore this trail system and to make it more usable. Bay Area Action and their volunteer program has brought a very large volunteer component to sustaining the prese~e, but they frankly have no place to store their tools and equipment. So storage is a key component. There is a small meeting room facility that will provide orientation to the facility, will allow a place for volunteer coordination, and will provide some public displays of environmental information. The other component of the facility is an office or a workspace. It is not intended to be staffed, like Foothills Park, for eight hours a day. It is a workplace where the rangers can stop, store their medical supplies, where members of the Bay Area Action teams that are doing restoration work of native plants can keep records on the success of planted acorns and other native grasses, and a place where people can check in for information on hikes or other activities that are being sponsored in the preserve, . I would now like to introduce Peter Blohan. Peter is the facilitator who worked with Arkin and Tilt Landscapes to come up with this design. He will talk a little bit about why this site and why this configuration of buildings. Thank you. Peter Blohan: Thanks, Greg. My planning group specializes in doing public involvement and consensus building on land use projects. I guess the main points to underscore right now are why the building was sited where it is, because that is the key issue before this commission. I would like to give that to you in the larger framework of what the goals and guidelines were that the task force developed. Let’s remember that overarching goal of this building, was to have it be consistent with the mission of the preserve, that is, to see some restoration take place and to educate the public about the natural processes taking place on the property, and as far as the building goes, to educate users and to train citizens in restoration work so that over time, this community has a resource of people interested in maintaining and preserving and restoring the preserve. So consistent with that, the task force, along with community input, said lets develop City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 criteria that will make the building essentially consistent with that mission. So I would like to highlight them now~ even though this is in the document. The overall goal of the facility is to ~rient and educate users and to inspire stewardship for the park, and to inspire respect for its resources. We developed three sets of criteria. One is for its uses, and the other is for site planning and building design. Briefly, here the overall goal is to provide space for visitors and volunteers to gather together and learn about the preserve and to conduct habitat restoration. There is a list of things like parking, resting-places, restrooms, information and amenities for all preserve users. The real important set, as far as the topic you are looking at, is that we wanted to integrate the gateway into the natural landscape with minimum impact to visual and ecological resources, and to minimize the use of any new infrastructure. We wanted to create a sense of peace and co-existence with the surroundings,. In other words, one approach would have been to create an architecturally significant piece that called attention to itself, which could be appropriate under certain circumstances. In this, .we said no, we just wanted it to be a small, light presence on the landscape. So we said, let’s acknowledge the natural topography, minimize erosion and avoid impacts on native botanical resources. In other words, if we can find an area that does not have a large, natural grass area, that is a candidate and gets an extra point as we look at different sites. We looked at amenities in already disturbed areas so that we do not ha~e to restore those. Maybe the building would restore it. Site the gateway near the road corridor and consider solar access, landscape, and restore native plants and trees, and install service paths that are consistent with the character. We did not want to put in any obtrusive service roads. Finally as far as building design criteria go, we wanted to create a simple, natural, flexible facility. This is really a facility about trying to use sustainable building technologies. We wanted to create a connection, as far as interior space goes, with the landscape. We do not want to bring new electricity into the facility. We wanted to reuse salvage materials. So these were the key criteria involved that .were articulated before we even did any site planning workl I would like to refer you to this wall diagram. These are the sites that we looked at. We went out to the parking lot and took some tours. This is just for you to understand the site. (Slide # 1) Here is the site looking from the parking lot to the east. The new facility will be beyond that small scale in the distance. (Slide #2) This is an alternative site we considered. We decided that it is too far from the parking lot and would go too far into the preserve, really violating the expanse of the preserve with the restoration that would take place there. (Slide #3) This is looking up the hill at Site #3. Clearly this would be far too intrusive, requiring a lot of grading, cutting and filling, and might not be a handicap-accessible facility. (Slide #4) Finally, the site is in that small valley with a 200-foot setback. The obvious point is 200 feet in from the road would take you quite a ways up that hill, and that is essentially inconsistent with what we want to achieve, which is a building that fits into its surroundings, and not call a lot of attention to itself. Those are the key points. City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Chairman Schmidt: That covers everything. I think you have certainly described the siting process and the entire process. I believe there are some questions from the commission. Commissioner Schink: I would appreciate a brief presentation on the architecture. Mr. Blohan: It is a very simple set of uses. The yellow space is for the steward and park ranger office, which as Greg said, is staffed only as needed, not on a full-time basis. It creates a courtyard with a large meeting room space, in red, and as you see, this is located about a 30-second to one-minute walk from the parking lot. The idea is very simple for visitors. They come in from the parking lot, and they enter the preserve along this path. They will pass the gateway facility, see the educational displays, perhaps there is a staff person or volunteer there, but they do not have to go through it. They can pass by it. As far as volunteer activity goes, there may be classes, and visitors will see that. There will be this adequate buffer between the steward programs and the visitors, at the same time, not putting the steward program far away from visitors. That was a very conscious goal that we had. Briefly for the architecture, the most I can say is that there is no new electricity coming from the power lines. We are going to have a photovoltaic system. The walls are generally from resawn salvaged siding and wood-framed.. Therewill be a straw bale wall along one area for thermal insulation purposes. There will be two restrooms and facilities for a telephone, which we feel is very important for the steward and the park ranger. Finally, educational displays and information about the preserve will be there. Chairman Schmidt: Are there any additional questions for the architect? (None) Thank you very much. Are there questions for staff?. (None) Then I will turn to the public hearing portion. You have five minutes to speak. Erika Williams, 28254 Radcliffe Lane, Los Altos Hills: My land is adjacent to the Arastradero Preserve. I have a couple of comments on it and a couple of questions. I appreciate the process that has been followed by staff and the consultants, however, the residents of Page Mill Estates, which my house is a part of, were not included in the process. I don’t know if that was an oversight or what, but we learned about this just a few months ago. Second, I find it rather interesting that Palo Alto, having such limited open space, is trying to urbanize part of it. When I heard in the report was office, restrooms, meeting rooms, electricity, and to me, that is urbanization. Why would Palo Alto want to take a beautiful piece of open space and put any kind of building in it. I understand the small shed for tools. There is already a small one that could be enlarged, however, the scope of the project will change the character of the open space preserve. City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 I also find it rather ironic that Palo Alto is considering urbanizing this open preserve and at the same time, complaining to Stanford because Stanford is planning to develop part of their open space. So I would ask the Planning Commission if you are willing to make the same commitment that you are asking Stanford to make, and if you do approve this, and you do approve the variances, that you are also willing to make a commitment that for the next twenty years, you will not make any other changes. That completes my comments. Commissioner Byrd: Did you say you are a resident of Page Mill Estates? Where is that in relation to the Arastradero property? Mrs. Williams: It is right next to the Arastradero Preserve. I will be looking at this facility from several of the windows in my house. Commissioner Byrd: Are you a resident of Palo Alto or Los Altos? Mrs. Williams: Los Altos Hills. Commissioner Byrd: Can you orient us on the map. Mrs. Williams: Here is Arastradero Road, and this is Page Mill Road!I-280. Page Mill Estates is in this area. Our residents use Palo Alto schools~ therefore, we provide part of our taxes to Palo Alto for certain services such as schools and some other things. Commissioner Byrd: Are these the newish, ’fairly big homes along. Arastradero? Mrs. Williams: No, this is an older development. It was put in place in the late 1960s. Commissioner Byrd: Thank you. Carole Stone, 28226 Radcliffe Lane, Los Altos Hills: Our street is a five-home, short street, and my husband and I are very concerned about the urbanization that Erika has mentioned of the preserve. I understand it is a preserve, not a park. We have seen evidence of buildings appearing on certain properties where there is a meeting place now for elements that may not be there now with public restrooms, and there are already some port-a-toilets there, but with more facilities there, we are wondering about more usage of the property than what we would like to see. There are children in our development who use the preserve and are very happy there. We are concerned about why it is not staffed so that there is some protection in case there is an element of these groups there that may not be wonderful. That is my concern. I was also wondering when it was mentioned about residents were polled. None of the residents at Page Mill Estates seem to have been polled. I did some telephoning, and until we saw a notice of this, and some of the residents received postcards, but others did not. So when I spoke to Greg on the telephone, he saw to it that the rest of us got City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 postcards. You can see that there is a very small turnout, because people are not aware in our de’;,elopment, and we are fight next door. Those are my comments. Thank you very much. Janet Germane, 28168 Radcliffe Lane, Los Altos Hills: Good evening, Thank you for the beautiful material. It is indeed a wonderful thing that you are doing in many ways. I have lived on Radcliffe Lane since 1966, and we have seen lots of changes out there. There ate five lots, as Carole said. You have heard from Lots 1 and 2, and I am #4. It is true in the description, someone has said that it is very inviting and has easy access. It would make it very useful, and population pressures make something like this probably inevitable that this will happen. However, my concern is, what is going to happen to that very inviting area after-hours when there is no one there looking after things. I am concerned about the illegal use of the area. We know that already there have been robberies in the parking lot. You obviously cannot prevent all that sore of untoward thing, but have you anticipated this after hours use of the lot and the problem there? Have you considered an off-hours caretaker, because it seems to me that in addition .to protecting the landscape out there, we really have to protect those facilities, as well, against vandalism and other things. Why do we expect problems out there? Because there have been robberies. Because as you may remember, on July 1, 1985, we had a fire set by an arsonist that swept through that area, took down eucalyptus trees, and took down ten houses in our area. My husband saved our house. Finally, we were told that it is, in fact, certain kinds of improved toilet facilities that are an especial magnet to drug use, as has happened in some of the areas along 1-280. That is my question to you. Have you considered those problems? If not, I hope you will. Thank you. Karen Sue Cotter, 120 Alma Street, #4, Menlo Park: Good evening. I currently work as the Research Director on the Arastradero Preserve Stewardship Project for Bay Area Action. Last year, volunteers put in over 3,500 volunteer hours on the preserve, where we removed non-native plants, planted acorns, other native vegetation, and worked on the Irails. Most of these hours were contributed during our Saturday workdays, but I also have many visitors and volunteers coming out during the weekdays. I have school groups that come out; I have college interns that are coming out doing special projects for me, or doing their own research projects. The gateway facility is much needed to facilitate meeting these people, having a place to talk with them, and having a place to store our tools so that volunteers can pick up these things, The tool shed that we have out there right now does not hold many tools.- There is no shelter for plants that I have put out there. Fortunately, nothing has ever been stolen that we have sort of hiding behind the bathroom, thank heavens, but someday, that may happen. So it would be important to have a tool shed that we couldlock up. In addition, the preserve is very. busy with visitors, especially on warm evenings when mountain bikers come. It will be great as a place for the rangers to be so that they can meet with the bicyclists and talk to them more about staying on trails to prevent erosion. There is not a whole lot of contact between the rangers and the public right now. They City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 try, but it would be great for them to have a place where they could be out there more often. The rangers are needed for law enforcement. They are needed for emergencies. They are needed for inspection of the trails. The facility would also be a model for the City of Palo Alto of sustainable energy. We would build it using salvageable materials from the house and the barn; we would use straw bales, we would use solar and passive energy,, techniques, and all of these components that go into the building could be not just there for people to look at, but we would have educational plaques up so that people can learn about these things, and perhaps incorporate them into their own house or into the next house that they live in. We are trying to reach out and educate the community about the importance not just of buying and setting aside open space, but participating in the restoration or maintenance of open space. We need to teach people about the importance of preserving trails, staying . on trails, protecting wildlife, keeping their dogs on a leash. We need to tell them that you have to work the land in order to preserve it. If you let it go, you are going to have to start yellow start thistle move in. You are going to have Italian thistle move in, mustard, poison hemlock, fennel. Eighty percent of your preserve is non-native species. The more that you let these go, the more you are going to lose your oaks and your native plants and your native wildlife. So people need to be there and need to be educated, and this facility. will help with that. Thank you very much, and thank you to the staff for their work on this. David Smemoff, 112 Foxwood Road, Portola Valley: Along with Karen Cotter, I have worked with Bay Area Action on this project.. I have been a volunteer on the project since its inception in 1995, and helped lead the effort to dismantle the bam and the home and to salvage those materials for reuse in this potential facility. I also served for a year on the task force which Peter Blohan and the architects orchestrated. That was a long process, and there has been a long interval in between when that process concluded with this report and getting to this meeting here. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why this issue may not have been in front of some the neighbors who are here this evening. Notices were sent around to all of the surrounding communities, in fact, a woman who lives up on Page Mill Road, Jan Terry, served on the task force, as well. So there were two neighbors on different parts of the preserve who were involved in the task force process. We did look at issues like safety and issues concerning after-hours use. Initially, Bay Area Action proposed having an on-site caretaker. That was our original vision for the existing home, but because of other considerations, we decided to drop that, but it would be something that could be considered for safety. There is a gate that is locked at the preserve every evening, so the facility would be locked for anyone coming in unless they were to walk in. People can walk into the preserve at any time in the evening now, just going beyond the locked gate. City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ’23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 The process to achieve the design and the functions, as Karen iterated, was very detailed and we thought very carefully about the uses of this facility. I think the task force has come up with an excellent design, something that blends into the landscape and hopefully will not be obtrusive. It will be surrounded by native vegetation which will help shield it ¯ from visibility, and it is low enough down on the hill that I do not actually believe it is going to be visible from any of the preserve neighbors excep.t maybe in a few cases. The demonstration of a sustainable building aspect of this is also very important. One of the things we would like to do is to incorporate volunteers in the construction of the facility. Straw bale lends itself to that very well, as well as being visible to the public as a new building technology. There is a window that is actually put into the straw bale so that one can actually see the straw behind that and use it as an educational feature. Karen went through the functions. I think some of the other speakers talked about the functions, but those are very important to the work that we do at the preserve. In addition, I think it is very important to the community that has been involved to see this process come to completion. It was sort of a quid pro quo for the removal of the existing structures to reestablish a community facility there where these kinds of programs could be staged from. So we are ¯very much looking forward to that day. Thank you. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good evening, Chair Schmidt and members of the commission. One of the issues that is important is the policy that the council established for having a gateway structure. That is going to be an. issue that is going to come back when it goes before the council. In the¯ minutes, it is very clear that the council has said a number of times that the request that they had for a gateway structure is.not the same thing as what Bay Area Action wants for a structure. The prime purpose of the gateway structure was a gateway facility for people who come to enjoy the open space preserve. One of the considerations to be taken into designing it was what the needs were of the steward for the preserve, which is Bay Area Action, but is not the sole purpose or the main purpose. I would like to show you on the overhead projector the findings that are required for a variance. The first one is that the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property do not apply generally to property in the same district. That, cannot be found for.this particular one.. This is asingle parcel on one side of the Arastradero Preserve that is zoned PF-D. This property has the same zoning that happens to be in the preserve on the other side of the road and the same zoning for Foothills Park, and they all have a 200-¯foot setback. If you take the attitude that any property with a particular address is a unique parcel, then all parcels along Arastradero Road are unique parcels with extraordinary circumstances. One of them is zoned OS, and two of them have unique planned community zone districts. This side has a PF zone, so I don’t think you can make that finding. The second finding has to do with whether it preserves a substantial property right. There is no substantial property right here. This is an open space preserve dedicated parkland, City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 for which a separate ordinance is needed for any kind of construction. This is discretionary approval of site and design review, and it is not a substantial property fight. The third is whether it would be detrimental to improvements in the vicinity: Across the street is a property zoned OS with a 200-foot setback, which the city has some concem about possible losses, reverse condemnation. From the property line of that property on Arastradero Road, this facility will look four times bigger at.75 feet than it would at 200 feet. I believe that is detrimental to that property and affects its rights. The concern expressed in David Smemoff’s letter that failure by the city to follow through on the project will serve to erode public support for the work at the preserve ignores the fact that the work on the preserve is being supported by funds donated by people who do not want buildings. They are the ones who donated the money, and the only quid pro quo, if there was one, was money to take down a building. There is no quid pro quo stated in the minutes of any public document that any building should be built in exchange for the ones that were demolished. As far as the rangers are concerned, the way that illegal use of trails is enforced is by ¯ having rangers patrolling on the preserve, not sitting in an office at the gateway facility. One of the other speakers mentioned the City Council being concerned about Stanford development. I have heard testimony, and you have received a letter from one of the open space district directors, and we have heard other testimony from people who have gone to great lengths to say that Stanford should not build anything in their open space " areas. Yet the same people who want a project or a building for an environmental organization suddenly think that’s okay. I am more concerned about the consistency of their opinions on those things than I am about a group such as the City Council that has to balance a number of different interests. Thank you. Jerry Hearn, 144 El Nido Road, Portola Valley: I am speaking tonight as a member of the task force. In that regard, I actually represented the environmental volunteers, which is a Palo Alto concern. I want to mention for a moment about the process. Greg spoke a little bit about it. I found it to be a very long yet very inclusive process where we did our best to reachout to all of the users and potential users, and gain their input. I think the final product actually incorporates to the best ability of that kind of a process the desires of the users. The facility itself, although it will make Bay Area Action’s job perhaps a little easier, will actually accrue no particular benefit to Bay Area Action beyond that. It will benefit the uses of Arastradero and the city as a whole. The intention of this building, by the way, was notto attract new people to the preserve, but to accommodate ’ what we see as a growing use, and to incorporate volunteer labor in all of the activities to help manage the preserve. As one person who came with a significantly different idea of what we were going to see, I find this to be quite a modest proposal, compared to what I had in mind. I was thinking of a bigger facility, but this is what came out of it, and I am very happy with it. City of palo Alto Page 11 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 There are three issues that I would like to mention very quickly, and make a few staterrients about them. The first is about the design principles that are employed in this. I believe we utilized principles that incorporated our best practices in environmental design and ecological balance. The primary use of this facility, in using sustainable techniques, was to reduce the real impact of any building on the surroundings. It was not to be active as a model, however, the possibility is there, since we are using these techniques, to be a model for other building purposes. We incorporated elements that minimized energy use. We were trying to be completely offthe grid. We reduced the disturbance of land by siting close to a disturbed area, reducing many additional trails that needed to be made, and we are maximizing the use of the recyclable materials and volunteer labor in the process. As to the environmental impacts, we designed this to have as few significant impacts on any sensitive areas, including a surrounding little piece that is sort of a seasonal wetland. All of this can be readily mitigated either by revegetation or minimizing the disturbance of the land. One of the reasons for siting it where it was was to minimize the amount of grading and road building that had to be done. Once again, you need to remember that out of the 609 acres, this is approximately an acre that will be impacted by all of this, and most of it will be impacted only temporarily. The last thing I would like to mention is that one of the issues before you is the city easement setback and the variance to that. While we were designing this, we kept in mind the principles for open space design, and we actually designed this purposely to con’form to the spirit of the scenic setback, if not exactly the letter. We wanted this to be very unobtrusive, and I think that where it sits, it is so. I was out there the other day and measured 200 feet back. Two hundred feet back places this building considerably higher up on the hill than it would be. Not only would it not be unobtrusive, but as a public building, it needs to be ADA-accessible. That would make it very, very difficult to do that without considerably more. grading to create a ramp that conforms to the ADA requirements. So we took all of that into consideration when we considered what we ’ thought the siting should be. So I would like to support what people have said before me about granting a variance in this case, because I believe this is a special case. Thank you very much. Jay Stone, 28226 Radcliffe Lane, Los .Altos Hills: I live in the second house. I think that the thing that all of the Los Altos Hills people who have expressed themselves tonight are concerned about is the safety. We think it is great that you are building something that is nice, but we want to know that everything is going to be protected. We sure would like to hear from the police department that they would have patrols watching the place, and from the fire department that there is plenty of water to fight a fire, and what the problems would be in protecting it against a fire, because we did have an arsonist set a fire in 1985, as Janet Germane said. So those concerns should be addressed. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Chairman Schmidt: ~I will now close the public hearing and bting this item back to the commission. Are there additional comments from staff or questions from commissioners? Commissioner Byrd: I have one quick, fussy question for staff. The staff recommendation includes the commission recommending to council the fin.dings in Attachment C, which are the ARB findings. Are those not traditionally ARB findings that are recommended by the ARB directly to council, so that we would just act on Attachments A and B? Ms. Grote: That is correct. The ARB will actually be making the ARB findings. These are in your report for information for your review, in the event that you did have comment on them. But you do not need to make a motion to approve them. Commissioner Cassel: I would like to know if Ariel Calonne could make a comment on the variance process that is being used for this site, and on Findings 1 and 2. Mr. Calonne: I think the findings are quite extensive, in relation to many I have seen. The question as to whether there is a property right at stake, as I understood Mr. Borock, was directed at whether the city really has any property right. Certainly, the city does have a property tight, so i am very comfortable with the variance findings. I did see in Herb’s letter a quote out of minutes that routinely granting variances could establish a practice that you would be stuck with. I certainly do not think thecity has routinely granted vatiances in this context, so while I am not shying away from what is quoted, I ’ do not think it is applicable here. Commissioner Burt: Could staff comment on what the responses have been to the ARB’s request regarding handicap access and the landscaping and also on the need for the bike lockers and three restrooms and how that need has been established. Mr. Betts: Let me see ifI can answer your questions in the order they were given. The ARB was concerned about buffeting the appearance of the building from Arastradero Road. Initially, the plan was to try to use native acorns to revegetate the area. What we have done to be responsive to the.ARB is to beef up the landscaping along the road with mor~ mature oaks, nearly doubling the number of plantings to create a nice shield. Many people have said that before the fire, there were a number of nice eucalyptus trees along. the road, and the hope would be to try and recreate that kind of buffer along Arastradero Road. Regarding ADA accessibility, the trail that would be used from the parking lot to the structure is essentially native earth that has been mixed with a pine sap resin that can be compacted. It creates an impervious, very easily maneuvered trail surface, yet it looks just like the native dirt that is there. The course from the parking lot to the facility is relatively fiat, with one small wooden footbridge over a swale to keep the access completely open. City of Palo Alto Page 13 3B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27, 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 In terms of the bathrooms, there are currently two port-a-potties within a fenced structure. One is an ADA-aecessible port-a-potty, and the other is a standard restroom. The design for the facility was basically to have one handicap restroom and two non-handicapped. Commissioner Butt: Why do we need a third restroom? I have been there probably a hundred times, and have never stood in line for the restroom.. Mr. Betts: I will refer that to Peter. I think we had these discussions with the engineering staff on the required number. Mr. Blohan: The most I can say, from what I recall going back a year, is for one men’s, one women’s, and not having to make each of those ADA-accessible. Thatwas the logic. One ADA and the other for each sex. Commissioner Burr: Were the other two unisex? The current port-a-potties are, I believe. Mr. Blohan: To give you the exact technical reason why for having three, I cannot say right now. I do not recall. I don’t believe a statement made that that was a minimum. Mr. Connolly: In response to that, there is no code requirement that I am aware of that would require three bathrooms. I believe it would be two. Commissioner Cassel: I have a question about the bicycle lockers. You have a couple that are enclosed so that they are not enclosed, but why bicycle lockers and not just bicycle racks? I presume these bicyclists would bring their own locks. I was just curious. Mr. Blohan: The idea was that people who come and stay for the day to work on the preserve would be able to keep it in a secure place outside the elements. It is mainly for long-term parking for bikes. Commissioner Cassel: So they would bring their own lock and lock it for the day. Someone else would use it the next day. Mr. Blohan: That is correct. Commissioner Cassel: Are there other kinds of bicycle fixtures to which you could attach your bicycle if you were just there for the time being? Mr. Betts: Yes, there are some black pipe bike lockers, as well. One of the things that was mentioned in some of.the discussions was that many of the mountain bikers that are visiting the preserve and many of the volunteers have sophisticated bikes that are more on the expensive end of the scale. City ofPalo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 Commissioner Cassel: There is a lot of bicycle~use out there. On Page 13 of our report, under Utilities, #3, there is a very strange requirement under tentative conditions for Approval. "The applicant shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineering Division, evidence of appropriate protection measures ensuring that the back-feeding of electrical current into the city’s electrical distribution system will not occur." You are telling me that (1) there is not going to be any kind of electrical connections, and (2) it is our own utility system, so if we a~e producing electricity, we should want it to come back into the system. This is a requirement for residences of this size. Mr. Connolly: My only response I have to that is that is a standard condition that came from the Utilities Department. As I understand it, the electric power is going to come from the photovoltaic panels on the site. Commissioner Cassel: You may just want to eliminate this. Mr. Connolly: I agree. Commissioner Byrd: Before we begin the discussion on the merits of this item, there is one issue I want to address up front that was raised by Mr. Boroek in his letter and was included in the staff report. Because he is a frequent presence before this commission and an occasionally helpful one, I think it deserves attention. He raises the possibility of bias, at least on my part, because ten years ago, I was actively involved with Bay Area Action. I think that is a pretty wild and careless charge, and I just want to reiterate something that the public speaker said. The primary beneficiary here~ if this project is approved, is the city and its residents and the users of the preserve, not Bay Area Action. So for both reasons, I find that I have no bias and am able to act on this matter. Commissioner Bialson: In a similar vein, Mr. Borock pointed out that at one time, I represented property owner Bressler, whose property is located across the street from this project. That was about eight years ago, and that was the extent of my involvement, and I do not feel that I am at all biased in this regard. Commissioner Schink: Mr. Borock suggested that I might have a bias for some business reasons. I have never had any business investments or business contacts with anyone in the neighborhood of this project. Commissioner Burt: Some of the speakers raised concerns about fire safety. Can staff make some comments on what fire protection measures would be involved with this? Ms, Grote: The fire department and the police department did review the plans. They did not believe that this would affect theii" response times to any kind of emergency in the City of Palo Alto Page 15 4O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 area. They did require fire sprinklers and that they be installed to the satisfaction of the fire chief. So the fire department is of the opinion that those fire sprinklers would alleviate any increased hazard that may exist as a result of the buildings themselves. Commissioner Ca’ssel: I have a question related to fire. In regard to the landscaping you are talking about putting in. Obviously, we are not replanting eucalyptus trees in this area; since they are very much a fire hazard. I presume that the trees you are putting in will not be too close to the buildings and will be a more native species which do not have quite such a serious fire problem. Mr. Connolly: I believe that everything in the landscape palette right now is a native species, and most of it tries to mimic the surrounding landscape. It is not heavily planted so that it will not jump out at you, and most of it is well away from the building. The species going in contains no eucalyptus, nor any exotic species whatsoever. Mr. Betts: I would like to mention, also, that the park ranger, trucks are equipped with 200-gallon water pumpers, and the rangers in the park are responsible for the management of the Foothills Wild Land Fire Management Plan which was developed in conjunction both with the fire department and the open space department. Pretty much the perimeter of the preserve is disked once a year as a fire break from any of the properties in Palo Alto Hills or the residents of the Radcliffe area. Chairman Schmidt: If there are no further questions, we can proceed to comments and!or a recommendation on this item. MOTION: Commissioner Schink; I would like to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subject site and design variance and environmental impact ¯ assessment applications based on the findings in Attachments A and B, and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment B. I would also like to ask staff that when this is presented for council review, to include police department recommendations on public safety at the site. SECOND: By Commissioner Cassel. Commissioner Schink: Let me keep my comments simple. I believe we should thank the Gateway Task Force and the consultants involved. This is a model application and you have all obviously put in a lot of work. You have done a wonderful job. It is one of the best works that I think I have seen in my time on the Planning Commission. It is really a pleasure to review this project, and I look forward to seeing it completed. Commissioner Cassel:~ I want to thank the people who worked on this project. It is very. nice, and I really appreciate it. I did go out to the site today, and I have used this park frequently, and do enjoy it very much. I am disappointed to know that it is not my secret. I think the significant issue for the Planning Commission is the variance for the setback City of Palo Alto Page 16 41 1 to be 75 feet from the property line instead of the 200 feet, but as I look at the site,, that is 2 the location that would best meet the City of Palo Alto open space development criteria. 3 I went down through all of these, and particularly Nos. 1 and 2 are met by this 4 requirement. During my time on the Planning Commission, we have indeed made 5 several variances and exceptions to this setback. Each time we have made them, we have 6 been looking at issues such as whether the buildings are as invisible as possible. Are we 7 making them in such a way that we cannot .see them? Of course, that never happens 8 totally, but we have looked at various angles, and if you look at the buildings as they are 9 here, it is going to be difficult to see these. As you come down the street, you will not 10 see them right away. We do not want the buildings to interfere with the views of people 11 who are using the space and from a variety of angles from a variety of neighbors. As I 12 walked around the site today, it was very apparent that these are not going to be obvious. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Do we have the building placed on the site in the most environmentally sensitive option? We have looked at that a number of times. We have made exceptions where we would not be tearing down trees. We have made exceptions where we would not be cutting into the hills. We have made exceptions where it was important that new cuts are not made, and we would not be disturbing any additional land. I think those points are extremely important in this case. The parking lot is already there; it is already in place. The least amount of land would be impacted as we work on it. This is an area that does not require a lot of trees. That will have a great effect in terms of keeping down the fire danger. So I really like the way it is planned. I like the materials they are using, and the way it fits into the environment. The question is, do you need this much space? Will it bring more people there? I am not sure whether you will end up with more people. You certainly need space to work. Even if you have people there who are going to be protecting the site, yes, the rangers will be out on the site, and they still need a phone. They can have a mobile phone. People who come to the site do not always have mobile phones, and they will have access. You are talking about safety, and you certainly want a phone on the site. So I think we.provide more safety and more protection for people by having a small site there than by not having a site there. I think we have provided space for people who are working on the site and are protecting it. Commissioner Byrd: I think this is absolutely the right design and the right location. I second, in particular., what Commissioner Schink said that this is one of the best-prepared applications that we have ever seen. The concern about the project perhaps attracting more people into the open space I think is misplaced. I think we build a constituency for open space conservation and environmental protection by connecting people with the land. So-I very much hope that this project serves to increase usage of the preserve and that that usage occurs in the most sensitive and sustainable way possible. So I absolutely think that in its design and in its use and in this location, it serves open space values. Commissioner Bialson: I agree with everything that my fellow commissioners have indicated. When I first looked at this design, I was somewhat concerned about having City of Palo Alto Page 17 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 meeting rooms. I felt that that might take this out of the category of a modest building, 2 but as I thought about it more, I came around to Owen’s perspective that you have to. 3 build a constituency. If you have volunteers who go out there, to be educated and then 4 " maintain the trails and sort of steward the property themselves, that is a value that is long 5 term in payoff, but one that is to be achieved and sought after. The amount of meeting area space I feel is appropriate for that. Going to one of the questions raised by a fellow commissioner, and maybe this is a female perspective, I do feel that having three bathrooms is very necessary. Commissioner Burt: I, too support the overall intentions of the plan, and I think it has been very well done. It responds to the directions that the council gave and the clarifications that the council gave on their intentions for the scope of the project. I believe there were two objectives that were integrated with this plan. One was to minimize the construction that was necessary to achieve the goals of the services that were to be provided. To do that, in order to minimize impacts, and I have also seen in the record concerns about conserving the resources in the Arastradero Fund, consequently, I have two small concerns. One which I brought up earlier is whether we need three restrooms there. I have been a frequent user of the preserve over the years, and at many public facilities, especially in the open space areas, it is quite common to have unisex restrooms; and I think that two would be more than ample for the usage of the preserve. Second, the bike lockers for six to eight bicycles may be unnecessary. Most of the bikers who would go to the preserve go there to ride their bikes in the preserve. There is not a great deal of need for bike storage there. There has not been much bike storage in the parking lot for the last decade, and to suddenly need 6-8 enclosed bike lockers seems an unnecessary construction. I would advocate that we eliminate the need for those lockers at the facility. Chairman Schmidt: I, too, support the very favorable comments of my colleagues. I feel that the task force did an outstanding job. The consensus process, having participated in some similar things, I think was excellent, and you came up with an excellent design. As an architect, I have had the privilege of working on numerous similar facilities, such as the Gateway Visitors Center and environmental educationa! facilities. I think this one really is absolutely beautifully designed and well sited, as my fellow commissioners have commented. I commend you for that. I would also support the comments about the educational aspect of this really bringing the constituency closer to the land and understanding the land more. We tend to over love. some of our spaces, and I think the educational element is absolutely necessary to protect these spaces and others. So the whole design process and results and the goals of this project are excellent. I very happily support it. City of Palo Alto Page 18 6 7 8. 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schmidt: ’ Commissioner Schink has moved and 2 CommissionerCassel has seconded the staff recommendations. Commissioner Schink 3 has added thatwe should have comments on.safety from the policy department when this. 4 goes forward to the City Council. All those in favor, please say aye? All those opposed? 5 That motion passes unanimously on our commission of six members. This ~tem is tentatively scheduled to go to the ARB on February 17th and to the City Council on March 27. Again, thank you very much, and good luck with this project as it continues along. 3000 El Camino Rea! (99-PC-3; 99-UP-50): Review and recommend approval of a Planned Community (PC) Zoning District amendment and Conditional Use Permit applications by ChildrenFirst, Inc.on behalf of Stanford Management Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University to allow the establishment of a day care center in a portion of a single-story, commercial office building located at the southwest comer of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road (Three Palo Alto Square). Commissioner Cassel: I am not going to be able to participate in this item as I may have a conflict of interest. Chairman Schmidt: ,May we have the staff recommendations on this, . please. Mr. Connolly: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the ¯ City Council approve the Planned Community zoning district amendment, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment A. Staff also has a clarification on this item. The. ad reads that there is a use permit. The use permit is not part of the application. This is just - a straight zoning amendment, and a use permit is not required with this application. That concludes the staff report. Chairman Schmidt: Are the~e any questions for staff at this time? (None) I will then move on to the public comment portion of the public hearing. " Patricia Forbes, 75 Federal Street, Boston, MA: I am the Vice President of Real Estate for ChildrenFirst, Inc. We appreciate the opportunity for consideration of our application and also appreciate.the assistance of staff, particularly Mr. Counolly, in assisting us and guiding us through this process. With me this evening is my colleague, John Cassagrande, the legal counsel for ChildrenFirst, also based in Boston, plus.Sandy Sloan, our local counsel located in Menlo Park. " I have also provided some materials for your review at your convenience that I will distribute to staff, but I thought I would take perhaps two minutes to introduce ChildrenFirst and backup child care to you, and then entertain any questions that you might have. City of Palo Alto Page 19 http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/clerk/minutes/1997/19970428.txt ¯ Attachment G staff report (CMR:199:97), under Scope of Services, Item G, which showed the annual review process. She appreciated Mr. Borock’s raising those issues because it helped staff make sure everything was being addressed. It had taken two and one-half years, but she felt those years were well spent and that staff and Bay Area Action both learned a lot and were ready to move forward. Council Member Schneider said when the Request for Proposals (RFP) was sent out, only one group, Bay Area Action, responded to it. She asked when there was typically only one response to an RFP, whether it was accepted as long as it fit in adequately with staff’s expectations. Ms. Fleming said no it was not automatic. Proposals could be rejected whether there was i. bid or 100. All bids were scrutinized carefully as was true with Bay Area Action’s bid. The bid was not accepted just because it was the only bid received. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve an agreement with Bay Area Action for the stewardship of the Arastradero Preserve. Council Member McCown was delighted to support the project. Bay Area Action had demonstrated that it was really committed. It was important to point out to the community in the staff report (CMR:199:97) what the alternative would be if a public/private partnership was not entered into. It would result in the City’s ability to maintain the Preserve and try to make it accessible and available to the public which would be seriously compromised if that type of arrangement could not be worked out. The City would have to take a look at it from a very different vantage point in terms of changing the budget to put in resources, It was a very exciting opportunity. She felt it was a public/public partnership, not a public/private partnership in truth because the noncity side of many of those activities was Palo Alto’s own citizens forming nonprofit corporations that would work with the City, and the Bay Area Action proposal was just another example of that. She congratulated Bay Area Action and staff for putting it all together, and she looked forward to seeing what the impact or non-impact would be in Council Member Schneider also congratulated Bay Area Action. She had been on the Chamber of Commerce Board when Bay Area Action first started which was seven years prior. At that point, she could see Bay Area Action was an organization that was going to go far. She was delighted to support the project. Council Member Eakins supported the project. She referred to AttaChment A, Bay Area Action Stewardship Proposal, page 1 of i, Arastradero Preserve Project, under.estimated Volunteer Hours, and realized the effort and staffing i% would take the City to recruit, train, supervise, and reward that number of volunteers. She felt the City was getting a tremendous boost from working with Bay Area Action. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Ii.Arastradero Facility Gateway - Approval of Scope of Work for Facilitator/Architect Vice Mayor Andersen was unclear as to how Bay Area Action would be involved in the consultant selection. Open Space and Sciences Superintendent John Walton said the intent was to include the Steward, Bay Area Action, in the process as one part of a public process for the determination of what that 15 of 27 2/7/00 1:26 PM http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/clerk/minutes/1997/19970428.txt ¯ facility would be like and what it would do. Vice Mayor Andersen asked when Bay Area Action would have that input. Mr. Walton said the public process would begin in the summer and staff would be prepared to return ~o the Council at a later date. Council Member Wheeler referred to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:225:97), Exhibit A, Scope ofWork, under Meetings, and commented that it mentioned not only meetings with the general public but also meetings with the Arastradero Task "Force. She asked whether the Arastradero Task Force was an existing task force, was the same as the Arastradero Advisory Committee referred to in the Stewardship agreement, was staff, was the public or some combination thereof, or was the group she had worked with a year previous on other Arastradero issues. Mr. Walton said the group Council Member Wheeler had previously worked with was one component, but that was primarily to address issues related to capital projects for the dam spillway and creek erosion control work. The Arastradero Task Force would be a slightly different group of people which might include some of those key people but would probably expand beyond that. To try to bring the stakeholders for interests on the Preserve together, it would take both public and staff to working collaboratively to determine the purpose of the facility. Council Member Wheeler said there were areas of concern she had in terms of the Scope of Work for the consultant. First, she asked whether the consultant, the Arastradero Task Force, and other people who came to the public meetings were charged with returning to the Council with some conceptual designs for the new facility. The Council in prior discussions of the item and in the Stewardship agreement always referred to the facilityas a "modest facility," ’ yet nowhere in the Scope of Work was anything mentioned about the size, shape, and materials with which the facility was to be constructed. She would hate to see a good group of people grow out of control and return to the Council; then Council would find it necessary to be the "bad guys" and reiterate the fact that it was supposed to be a modest facility. ~ Ms. Fleming said Council Member Wheeler was right on target, and she had had at least one inquiry from Council Member Kniss regarding the same issue. She felt that new language needed to be added. If the Council were to approve the item, the Council should do so with the addition that the RFP be clear it wa.s to be a modest facility. Council Member Wheeler clarified that the Planning Commission did site and design of structures in the Open Space Zone. She believed as part of that, there were some City guidelines for use of certain materials and certain looks to facilities that would be preferred in the Open Space District. She asked whether such language and direction to the consultant could be included as part of the Scope of Work. Ms. Fleming could not give a definitive planning statement of chapter and verse, but by general policy, the City did not put certain structures into certain areas of the City, i.e. Foothills Park and the Baylands, without being sensitive to the concerns articulated in a number of places including the Comprehensive Plan. It would be appropriate that staff be sensitive to the locale.The City did not do work in an area such as Foothills Park without 16 of 27 2/7/00 1:26 PM http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/clerk/minutes/1997/19970428.txt 17 of 27 making sure that it was sensitive to the intent which would be the same with the Preserve. It would be entirely appropriate if Council wanted to have certain language included to make sure that whatever structure was eventually designed would be consistent with the area and would be brought before the Planning Commission. She believed it would be consistent with the policies of the current Council and administration. Council Member Fazzino questioned the need for a facilitator at a cost of $40,000. He felt there was a number of intelli~ent people who would have excellent ideas regarding use of the Preserve. That type of creativity needed to be accommodated, along with bringing neighbors and other affected groups into the process, and that should be it. With all due respect to those who developed the process, he felt it was a very bureaucratic approach. It was a sensitive issue but could be resolved by involving several key constituencies and a few meetings. He asked why Mr. Walton or some other staff member could not conduct the meetings and move forward rather than spending $40,000 for a facilitator. Ms. Fleming knew that Council Member Fazzino was really committed to making government work’effectively and efficiently and not have a lot of "Palo Alto process." With regard to the Preserve, she requested that he allow staff to move forward in the manner recommended for a number of reasons and to give it considerable consideration. Staff had already had a number of initial meetings; there was not unan°imity of agreement. There was a need to bring a number of segments together in a cooperative manner to agree to and to get to a place where staff could go before the Council with a proposal. There was a number of groups that had great interest and dedication to that area, but their views varied greatly. She believed what the consultant would do was consistent withthe commitment staff made to the Council which was that staff would listen to everyone’s point of view, and it would be beneficial to have a facilitator there. There were times when the more open governmentwas, the more the need was to have a facilitator assist in the process. Staff did not have that capability. Council Member Fazzino was very supportive of open government, but that did not necessarily mean spending $40,000 on a professional facilitator. Ms.Fleming said the $40,000 included both facilitation and design. Council Member Fazzino wondered if there were ~an alternative to using a professional facilitator unless it was absolutely necessary to move in that direction. He asked whether someone on staff could possibly facilitate. Ms. Fleming said yes there, were other ways to do it. She was.not prepared to make that recommendation that evening, but she would proceed with any direction she received from Council. Council Member McCown clarified that she had read the recommendation~in the reverse. What was.really needed was a designer to design the facility who could also run some community meetings. Council Member Fazzino said the recommendation stated i) leading group discussions and 2) preparing conceptual architectural drawings. There were two well-defined roles. Council Member McCown said yes~ She referred to Exhibit A of the staff report (CMR:225:97), Scope of Work, under Phase I - Identify Needs and Design Parameters, Task i: Facilitation, Task 2: Prepare 47 2/7/00 1:26 PM http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/clerk/minutes/1997/19970428.txt Conceptual Drawings and Cost Estimates for Potential Facility Types, Task 3: Meetings, Task 4: Facility Report. She understood the need to be more heavily on the design side with a role.to facilitate the input process so that City staff could give input and not have to act as a facilitator. Council Member Kniss agreed with Council Member McCown that the emphasis was on providing architectural services because that was the problem the Council ran into previously withrespect to what the facility would look like. She referred back to Coincil Member Wheeler’s earlier comment that the Council had a strong view of what the facility should be which was simple, modest, and possibly reusing some of the materials in the house but not reconstructing a 5,000-square-foot house. It was not a matter of moving the existing house to the bottom of the hill and redoing it. Therefore, hopefully, the facilitator would hear what the Council had to say. She asked whether staff was looking to the Council to give parameters on the size and impact of the modest facility. Ms. Fleming said no. Staff clearly heard what Council wanted. Council Member Kniss had previously given a synopsis of what Counci! desired which was modest and small, and that the house not be be relocated which was exactly what staff had in mind. Council Member Kniss said while the Council might not agree on square footage, she clarified that "modest" meant not making a major statement. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. She trusted ~hat staff heard what the Council desired. She felt having a consultant who could play multiple roles, if such a person existed~ was a good idea. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, was skeptical of the process after attending meetings of the Habitat Restoration and Midtown Revitalization in the past when developers proceeded to do as they pleased regardless of citizens’ input. She attended a meeting in August 1996 regarding the Preserve which was an assorted group of people of which there was no agreement to have a facility on the Preserve. Her understanding of a modest building at that time was about 2,500 square feet which she felt was quite large. She believed there should be some parameters as to what was meant by. "modest." One objection was the cost of the maintenance which was more than the original cost of the building. She wondered whether that would be the responsibility of the City or Bay Area Action. She was also skeptical about having so many meetings. She urged the Council to cut back the meetings to three and to have ideas for the design work for the facility ready prior to the start-up of the meetings. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, had attended the meeting in August 1996 at which there was a diverse group of people interested in the Preserve. Bay’Area Action presented a fine Stewardship proposal and, as he recollected, was the only group interested in a structure on the Preserve. The consensus was that a Steward could do the work without a structure, and it would be better for the Preserve. There were those people like himself and the direct neighbors of the Preserve who attended meetings regularly and were involved in the process, but that group was not in attendance, and a process in which the recommendation was influenced by the people who attended the most meetings and stayed the longest did not seem to be a good idea. He felt that was what was being proposed with the seven meetings. It came down to what was principal in the process which was the open space nature of the Preserve. The 20-yearhistory was tha Preserve had been blocked by the existence of the structures because some members of the community, including some Council 48 18 of 27 2/7/00 1:26 PM http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/clcrk/minutes/1997/19970428.txt Members, fel~ that the existence of the structures migh~ be a reason for selling off part of the Preserve, even though the structures were in the middle of the Preserve and would be demolished by any person who bought the land the structures were located on. The idea of building a~structure that would be in a location more amenable to being undedicated and would contain a modern structure that would have to remain there again would raise the issue of whether or not a piece of the Preserve should be sold. Raising the issue of replacing the existing 5,000-square-foot house with a 2,500- to 3,000-square-foot structure might seem modest compared to 5,000 square feet, but he did not consider that modest. He referred to page i, Attachment i, of the staff report (CMR:225:97), Scope of Work, Description of Project, first paragraph, "...the new facility would serve in-lieu of the existing structures." He did not believe that was the policy the Council had set and felt the scope should be clarified. The Arastradero Advisory Committee that originally met about the Preserve did not need a facilitator because the committee was interested in the Preserve as a whole rather than in a particula~ item such as a structure. He wondered whether the Advisory Committee was for a structure or a Preserve. In terms of Phase II, he believed a park improvement ordinance was needed for any kind of structure. It was possible, dependent upon the size and uses of the structure, whether an EIR would be needed. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) showed an expenditure of $50,000 rather then $40~000 and indicated that the structure would most likely have modems and telephones. The issue of any kind of structure that would be comparable to. the Foothills Park Interpretative Center or Baylands Interpretive Center would raise the issue of change of use from Open Space to Recreation. Council Member Kniss asked what "modest" looked" like to Bay Area Action. She believed there might be a real disconnect between what the Council thought and what Bay Area Action thought. Jim Steinmetz, Bay Area Action, 886 Loma Verde, said with respect to the meeting in August 1996, Bay Area Action was of the understanding that that the meeting was about the Preserve and all the different proposals being put forth. It was not only use of a facility but also Stewardship of the Preserve itself. Bay Area Action did not contact all the citizens it knew in Palo Alto who supported Bay Area Action’s efforts for a modest structure on the Preserve for use of Stewardship along with restoration of the Preserve. Bay Area Action did not marshal its forces, and there was only a few of those people at the meeting. There were others there, not all of whom rejected the idea of a structure, who were mostly concerned and somewhat skeptical about what was being put forward. Bay Area Action did not have a problem moving forward with the process and educating the public in order to determine how to best work it out. "Modest" on an open space preserve like the Arastradero Preserve was almost invisible to the naked eye. It would not at all resemble Lynn Chiapella’s 1,200- to 1,400-square-foot cottage or bun techniques that were available cur[ently, it would hardly be visible and could be landscaped with native plants such as live oak and grasses. If it were designed and built correctly, 2,000 to 3,000 square feet was modest and almost invisible to the naked eye. Bay Area Action wamted the opportunity to work with the architects to present that not only to the Council and staff but also to the general public. Council Member Kniss asked what would go on inside the facility if it were built up to 3,000 square feet. Mr. Steinmetz said much of the habitat restoration would be staged from the site which would be theprimary use, including staging 49 19 of 27 2/7/00 1:26 PM http://www.¢ity.palo-alto.¢a.us/clerk/minutcs/1997/19970428.txt habitat restoration, educating people regarding habitat restoration, and organization. There would also be some research, administration, organization of volunteers, etc. Bay Area Action envisioned having all the native plants in the Preserve or surrounding ecosystem identified and displayed in cases in order to educate people on how to maintain and preserve open space. Regarding the dismantling of the barn, groups of over 40 or 50 people approached Bay Area ActiOn who needed to be addressed at one time. Having that type of interaction along with the restoration of the Preserve and surrounding lands and the opportunity to work with that amount of people effectively was important to Bay Area Action. Ms. Fleming said that architecturally it was possible to build a structure that was 5,000 or 6,000 square feet and be invisible. When she addressed the Council and staff about "modest" being invisible, it was because a good architect working in an environment such as the Preserve could make a huge structure blend in. She and staff had continuously focused on a small facility which meant limited square footage for 1,000 plus square feet.Shehad not heard any direction from Counci! to staff to pursue a structure from which a great deal of displays, exhibits, housing, etc., could be observed. The facility was not to replace the structures that had been removed which was language she had removed from Exhibit A of the Scope of Work and which Mr. Borock had referenced earlier. It was acceptable if the Council would feel more comfortable in giving staff some limitations on square footage. She reiterated that she was not thinking in terms of 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. Mr. Walton said the public meeting held in August was not specifically designed to discuss the potential for a new facility. The meeting intent was to discuss the proposed Management Plan for the Preserve and to try to bring local community people into a process in which staff could work with the community and get feedback on the entire Management Plan. There was a discussion about the facility, but he recollected that staff tried to defer all the substantive discussions about what the facility would be, what purpose it would serve, and what design it would entail to a later process which was the process staff had brought before Council that evening. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said seven meetings seemed like a lot, but one of the reasons staff wanted to allow for that number of meetings with the community happened as a result of the August meeting. Staff received feedback that the summer was not a good time .to plan ahead and to attend meetings, and people who could have attended did not because there was only one meeting. For weeks after the August meeting, the City received written comments from people who wanted to attend but were unable to. Seven meetings might be toomuch, but staff was trying to respond to what was an enormous level of input to the Management Plan. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to authorize staff to solicit consultant proposals to provide facilitation and architectural services related to a new facility in the Arastradero Preserve with a requirement that the facility be a modest one and shall be no more than 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. Council Member Kniss said the facility was beginning to sound like a base of operations ratherthan simply a location for some information and a modest restroom of some kind which was how she had envisioned it from the beginning. Council Member Wheeler thought "modest" also went with gateway.~ As 5O 20 of 27 2/7/00 1:26 PM http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/clerk/minutes/1997/19970428.txt she heard the comments, .particularly from the public, it sounded as if there had been some discussion of leaving the site of the ¯ facility much more open than she had envisioned. She clarified it would still be a gateway facility located someplace very close to Arastradero Road. Ms.Fleming said staff was still talking about a gateway facility. Council Member Wheeler said she wantedto include language in terms of a genera! location and define it as a gateway facility. Further, language should be added to the Scope of Work that the design of the facility would be consistent with the City’s guidelines for building design in the open space zone. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the new facility be considered and defined as the gateway facility, and that the. scope of work be consistent with the City’s design guidelines for development in the Open Space zone which would include a referral to the Planning Commission. Council Member Wheeler said she understood and shared some of the frustration after attending the Midtown Planning meetings. She felt the situation was different in that. instead of having ii property owners, there was one sole property owner the City. The Council had ultimate control as to what happened at the Preserve, and what the Council was looking for as the sole property owner was to have the very best thought and attention the project could be given by a variety of people who were interested in what happened on the Preserve. She believed it would take some time to work out some of the issues. She knew in the end the City would end up with a product that would happen. It was supported by at least a majority of the Council who would take the information received from the public who used the Preserve very seriously in a variety of ways. She thought it was worth taking some time to think and talk about the issues. It was clear there were several issues to be worked through, and because the structure would be there for a number of years, it should be done well. She supported the motion. Vice Mayor Andersen’opposed the motion. He felt the amendments that had been added were contradictory to what the consultant was being asked to be involved in. If the Council were goingto have an opportunity to see what some of the potential was, more flexibility needed to be given to the process. The Council could always turn it down. The Council had given enough indication that -it would not accept a large structure, but he felt the creativity of the process was being hampered by the amendments. He hoped the amendmentswould be defeated and Council would simply allow for the staff recommendation to go forth with the understanding that Council would not agree to anything beyond the scope. It was not a recreational facility, but it was also recognized that it was an educational facility. There was going to be educational process there, and the scope of that was being limited by supporting the amendments. He hoped more consideration could be given to the motion. Council Member McCown supported the motion. She believed the Original phrase "modest gateway facility" was what the Council was trying to emphasize. It was a facility to introduce the public to what the Perserve’was, and she did not think that contemplated teaching classrooms. She was comfortable with the order of magnitude, and the only limitation Council Member Kniss’s motion gave was to suggest the concept of size. Given what input was received, if in an architect’s opinion val-id consensus and uses came out of a process which could not be done in 1,500 square feet, a good architect would return to the Council stating that as part 21 of 27 2/7/00 1:26 PM http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/clerk/minutes/1997/19970428.txt of his/her report. The Council needed to set the parameters of what its target and expectations were as well as ultimately setting a budget as to how much should be spent on such a facility. As she again read through the tasks, the seven meetings with cormaunity participation spread on either side of the work the designer was going to do to attain some concrete concepts as to how something might look. It did not specify how many meetings were at the front or back end. There would be some meetings for input, a set of four concepts laid out, follow-up meetings for ~esponse, meetings with City staff, and then a presentation to the Architectural Review Board,the Planning Commission, and the Council. She found it extremely unlikely that. all of that could be accomplished with less than seven meetings. While seven meetings sounded like a lot, that was the reality of what it would take to work with design input and then to take.through the official bodies that needed to review it. She felt seven meetings were realistic. It was appropriate to give some guidance which Counci! Member Kniss’s designation did, and the process should move forward. Council Member Eakins asked the approximate size of the Baylands NatUre Preserve and Foothills Park Interpretive Center. Mr. Walton said the Baylands Nature Preserve, including the decking, was approximately 3,000 square feet. Council Member Eakins asked what the square footage was under the roof or within the walls. Mr. Walton said it was approximately 2,000 square feet. He could not remember what the square footage was for Foothills Park, but it was much larger. Council Member Eakins asked whether there were any modest facilities which the Council could use as a reference. Mr. Walton said not in the City’s operation, but there were facilities available in other open space preserves and areas that staff would look at in order to get some ideas. Council Member Eakins supported the motion. She thought.having a size parameter as a guideline was a good idea to inspire the most ¯ creativity within a limited area. If the Council wanted something modest, it needed to be made clear. Council Member Rosenbaum said the difficulty in specifying the size was that the functions to be a~complished in the building had not been defined which was the first thing a designer would do. He would support the motion if the Council kept in mind that if the proposal cam~ back because not much could be done with 2,000 square feet, it could be reviewed again. Council Member Schneider supported the motion, although she was unhappy with 1,500 or 2,000 square feet and would prefer 500 to 1,000 square feet. She had envisioned a gateway. She understood Bay Area Action’s desire for more of a grand facility because of the amount of work it wanted to do. What Bay Area ActiOn wanted to accomplish and what the Council had in mind were two different things. She also knew that designing an efficient gateway in the 1,000- to 1,500-square-foot area might be more difficult to achieve than building something grand at 2,500 or 3,000 square feet. She also believed the meetings were absolutely called for. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion but was still not satisfied with the costs. He felt less could be spent to get the job done, both with facilitation and design. Although 22 of 27 2/7/00 1:26 PM http://www.city.paio-alto.ca.us/clerkJm mutes/1997/19~ 70428.txt philosophically he supported what Council Members Kniss and Wheeler said with respect to gateway and square footage issues, he was concerned with ignoring those guidelines if a better proposal were returned. If the Council felt strongly about the parameters, it needed to make them de rigueur.Otherwise, the parameters should not be included in the motion. Mayor Huber wanted to separate out the square footage limitation. It did not make sense to go through an entire proposal which asked for what the facility should be, how big it should be, and where it should be and then limit it. MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF THE MOTION to authorize staff to solicit consultant proposals to provide facilitation and architectural services related to a new facility in the Arastradero Preserve; that the new facility be considered and defined as the gateway facility; and that the scope of work be consistent with the City’s design guidelines for development in the Open Space zone which would include a referral to the Planning Commission. MOTION PASSED 9-0. SECOND PART OF THE MOTION that the facility shall be no more than 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Andersen, Huber "no." 12. Organizational Study of the Planning Division City Manager June Fleming said as Council was aware, the Planning Division had a number of vacancies, and staff was on track to fill those vacancies in May. She felt it was time to take an in-depth study of the Planning Division and look at a number of issues as outlined in her memorandum dated April 28, 1997. Timing was essential because if job offers were going to be made, she needed to be clear with the applicants that such a study was underway. Historically, the work fluctuation within the Planning Division depended upon the economy in which the City functioned, and the City had developed a pattern of consistently using contract planners. It was an qpportunity to conduct a revieW of the Planning Division and focus on areas such as how contract planners would be managed and administered, how best contract planners could be used, and what assignments contract planners should be given. .It was imperative to initiate a study because of the number of current vacancies within the Planning Division, but she did not want to ask staff to do a lot of work on a Request for Proposal (RFP) if the Council were not in agreement. She asked for Council’s approval of the concept only. Then staff would return with an RFP and, if needed, the budget amendments. Council Member Fazzino assumed that such a study would inform as to whether current practices of the Planning Division were appropriate or needed to be changed. He asked whether the study would address issues of morale and management or whether the issue of bad management would rest with the City Manager rather than an independent contractor. Ms..Fleming said one of the reasons she did not want the study done by the Planning Department itself was that it.needed to be done by someone with an unbiased view and with a keen ability to look at management styles, techniques, and what was needed to make a Planning Division. All interrelated reporting relationships needed to be reviewed, along with having the ability to advise staff as to 23 of 27 2/7/00 1:26 PM 54 City Council Minutes wysiwyg://15/http://www.¢ity.palo.....us/¢lcrk/minutes/1998/981026.bt,~,! 6. Conference with City Attorney-Existing Litigation Subject: Michael Campbell v. City of Palo Alto, et al. SCC# CV767084 Attachment H Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) RESOLUTIONS 7. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Application for Funding under the Home Investment Partnerships Program MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation that the Council approve the resolution which authorizes the submittal of an application for up to $835,000 in FY 1998 Federal HOME funds, for the Sheridan Apartments project, to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the City Manager, or her designee, to execute the application, the certifications and the standard grant agreement and any amendments thereto on behalf of the City. Resolution 7804 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Application for Funding under the Home Investment Partnerships Program" MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Request for Conceptual Approval of the Recommendations of the Arastradero Gateway Committee; a Commitment of Funding from the Arastra Fund; and Referral of the Site and Design Application for the Facility as Well as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Change to Zoning Regulations to Change the Setback Restriction onArastradero Road Council Member Mossar noted she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison commended staff and members of the community on the work that was done on the item. Acting Superintendent, Open Space and Sciences, Gregory Betts said approximately one year prior, the Council considered the concept of a Gateway Facility and requested that staff work with a facilitator and architects and return to the Council the conceptual design for a facility. A ten-member task force was formed, represented by park users of the Arastradero Preserve. The task force consisted of naturalists, equestrians, bike riders, and Bay Area Action stewards who use the Preserve on. an ongoing basis. Based on ongoing dialog between task force members, he felt the staff report (CMR:406:98) was a concise and modest representation of what the park users found necessary in a facility for the enjoyment, safety, and interpretation of the preserve. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the Arastra Fund Advisory Committee (AFAC) had reviewed the conceptual plans being presented at that night’s meeting. Ms. Harrison said no. The AFAC would not meet until the Council approved an appropriation or expenditure. CoUncil Member Wheeler clarified that the Council was to make a decision withou{ any input from the AFAC. Ms. Harrison said the intent of the fund was to have the Council’s direction in terms of the Gateway Facility or any other expenditure and not to have the AFAC be the first to review the conceptual plans. Council Member Kniss noted the unusual design of the conceptual plan. Mr. Betts said the architects who worked on the conceptual design Created a three-dimensional topographical model of the area around the parking lot to the area where the trail crossed Arastradero Road: The facility was designed in three small components to eliminate the feeling of one large structure. The structure was to be "tucked" along the contour of the hillside So very little grading or excavation would be necessary. Mayor Rosenbaum noted a discrepancy in the cost estimate on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:406:98) and the backup material contained in section 6 of the committee report. Mr. Betts said the cost estimate staff used as a goal through deliberation from the committee was 2 of.8 2/7/00 1:33 PM City Council Minutes wysiwyg://15/http://www.city.palo-.. Lus/clerk/mmutes/199a/98102o.ntm~ approximately $250,000. The $289,756 estimate was based on the grand total and construction and design estimates of $374,756, less figures that were included on Table 6.1 of the staff report. Mayor Rosenbaum asked why staff recommended changing the setback for all properties along Arastradero Park.from 200 feet to 75 feet. Senior Planner Brian Dolan said during the site and design review, staff discovered the project had been designed in violation of the existing. 200-foot setback set forth in both the Comprehensive Planand the special setback map which was ~ncorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. A variance was considered for the project; however, staff discovered making the findings would be very difficult. An overall change in the setback was examined and found to have merit on other properties in the corridor. Mayor Rosenbaum noted that the existing parking lot and temporary restrooms were within the200-foot setback and asked whether that was permissible. City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified the parking lot would not be covered under the setback law in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Jerry Hern, Arastradero Gateway Task Force Member, extended his thanks to the members of thepublic involved in the process. He said the Task Force kept in mind three documents: 1) The Management Plan for Arastradero, 2) the Stewardship agreement with Bay Area Action, and 3) a1997 City Council resolution which requested carrying out a design process for a facility limited to 1200-1500 square feet. The Task Force began the process by determining the needs of the user groups, including the needs of the Task Force and the general public, and determined there were four items necessary in a facility to meet those needs: 1) a multi-purpose covered meeting space; 2) storage for tools and equipment related to preservation, education, and research activities; 3) a small work space for the steward and the rangers; and 4) general amenities for the users which included restrooms, water, and informational displays. The Task Force created a design program which was reviewed by the architects who then returned with a set of potential sites. The facility was designed in three separate units to minimize the effect of one large facility. He felt that at the end of the process, the Task Force had designed a facility thataddressed the unmet needs of the preserve and users while staying within the parameters of the three documents mentioned previously. He urged the Council to approve the recommendation. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, expressed concern over the staff recommendations regarding funding for the facility and altering the setback. She was not aware that the Arastra Fund would be responsible for funding the construction of the Gateway Facility. Secondly, she felt that the recommendation to reduce the setback along the length of the road would dramatically affect the scenery along the corridor. John Baca, 4171 Verdosa Drive, said although he had no quarrel regarding the plans forArastradero, the staff report (CMR:406:98) did not give the public a way to respond to the report. He understood the issue was not a quasi-judicial matter and that it was all encompassing and not just affecting one residence. The proposed setback change would affect four parcels in Palo Alto: the Arastradero Preserve, Portola Riding Stable, the Bressler property, and the American Research Institute. Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los Palos Avenue, liked the design of the facility but found the staff report puzzling. The staff report gave more details than was needed to know the site and design of the proposed facility, but the staff report did not give enough information to make a decision for the approval of the conceptual plan: At a minimum, the staff report (CMR:406:98) contained no information regarding alternatives considered in site location, levels of service, or size. The process seemed to proceed in a backward fashion. The Council should not be making a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should review the conceptual plan and make ’ recommendations to the Council. She urged the Council to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for further review including an environmental review, broader public scrutiny, and an evaluation of the consistency of the plan. More importantly was the question of whether the Gateway Facility should be the first priority for funds spent. The Preserve was definitely in need of help; however, there were a variety of trails and habitat issues in need of funding. The utility road and the City’s use of the road continued to be problematic, and the volunteer trails used by mountain bikers and hikers created habitat and erosion problems throughout the preserve degrading the scenic value. She believed before, any money was spent on a facility for the Arastradero Preserve, funding should be made available for habitat repair, a properly designed and implemented trail system should be completed, and more rigorous management of the property should take place. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, attended an August 21, 1996, meeting held by staff to review the Draft Management Plan for the Reserve, and two issues came out of that meeting. First, there were many comments and suggestions made about the Draft Management Plan; however, when the draft was 56 3 of 8 2/7100 1:33. PM City Council Minutes wysiwyg://15/http://www.city.palo-....us/clerk/minutes/1998/981026.html presented to the Council, the comments and suggestions were not incorporated into the document. Secondly, with the exception of Bay Area Action, the first group of users thought a structure was unnecessary on the preserve and that habitat restoration could be done without one. As a result, the task force that was formed was a much narrower representation than the group that met at the August 21, 1996, meeting. Habitat restoration was most important along with trail restoration and creating a trail system that met the needs of all users. Rosemary Young, Arastradero Gateway Task Force Member, said she was a contributor to the Arastra Fund, a concerned neighbor, and one of the two citizen members on the five member Arastra Fund Committee. She agreed with the City’s land use plan for low intensity and low impact for Arastradero Preserve. The Preserve was the only Palo Alto park the City’s Comprehensive Plan described exclusively in terms of having a natural open space purpose. Public conveniences, such as bathrooms, benches, and signage, should be kept at a minimum. She urged the Council to not make the facility first priority for funding, but to ensure that preservation of the habitat was first to be considered for funding. Council Member Wheeler felt.she had inadequate information to approve the staff recommendations. Issues needed to be resolved. She was troubled by the issue of reducing the scenic setback based on the amount of information provided at that meeting. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved,seconded by Fazzino, to refer staff recommendations 1 and 2 to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board for review without any indication of Council approval. 1. Refer the site and design application to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Boards for review and approval; and 2. Refer to the Planning Commission an amendment to the zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan, which would reduce the set back restriction along Arastradero Road within Palo Alto, between Page Mill Road and Alpine Road, from 200 to 75 feet. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He felt it was appropriate that the Council request the ARB and the Planning Commission to review the staff report. He had some concerns regarding the setback, size of the property, and funds available for trail and other improvements. Vice Mayor Schneider supported the motion. She said the Council had discussed a modest facility. She felt a $290,000 facility that accounted for approximately $200 per square foot for construction was not a modest facility. She was also concerned about the setback and the change to the zoning regulations. Council Member Huber said the Council always emphasized "modest" referring to square footage. However, square footage translated into dollars. Although the Planning Commission would not return a recommendation to the Council as to how much money to fund the facility, he encouraged the Planning Commission to examine the size of the facility as it related to the total cost. He was interested in the setback issue because there was some merit in having the facility closer to the road; however, more information was needed. City Manager June Fleming said that Council Member Huber’s comments would be taken into consideration. Council Member Kniss said Council Member Ojakian and she had calculated the cost per square footage to be approximately $240. She considered the cost to be extremely high, despite the inclusion of landscaping. She supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar "not participating." 9. Palo Alto Sanitation Company Acquisition by USA Wasie, Inc. City Manager June Fleming said the Council had an important decision to make related to the refuse services as received by the City. The staff report (CMR:402:98) outlined the issues before the Council. Staff made every attempt to address all questions and concerns. Council Member Fazzino said a few years prior, a "split-roll concept" was offered concerning the change in ownership of Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO). The definition of"split-roll" was that a change in 50 percent of stock over time would constitute change in ownership of a company. He could not recall the basis for the use of the concept. He asked whether the focus was on the terms of the contract or an accepted legal definition of change of ownership. He felt a change of ownership was occurring and that the Council had the.right to re-examine the entire contract. ¯ 4 of 8 2/7/00 1:33 PM 58 Attachment I Graphic Attachment to Staff Report ~F(D) PC-.1941 OS Project: Arastradero Gateway / Facility ’ PF(D) .) OS Date: 8=3-99 File #98-D-7, 98-ARB-75 Scale: 1" =.600’ North 59 60 Attachment ~T ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment = = = Project Title:Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 -Luke Connolly, Senior Planner (650) 329-2149 Project Location:North side of Arastradero Road, approximately 2,000 feet west of’Page Mill Road and 2,500 feet south of Interstate 280 in the Arastradero Preserve Application Number(s):98-SD-07; 99,V-10; 99-EIA-17 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning: City of Palo Alto Community Services Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Publicly Owned Conservation Land .... Public Facilities (D) . Description of the Project: The subject proposal would allow the construction of a visitor information center, referred to as the Gateway Facility because of its location near the main entrance to the Arastradero Preserve. The Gateway Facility consists of three, single-story structures totaling 1,177 square feet. The structures include office and educational meeting space, storage areas, and public restrooms. Ancillary features, such as bicycle racks, drinking fountains, informational signage, a demonstration planting garden, and an at-grade footbridge are also included in the project. The Gateway Facility is situated adjacent to an existing public parking lot that is capable of accommodating users of the facility without the need of expansion. The project also includes a Variance for a reduced setback from the requirements of PAMC, Section 20.08.020 (Setback Map). The Setback Map requires that all structures be set back a minimum of 200 feet from Arastradero Road; the Variance would allow a reduced setback of 75 feet for the proposed Gateway Facility structures. Importantly, the Variance would allow for the facility to be developed with significantly less grading ~\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDkPLANkPLADIV\EIA\arastraderogateway99EIAlT.doc Page I or 15 ’ 6’~ ¸tl. and visual iml~acts to the hillside open space setting. A more detailed explanation regarding the rationale for the Variance is provided in the "Discussion of Environmental Impacts" section below. Water service for the project would be provided by an existing City water line in Arastradero Road. Electrical power would be provided by photo-voltaic equipment integrated into the proposed Gateway Facility structures. Sewage would be disposed of in composting toilets, on-site septic systems, or through connection to City sewer lines. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The 77-acreproject site is located in the northern portion of the 609-acre, City owned Arastradero Preserve open space area. The site is located amid areas predominately characterized by publicly and privately owned open space. Unincorporated land owned by Stanford University-is located immediately to the north, low-density residential development in the City of Los Altos Hills to the east, and public and private properties designated for open space uses to the west and south. Other public agencies .whose approval is required: None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Agriculture Resources X Air QualitY Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land UselPianning Mineral Resources Noise PopulationlHousing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic . UtilitieslService Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance .\\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDWLA’NkPLADIV’~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIAI7.doc Page 2 of 15 62 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the.proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment’ there will not b~"a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or. agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or ,potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: t) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures I~ased on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze Only the effects that remain to be addressed. I. find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the~ environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been-avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. X Project Eric Date Chief Planning Officia~ \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAKEDkPLANLPLADIV~EIA\a.rastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 3 of 15 63 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting Information Resources I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have asubstantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or .quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of -- substantial light or glare which would adverselyaffect day or I1. a) b) c) Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigat!on Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 2,3,4 2,3 3 " 3 No Impact X nighttime views in the area? : AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural . resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model -to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 2,3 2~3. X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, .or a Williamson Act contract?. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? II1. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality ma~~ ;,gement or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following oeterminations. Would the project: . a) Conflict with or obstruct I 3 I I I I X \\CH_ASD_,~DMIN2\SHAREDLPLANkPLADIVXEIA\arastraderogateway99EIAI7.doc Page 4 of 15 64 Issues and Supporting Information b) c) d) Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated implementation of the .applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard 3 or contribute substantially to an existing or projected alr quality violation Result in a cumulatively 3 considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attat~;ment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to 3 substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors 3 affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Have a substantial adverse 1,2,3 effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special ’ status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse 2,3 effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans; policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect 3 on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,, vernal Less Than Significant Impact - NoImpact X X e)X IV. a)X b) c) X X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHARED\PLANXPLADIVXEIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 5 of 15 65 Issues and Supporting Information d) e) f) V= ¯ b) c) d) VI. Resources Sources pool, coastal, etc.) throughdirect removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the 3 movement of.any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established. native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies 2,3,4 or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an 3 adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ° CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse 2,3 change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? " Cause a substantial adverse 2,3 change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.57 Directly or indirectly destroy a 2,3 unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains,2,3 including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known 2 earthquake fault, as delineated on the most Potentially Significant Issues . Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X X X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDkPLANkPLADIV1EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 6 of.15 66 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Potentially" Significant Unless Impact No Impact X Issues recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground 2 shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground-2 failure, including ’" liquefaction? iv) Landslides?2 b) Result in substantial soil erosion 2 or the.loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or 2 soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as 2 defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of.2 adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. a) Create a significant hazard to the 3 public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the 3 public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions Mitigation Incorporated X X x X X Would tlie project? X X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAKEDLPLANXPLADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIAI7.doc Page 7 of 15 67 Issues and Supporting Information Resources involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissionsor handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste .within one- quarter mile .of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, withih two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the--;. project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources 3 2,3 3 3 Potentially, Signifi.cant Potentially Significant ¯ 2,3 Less Than Significant No Impact X issues VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality I Istandards or waste discharge Unless Mitigation Incorporated Impact \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHARED~PLANXPLADIVXEIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 8 of 15 68 Issues and Supporting .Information Resources requirements? : b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e;g., the prOduction rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site.or area, including through the alteration .of the course of a stream or river, in a manner - ¯ which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or .off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity. of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood Sources 3 ¯3 2,3 2,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation " Incorporated Impact X X X X X X \\CH ASD ADMIN’~\SHAKEDh°LANXPLADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIAI7.doc Page 9 of 15 69 Issues and Supporting Information i) ResouFces Potentially Significant Unless Sources Potentially Significant Issues ,Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a 3 significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of theT~,ilure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami,2,3 or mudflow? LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Physically divide an established 3 community? Conflict with any applicable land 2,3,4 use plan,, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable 2,3 habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? " MINERAL RESOURCES. WOuld the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability 3 of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,, specific plan or other land use plan? NOISE. Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or 2,3 generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or 3 . X x IX. a)X b)X c)X -a)X b)X XI. X b)X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAKEDLPLAIqXi~LADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIAI7.doc Page 10 of 15 70 Issues and Supporting Information Resources generation of excessive ground borne vibration or. ground borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an . airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or ’ working in the. project areato excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. a) b) Potentially Significa-nt Sources c) 3 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant 3 No Impact Issues POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Induce substantial population.3 growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of 3 existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of 3 people, necessitating the " construction of replaceme-r~t housing elsewhere? .. Unless Mitigation Incorporated Impact X X X X X X XIIl. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the.project result in 2,3,4 X substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically \\CH ASD ADMIN2\SHAREDLPLAN~PLADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 11 of 1.5 71 Issues and Supporting Information Resources altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: -;’ Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Sources Potentia!ly Significant ’Issues Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Impact X X X Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the 3 use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities Such that substantial physical (leterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include 3 " recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic. 3 which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or 3 cumulatively, a level of service Unless Mitigation Incorporated X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHARED\PLAN~°LADIVkEIA\arastraderogateway99EIAI7.doc Page 12 of 15 72 Issues and Supporting Information Resources standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ~ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS; a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which Could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are .new or expanded entitlements needed? Sources 3 3 3 3 3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Would the project: Less Than Significant Impact NoImpact X X X X X X \\CH ASD ADMIN2\SHAILEDkPLANLPLADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 13 of 15 "/3 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Significant Significant ¯ Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact X X ’X X e) Result in a determination by the 3 wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve .the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with 3 sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state,.and 3 local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of arare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerablewhen viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which .will cause substantial adverse effects on hiJman beings, either directly or indirectly? I, Impact X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAILEDkPLANkPLP,,DIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 14 of 15 74 SOURCE REFERENCES: 2. 3. 4. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan EIR City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 Planner’ s knowledge of the project and area of proposed development City of Palo.Alto Municipal Code .. EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: VI.Geology and Soils Fault rupture, Seismic 9round shaking, Landslides The project site is located in an area with a high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potentia! for earthquake-induced landslides where a significant slope exists. Like much 0f the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area, the site is also designated as having strong ground-shaking potential during an earthquake. As previously stated, the proposed Gateway Facility structures utilize slab-on-grade foundation designs and will conform with the requirements of the most recent Uniform Building Code, including those provisions pertaining to building construction in seismically active zones. The potential for geologic and soils impacts resulting from conditions on the project site can be mitigated by utilizing standard engineering and construction techniques. Moreover, siting the Gateway Facility on the relatively flat portion of the site further minimizes the potential for geologic and soils impacts. IX.Land Use and Planning Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation The project site is included under, the provisions of PAMC, Section 20.08.020 (Setback Map), which requires a minimum 200-foot setback for all development proposed along.scenic corridors, such as Arastradero Road. As designed, all of the Gateway Facility structures willbe within the 200-foot setback, with the nearest structure situated approximately 75 feet from the Arastradero Road right-of-way. There are several ri~asons for siting the facility at this location. One, the structures will be situated on flatter terrain and at a lower elevation than if they were constructed 200 feet or more from the roadway, in accordance with Setback Map provisions. This will minimize both the visual prominence of the structures and reduce the amount of grading that would otherwise be required to develop the facility further up the hillside where the slope is steeper. As designed, the Gateway Facility structures utilize conventional slab-on- grade foundation designs that would not be feasible if the .project were constructed in accordance with Setback Map provisions. Also, if the Gateway Facility were constructed more than 150 feet from the Arastradero Road right-of-way, a new emergency access road would be required to serve the project; this access road is presently not needed, and if it were to be included the site would undergo significantly more grading than is presently proposed. Two, the proposed location is adjacent to an existing public parking lot situated on the north side of Arastradero Road. Importantly, the parking lot is capable of serving the facility without the need .of expansion. Therefore, locating the Gateway Facility adjacent to the parking area allows the project to tie-in to existing infrastructure and further minimizes the need for grading and paving in this natural, hillside area. Additionally, positioning the Gateway Facility next to the existing parking lot and nearer to the roadway allows it to act as a true "gateway" to the Arastradero Preserve open space area. Based on these considerations, a Variance allowing a reduced setback of 75 feet from Arastradero Road is included as part of the Gateway Facility proposal. \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDkPLAN~PLADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIAIT.do~ Page 15 of 15 75 76 Attachment K RECEIVE .; OCT.O,.6 t999. Deparlment of Planning and Community Environment ’ 77 .San Francisco Bay Refuge Partners A 25th Anniversary Capita! Campaign to.Support Don Edwards San.Frandsco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Introducing the LaRiviere Marsh Gateway Kiosk You haven’t missed seeing this kiosk because it hasn’t yet been built! But it can be with your support. The San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society has launched a one-year capkal campaign tO raise the $60,000 necessat3, to build this interpretive structure near the Visitor Center of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Fremont. ¯ The new interpretive, kiosk on Marshlands Road will allow a restored salt marsh and its resident wildlife to welcome visitors to the Re£uge. This first stop on a Refuge visit, with extraor- dinary views of LaRiviere Marsh and displays which describe this productive habitat, the kiosk will pique visitors’ interests and prompt them to subse- quently learn more during - and after - their visits. The site dedicated to this kiosk is perfect for enticing incoming visitors to park, stretch their legs, read about the Refuge’s wildlife, and view the ¯ shorebh’ds and waterfowl of LaRiviere Marsh.. The kiosk itself will be an attractive.¯ open air structure, built of sturdy, pressure-treated lumber to resist aging. Exhibits describing the natural history of the Refuge will be situated under the kiosk roof, each displaying a full-color i.nterpretive panel. Contact: Cecily Harris, Development Director. at (5’10) 792-0222 for more information about the kiosk. Blue prints and budgets are now available. Dona- tions are gladly accepted and can be sent through the envelope in tiffs new.sletter or mailed to: 25th Anniversary Campaign: ~osk, c]o San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society, P.O..Box 524, Newark, CA 94560. 8 .’, ~ STEWARDSHIP PROJi=~:T ’ -’ ’".A ¢ollab~r~tiud effort . . :¯’".between.Bay)t’reaAction :".and.’the .City of Pa(o Alto ’ ¯ . BAY AREA’ACTION 265 Moffett Boulevard ¯ ’ Mountain View, CA 94043 " ...650-625-1994 p.hone .. ,--650-625-1995 fax ... ¯www.Arastradero.org www,baaction.org ,Dear Mr.: Betts,’.. . . :.,. ...... ’". ’ I writ~ on.behalf of the BayArea Action C0uricil, ,A~a~midero Preasrve Stewardship Project staff., i - and the hundreds of commtanity volunteers wiio.h~iv.e dev6ted.theirtime a0, d energyt6 improving " :,.. the preserve. We speak With- a’ single voice.in strong SuppOrt of the gateway facility Scheduled;for... ." review b3i th,e Palo AltoPlanning Commission 0n, Jantiary 1.2tli,2000~ " ¯ - ¯ ¯ " ’ .. ’ ’ : AS you ~ow th~ pr0p6sed modest ~acility’ was thoroughlyeval6ated.and tho.ughtfullydesigned by . : ... ’ a ten member community task:force, with.s~grtifica~t pubic input, betweenOctober 1997 and ’ ¯ _. : .." October 1998, The process 6f reaching agreement won a recrea~on/community service award of ’- . , ¯merit =it theC.alifomiaStateParkand.Recreation Society’s .1998 armual meeting.. Now.;.14 months . - ¯ ¯,.’ later, the design has pas~ed .through a.prelimin .,a,ry review by. the Architecttiral Review Board and... . .,. " awaits, a reComm., enda~tiofff(.om the pl~imaingC0mmission’befo~e undergoing ’final rerciew by ,the .. .,.’City Council. " ’ ", i ’ ""’ * ’ ’ "’" ’ " ’~ " "~ : " " " :: ,. Througho..ut iiae long .interval b ,e.tw’een BAAs. ’ succe.sS .ft~.. disman..flLrtg ofthe pulSlicly-o~tned faci~tities 7.... in 1997 and noW, project volunteersc~aselessly inqu~e ab.out .when.the new facility Will .b~ built. , . .... ¯Qui~. fr,ankly, the public is tired of Waiting for their assets tb be restored.,It is Within this context. :.. ’ ; that I: Write tO solicit the full,support, of City. staff, .the: p1 .anning Como~ission, and the. City Council , "’ to.rapidl~ coia~lude this process anff build a state.of the art publiefacility,whieh Serves ~e publics’ ¯ " ’ interest in Stewarding the natural.resot~ces of.Arastradero Ptese~rv. e.:I-m’a certairi that.faille by the " City, to follow throu/~h oBthiS project.will severely erode ptib,lic.suppoff for.6~r work at the ’" . " ....Pre~er~e, ,.... ,. .... : .: ....: ,. ........ ", . - . . .... . . ........, The facility, w~ serve, the generM.public by pr0v.t .din. g bam,c am.emt~eS (w.ater, shelter, res~ooms,,. .? .iaformation,. telephone); as well assupporting City.and. st~wartlghip goalsby’.proViding. much~ . .’ ’ " ¯¯ . neededoff!cespace;storagefor;to.,ols .and Supp,lies,.and a.gathering place for..volimteers to.l~e,. , -:.. ¯ oriented to tlie..taSks, at h~d. The facility willgre.., afly!improve otir ability to:educate stttdepts-~d, the. \. -general ptiblic aboutthd.restOration md maintenance aetivities..j0intly ttndertaken by.,.the.Ci~y ~d :. ¯ ’¯ BAA,. Further, the buiidia~ itself. .willbe a.teacliing..tool for flae c6mim~tti.ty.. As a m6del ".gree~i" ..’ . ...’ building inc0rporat.in~ passive arid acli~e~solar energy .and hltemati~e-building materials the’ buildirig ’ ...... .... :: ._w.itl educate the c6mmuiaity about the’possibilitiesof sust,~inabl.e build’.mg.tecl:mologies.and clean . ,,. . energy sources; ,. . ;~ - ~, ".-’. ¯ -:. : .\’ ¯ ¯ ,. . " .-. ’"... ¯ .. :. .-. .’, ,.. , ,, :....,’,. ’,’~ ’ . .. .. " .. ’: ’. . ’ :.Bay Arga Action ~s committed to s.upport~, g the faojlity by helping ratse.the necessai~ ftmds to - ~ ~0mplete the project,..In Lhis. regard I must point~ out .that community=financial support wi!l, .be ".. extremely difficult to garner without a-substantial con~buti0n ~om the Aras~a Fund. O~ .’ : .- " ¯"constituency is v.ei-y clear.that the.Ara~tra Pund~was cre~ited in part to replace ttIe. facilities remove.d " " from the Preserve.,:I c.annot, ovef emphasize how. strbngly the communi.ty feels ab’otit obligating .. ..... some of the*se funds ti~c0nstruet, a pu~blic.f, a6ili~ty at the Preservel . ’ . .’ . .. ¯ ¯ . , S~raw bale construction isparticularly w~ll suited to Volunteer Suppot’t, and many Other asigects can; be tmd~rtaken b.y’well-supervised ~olunteers.-We encourage the City to specifically request ’ " ’ contractors tO iiicorp0rate’ voluriteer s~rvi~s’into their ¢onstm. ction bids.. Not.only will ~this redtice.,the overal!.co.st~, it provides laands on education for the community abou.-t su~ta~, able building .’ . techniquesmid frill instill a valuable ~ehse Of ownershiia in tile completed facility. " , ’ We are all extremely excited about the ,p+otential ;for ~ facility to elevate thealready outstandingcommuhity Support f6r st~wa:rdship at Arastr~dero Preserve... " "- Finally; we of(fer our s~rfices.to aid in the~’~nstmction’by..pro’viding volunteers.for suitable tasks. David SmernOff " " . Project Director .~ ’" cc:" Luke Connolly,:Planaing:Department . , ~. Palo’Alto planning Commissioners ~ 9O Attachment E PLANNING DIVISION 1 STAFF REPORT Agenda Date:January 12, 2000. To:Planning Commission From:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Department:Planning Subject:Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility (98-DL07; 99-V-10; 99-EIA- 17): Site and Design, Variance, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by the Palo Alto Community Services Department for the development of a visitor information center (Gateway Facility), including office and meeting space, storage areas, public restrooms, and associated site improvements on City-owned property~ within the Arastradero Preserve open space area. The Variance will allow a reduced setback from the provisions of Section 20.08.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subject Site and Design, Variance, and Environmental Impact Assessment applications based upon the findings in Attachments A, B, and C, and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location The project site is located on a 77-acre parcel in the northern portion of the 609-acre, Arastrader0 Preserve. The proposed Gateway Facility is situated on the north side of Arastradero Road, approximately 2,000 feet south of Interstate 280 and 2,500 feet west of Page Mill Road. The site is adjacent to the main entry of the preserve, hence the name S:PlanlPladivlPCSR[ArastraderoGateway Page Gateway Facility. Located amid a publicly owned open space preserve, there is no development immediately near the project site. The closest development is single-family residences in Los Altos Hills, over one-quarter mile to the east. Just south of the Gateway Facility site across Arastradero Road, and surrounded on all sides by the preserve, is a privately-owned, 13-acre parcel. Though privately held, the property is at present undeveloped and is designated for open space uses on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Circulation Map. Presently, the project site is undeveloped except for a gravel-surfaced public parking lot. The parking lot is approximately 100 feet west of the nearest proposed Gateway Facility building. The lot accommodates approximately 35 vehicles and would serve the facility without having to be expanded or paved. While the slope varies greatly on the project parcel, the terrain is relatively flat where development of the facility is proposed, allowing traditional slab-on-grade construction methods for the proposed structures. The site’s slope increases, however, further from Arastradero Road, north of the project site. Proposed Gateway Facility The Gateway Facility is designed as a cluster of three, single-story structures totaling 1,177 square feet. The main building will be used primarily as a visitor center and meeting space and will be connected via a breezeway to a smaller building, containing restroom facilities. The remaining free-standing structure will be used as a work area for open space stewards and volunteers; this building is designed with a small equipment storage area as welt. Buildings will be a combination of ~raditional wood-frame and innovative straw bale construction techniques. Exterior finishes will consist of wood laid in a board-and-batten manner, including wood materials salvaged from the residence and barn that previously existed on the site (see. "Background," below). Non-reflective, corrugated metal roofing, will be used on all of the structures, including the breezeway. All roofs are designed with deep eaves to shield visitors from sun and inclement weather. In addition to the three structures, the Gateway Facility project includes a variety of site improvements, including: trails and walkways leading from the existing parking lot to the buildings; an at-grade pedestrian bridge spanning a swale that separates the parking lot and the facility buildings; bicycle lockers; benches; informational signage; drinking facilities, accommodating both open space users and animals (horses; dogs). Landscaping materials will consist principally of native plant species. A small demonstration planting garden, emphasizing planting materials appropriate for hillside areas, is also proposed. BACKGROUND On April 28, 1997, the City Council discussed the possible development of a visitor information center, referred to.as the "Gateway Facility," at the Arastradero Preserve, following the demolition of a large, unoccupied residence and barn which then existed on S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastrader°Gateway Page 292 the site (the residence and barn were demolished in the Summer of 1997). At this time, the Council recommended the construction of a modest facility, with a building area between 1,200 and 1,500 square feet, the design of which would include input from the community. On July 28, 1997; the Council approved a consultant contract with Bluhon Planning Group to facilitate discussions with the community regarding the design of the Gateway Facility. The contract also provided for architectural and site design services with Arkin-Tilt Architects. The community-based design process was initiated in September 1997 with the formation of the Arastradero Gateway Task Force. The ten-member task force was comprised of individuals representing a wide range of interests related to the development and use of the proposed Gateway Facility and surrounding open space areas. From Fall 1997 through Spring 1998, the task force, City representatives, and the consultant team conducted interviews with community stakeholders and held a number of public workshops and meetings regarding the siting, design, and use of the proposed facility. On October 26, 1998, the current design of the Gateway Facility went before the City Council for conceptual approval. The Council, without giving any indication of approval, adopted a motion that the Gateway Facility project be referred to the ARB and Planning Commission prior to their reconsideration. On August 19, 1999, the ARB preliminarily reviewed the Gateway Facility proposal and indicated strong, unanimous support for the project as currently designed. The only modification recommended by the ARB was that additional landscaping, primarily trees, be provided than is currently shown on the project’s landscape plan. The ARB was also concerned that the project be fully accessible to physically handicapped individuals. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan As noted above, the project site is part of the City-owned Arastradero Preserve and, accordingly, is designated "Publicly Owned Conservation Land" on the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Circulation Map. The primary purpose of this land use designation is the preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plant and animal life. However, the Comprehensive Plan specifies that compatibly designed and operated resource management, recreational, and educational uses are allowable under this land use designation. The proposed Gateway Facility is consistent with this range of allowable uses and has been designed to integrate with the surrounding open space areas. Moreover, as designed, the project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy L-69 (preservation of the scenic qualities of established roadways and trails); Policy N-1 (management of open space areas so that habitat protection, public safety, and low-impact recreational goals are met); Policies N-6 and N-7 (establishing development criteria to ensure that new development is of a high S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page aesthetic quality that minimizes adverse visual impacts to hillside open space areas); Policy C-25 (ensuring that infrastructure improvements in open space areas are necessary and compatible with the natural environment). Municipal Code The project site is located in the Public Facilities, or PF, zoning district, with a Design (D) overlay. All governmental facilities, whether owned or leased, are allowed by right under this zoning designation. As proposed, the project is consistent with all of the requirements of the PF(D) district, but is subject to the special setback requirements contained in Section 20.08.020 of the Palo Alto Municpal Code (PAMC), otherwise known as the "Setback Map." This special setback requires that new structures proposed for development along scenic corridors, such as Arastradero Road, be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the right-of-way. As designed, all of the proposed Gateway Facility structures are less than the required 200 feet from Arastradero Road, the closest being approximately 75 feet away. Therefore, in order to construct the Gateway Facility as currently designed, it will be necessary to approve a Variance for the project site that would allow a reduced setback from the special requirements of the Setback Map. The rationale for approving the project at its proposed location, within the 200-foot setback, is discussed below. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The environmental issues intrinsic to open spaCe/hillside development have been addressed through an inclusive design process and sensitive site planning. The remaining significant issue associated with the proposed Gateway Facility is whether the project should comply with the requirements of PAMC, Section 20.08.020, discussed above. As previously stated, the Setback Map provisions, do not allow any structures within 200 feet of scenic corridor rights-of-way; this includes all of the Arastradero Road corridor located within the City of Palo Alto. The purpose of this extensive setback is to maintain the visual quality of the corridor and to prevent the obstruction of scenic views. While the proposed Gateway Facility is situated entirely within this 200-foot setback area, there are substantive reasons why the proposed location is preferable to one that would comply with the provisions of the Setback Map. The reasons are as follows: Relatively Flat Topography. The proposed location is one of the most level areas of the 77-acre subject parcel. Both the elevation and the slope of the parcel increase as one moves further from Arastradero Road, north of the project site. Therefore, if the Gateway Facility were relocated in compliance with the 200-foot setback, the buildings would be in a more visually prominent location higher up the hillside, and their construction would involve more extensive grading. Comprehensive Plan Consistency. The 200-foot setback requirement is intended to work in conjunction with the previously discussed Comprehensive Plan policies relating to the preservation and enhancement of open space areas. However, under the particular circumstances of the Gateway Facility, adherence to the Setback Map provisions would S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 4 94 make the project less consistent with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies, particularly the "City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria" contained in Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (Attachment E). For instance, "Open Space Development, Criteria 1" states that new development in open space areas should not be visually intrusive from roadways and should be hidden from view as much as possible. "Criteria 4" states that such development should be clustered to reduce impacts on the natural environment, and "Criteria 7" states that all new development in open space areas should minimize the need for grading to the greatest extent feasible. Conversely, if the proposal were altered to conform to the 200-foot setback, it would be more visible on the hillside, less clustered and further from existing facilities (i.e., the parking lot), and would involve significantly more hillside grading. Clustering of Uses. As noted above, the Comprehensive Plan calls for new development in open space areas to be clustered, or closely grouped, as much as possible. This makes particular sense with the current proposal given that a public parking lot already exists adjacent to the proposed Gateway Facility location and would be able to serve the facility with minimal improvements. Also, if the proposed buildings were to be relocated outside the 200-foot setback, a new emergency access road would need to be constructed; the access road would be required if any development is proposed greater than 150 feet from Arastradero Road, in accordance with building and fire codes. Construction of an access road would further conflict with Comprehensive Plan open space development policies, which call for access roads only when absolutely necessary, and further undermine the project’s sensitive site design that strives to minimize human intrusion into the open space preserve. Overall, the proposed Gateway Facility complies with the relevant City policies for development of this type, as indicated by the findings attached below. TIMELINE Following this Planning Commission hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled for review by the ARB on February 17, 2000. The project will then be reviewed for final approval by the City Council. The Council hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 20, 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed Gateway Facility project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study prepared for the project determined that it would not have a significant, impact on the environment at its proposed location and that a Negative Declaration should be prepared. A draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project (Attachment I) and circulated for public review. The formal 20-day public review period closed October 11, S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastrader°Gateway Page 5 95 1999. One comment letter, opposing the project and its environmental review process, was received during the public review period. It is appended to this. report as Attachment J. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation and via mailed notifications to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site. Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: ATTACHMENTS Site and Design Findings Variance Findings ARB Standards for Review/Findings for Approval Tentative Conditions of Approval City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria City Council Minutes, April 28, 1997 City Council Minutes, October 26, 1998 Location Map Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)/Negative Declaration Letter from Herb Borock, dated October 6, 1999 Letter from David Smernoff, dated January 4, 2000 Project Plans and Consensus Design Recommendations for the Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility document (Planning Commission only) Prepared By:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Manager Review: Lisa Grote, Acting Chief Planning Official Ray Hashimoto, Acting Zoning Administrator DIVISION/DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: ~~._~~ LISA GROTE Acting Chief Planning Official S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 6 9~ bo d. ATTACHMENT A SITE AND DESIGN FINDINGS Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility 98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites in that the Gateway Facility is designed as an ancillary feature of an open space area and will not intensify the degree or types of land uses presently occurring on the project site or in the vicinity. .The project will ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent area inthat proposed Gateway Facility will provide a needed amenity to an existing open space area accessible to the general public. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed with this project in that sensitive site planning minimizing potential impacts to the site’s hillside, open space setting was the principal objective of the project during the design process of the Gateway Facility. This is manifested in the project’s re-use of building materials, non-reflective roofing, and sustainable energy facilities. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed Gateway Facility augments the Arastradero Preserve open space area which is designated "Publicly Owned Conservation Land" on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Circulation Map. Moreover, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s "Open Space Development Criteria" and other relevant Comprehensive Plan policies referenced in the report. S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 7 9’~ 98 ATTACHMENT B VARIANCE FINDINGS Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility 98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the project site is located in the Public Facilities Zoning District with a Design overlay and is designated as "Publicly Owned Conservation Land" on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use & CirculationMap. The property is also subject to the 200-foot setback requirement of Section 20.08.020 (Setback Map) of the PAMC. This combination of Zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations is unique to the project site, which is part of the Arastradero Preserve open space area, and Foothills Park. The property also has several unique physical characteristics. One, the property’s topography is unlike others in the vicinity in that it is relatively fiat near Arastradero Road, but becomes steeper and increases in elevation further from the roadway. Two, unlike surrounding properties, the subject property lacks mature landscaping. The dearth of trees on-site makes it infeasible to adequately screen the proposed Gateway Facility whether it was located 200 feet or more from Arastradero Road or 75 feet, as proposed. Moreover, if the Gateway Facility was located 200 feet or more fi’om the roadway, a new emergency access road would need to be constructed, increasing the project’s visibility. Given the absence of existing, mature landscaping and thie higher elevation of the hillside 200 feet or more from the roadway, the facility would actually be more prominent and involve more intensive grading and construction techniques if re-located in compliance with Setback Map provisions. Finally, unlike other properties in the vicinity, the subject property already contains a public parking lot. The parking lot is situated near the main entry to the Arastradero Preserve (it is also within the 200-foot setback) and is intended to accommodate visitors while minimizing the intrusion of automobiles into the open space area, which is primarily used by pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. As designed, the new Gateway Facility buildings are positioned adjacent to the parking lot, allowing the project to tie-in to existing infrastructure and further minimize potential impacts to the hillside environment. Also, by locating the Gateway Facility adjacent to the parking lot, and closer to the roadway, its role as a "gateway" to the open space area is emphasized. Given the subject property’s unique land use designations and geographical traits, the proposed location of the Gateway Facility is the portion of the property that is most capable of balancing development needs with the preservation of the surrounding natural environment. And, more importantly, the proposed location allows the project to comply with the "City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria" found on page N-5 of the S:PlanlPladivlPCSR[arastraderoGateway P~e8 Comprehensive Plan. In short, if the Gateway Facility were developed 200 feet or mo~e from Arastradero Road and in compliance with PAMC, Section 20.08.020 provisions, the project would violate the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that unlike most properties zoned for public facilities use, the subject property is part of the Arastradero Preserve and use of the property is limited to recreational/open space purposes. The preserve needs a facility such as the one proposed to act as a gateway and to provide essential services (i.e., bathrooms, drinking fountains, informational signage, rest area) for users of the open space area. According to the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the primary purpose of open space areas is to balance the needs of recreational users with the preservation of the natural environment. As designed, the project achieves this purpose, but would not otherwise do so if redesigned to comply with the 200-foot setback requirement of PAMC, Section 20.08.020. Also, as noted above, the Gateway Facility cannot be located 200 feet or more from Arastradero Road without violating the City’s officially adopted "Open Space Criteria." These criteria are applied to all proposed projects through the City’s development review process. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the project is of a modest scale and aesthetically unassuming design, indicative of its ancillary role in relation to the site’s primary use as public open space.. The total building area of the project is only 1,177 square feet, with masses broken up into three individual structures connected via breezeways. The siting of the buildings will minimize their visibility from residential development--the nearest residence is approximately one-quarter mile away in Los Altos Hills--and users of the surrounding open space areas. Architecturally, the colors and materials chosen for the Gateway Facility buildings will soften their appearance against the natural hillside backdrop. Moreover, as noted above, the Gateway Facility will tie-in to an existing parking lot, clustering development and avoiding further intrusion into the more sensitive hillsides located 200 feet or more from the Arastradero Road corridor. S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway P~e9 ATTACHMENT C ARB STANDARDS FOR REVIEW/ FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 The design and architecture of the proposed Gateway Facility and associated site improvements furthers the goals and purposes of the Architectural Review Ordinance since the improvements comply with the "Standards for Review" as specified in Section 16.48.120 of the Municipal Code. The design of the proposal is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages high- quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The design of the proposedGateway Facility was arrived at through extensive community involvement and sensitivity to the surrounding open space environment. (ARB Standard #al) The design of the project is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the proposed facility was planned with the primary goal of minimizing the project’s impacts through development of buildings of limited scale. (ARB Standard #a2) The design is appropriate to the function of the project since the proposed Gateway Facility structures will .serve a variety of uses equally well without adversely impacting the surrounding open space area. (ARB Standard #a3) The planning and siting of the various functions on the Site creates an internal sense of order and provides a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community in that the facility meets the need of a variety of users without creating points of conflict between them. (ARB Standard #a7) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the site in that the proposed facility is situated amid a large, publicly- owned open space area. (ARB Standard #a8) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and are compatible with the project’s design in that secondary elements such as storage areas and bicycle lockers are appropriately incorporated into the design of the overall project. (ARB Standard #a9) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the facility is designed to accommodate all modes of open space users and is situated adjacent to an existing vehicle parking area. (ARB Standard #alO) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project in that the facility was. designed to have the minimal possible impact on the natural environment. (ARB Standard #a11) The landscape design concept for the site creates .a desirable and functional environment and depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site in that both the landscape and building materials strive to create a natural looking environment appropriate to their open space area setting. (ARB Standard #a13) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which wouM tend to be drought-resistant in that nearly all proposed planting material is native to the area and adapted to the climate and conditions of the site. (ARB Standard #a14) The design, is energy efficient and incorporates a building orientation and design elements that optimize passive heating and cooling opportunities while maintaining usable outdoor spaces. (ARB Standard #a15) ARB Standards #a4, #a5, #a6, and #a12 are not applicable to the subject proposal. S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 11 ’102 ATTACHMENT D TENTATIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility 98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 Planning: The project will be constructed and maintained in compliance with all plans approved by the City Council and kept on file at the office of the Planning Division. Any subsequent alterations to the project are subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. " Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file a more detailed landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist, showing plant materials compatible with open space areas °Prior to the issuance of any building permits, planting details shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist, showing planting wells a minimum of four times the width of the rootballs of all planting materials. All trees shall be double-staked and provided with an automatic irrigation system consisting of two bubblers per tree. Any modification to this is subject to approval by the Planning Arborist. Public Works: ° Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the contractor shall contact the Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and obtain their approval prior to any work performed in the Arastradero Road public right-of-way. During construction, storage of any construction-related materials or equipment in the public right-of-way is prohibited without prior approval by the Public Works Engineering Division. The applicant shall require all contractors to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMPs with respect to the applicant’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMPs with respect to the applicant’s construction activities on public S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 12 103 property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris, including, but not limited to soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, and chemicals or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. All construction within the public right-of-way, easements, or other property under City of Palo Alt0 jurisdiction shall conform to the Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Fire: 1. Fire sprinklers are required and shall be installed to. the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. 2. The project shall comply with the Uniform Fire Code regarding site access. Building: 1.The design of the project shall comply with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Utilities: If included in the project and utilized, the project’s solar energy system shall be in conformance with the City’s Performance and Aesthetic Standards. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide a single-line diagram for review to the Utilites Engineering Electrical Division. The applicant shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineering Division, evidence of appropriate protection measures ensuring that the back-feeding of electrical current into the City’s electrical distribution system will not occur. S:PlanlPladivlPCSRlarastraderoGateway Page 13 Paoa~ra N-6~ " As part of the design review process for proposed development in the Open Space zone district that exceeds 6,500 square feet, require that "story poles" be erected with outlining tape depicting the building’s location, bulk and height to aid in assessing the potential visual impacts of the proposed project. POLICY N-7: All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should be consistent with the following criteria: N-5 Attachment E 105 Embracing lhe New Century 106 ~UG-14-98 FRI 15:30 DEPT, OF ¢OIII~UNITY SRV(~S. F~ NO,. 415-473-1965 P,.01 ’ 11. Arastradero .Pacility Gateway - Approval of Scope of Work for Facilitator/Architect Attachment F Vice Mayor A~dersen was unclear as to how ~ayArea Action would be involve8 in the consultant selection. O~en space and Sclenuos Superintendent John Walton said the intent was to include the Steward, 9ayAreaAc~ion,.in the process as onepart of a’public process for the determination of what that facil~ty WOUld be llke a~d what it would do. Vice Mayor ~ndersen asked whe~ EayArea Action would have that input. Mr. Walton said the ~u~lic p~ocbss wo~Idbegln inthe summer and still.would be prepared to return to the Council at a later date. Council Member Wheeler referred to page 2 of the staff repor~ ~"(C~5:~7)., E~hlhlt A, Scope of work, under Meetings, ~d commen~ed’tha~ it mentioned not only mee~ings’.with the general p~blic but also meetings with ~he /tras~radero Task Porte. She’ asked whether the ~trastradero Ta~k Force was a~ existingtask for~e, was the same as ~heAra~tradero Advisory Committee referred to in the Stewardship asreement, was stall, was ~hep~bl!~ or some co~/~ation thereof, or wa~ ~he ~roup shs hadw~rked wlt~h a year previous on o~herArastradero issues. ’ Mr. Walton said the 9roup Council Member wheeler had previously ~rked wi~h was one component,’~t that was primarily to address issues related UO ca~ital.projeets for the dam spillway and ~reek erosion control ~rk. The ~rastradero Task Force w~uldk~ a s~i~htly different group of people which m/ght include some of those key p~ople but would ~robmbly exp~tnd .beyond that.. To try ~obring the. stakeholders for mnterests on the Presez~e together, it ~Id take both public and staf~ ~o workin~ collaboratlvely todeter~ne the pu~q~ose of~he facility. Co~ncil Member Wheeler sald there were areas of oncer~.she had in tel~s of the Scope oZ Work for ~he consultant. First, ~he asked whethe~ the consul~an~, the Arastradero Ta~k ~orce, and otherpeople.who came to the public meetings w~re charged with returning ~o ~he Co~cil with some conceptual designs for .the new facility, The Council in prior dls~usslons of ~he item and in Uhe S~ewardship agreemen~ always referred to the facility as a 5modest facility," yet nowhere in the Scope of Work ~-ab any~hlng mentioned abou~ size, sha~, aria mate~lal~ with which ~ho facility was to be constructed. She would hate to see a gOo~ g~oup-of people grow out of control and retur~ ~o ~he Co~cil; then Council would find necessary to be ~he "bad ~ys- and reiterate ~he ~act ~ha~ i~ was supposed to be a modest.facility. Ms. Flemi~ said Council Member Wheeler was right on target, she had had at leas~ one inquiry from Council Me~ber Kniss rogardin~ the same issue. She Zel~ ~hat new language needed to be added. Zf ~he co~m~il were "to approve t~e item, the Council should do.so wlththe addition that ~he RFP be clear At wa~. to be a modes~ facility. Council Member Wheeler clarified that the planning’ C0~ission did site and ~eslgn of ~tructures in ~he Ope~ 8pace Zone, She believeda~ pal~ of that, there were some Ci~y ~=~delines for’use of cernein ¯ a~erials and cer~aln looks to facilit~s that would b~ preferred in ~he o~en Space District. She asked whether such language and direction to t~e on~ul~ant could be "included ms p~rt o~ ~he Scope of Work. ’ MS. Fleming could not ~ive a de~Inlti~e planning statement of .chapter and verse, but by general pollcy, the City did not pu~certa!n ~ructur~s into certain areas of ~he Ci~y, i.e. Foothills 15 of 26 107 10/’30197 09:44:52 . 0~ GUMPIUNI’I’Y ~KV~ F~ NO, 41b.473-1965 P, 82 htlp://.www,city.palo-alto.ce ,,s/~ ,vernmcnt/minutes/1997/28APg97.TXT Park and the Baylands, without being sensitive to the concerns articulated in a number of places including the comprehensive P1~n. .It wo~id be appropriate that staff be ~nsitlve to the locale. "The City did non do work in an area such as FOO~hills .Park withoutmaklng sure that it was sensitiv~ to the intent which w~uld be the same with ~he Preserve. I~ would be ent~.rely appropriate if . counc~l wanted Uo have certain language included to make suave that- whate~er structure was e~entuallydesi~edwou-ld be consistent with the area and would be brou~h~ before ~h~ Planning Commission. She believed it would be consistent w~th the policies of the current C6uncil and administration. Council Me~%b~r Faz~ino questioned the need for a facilitator at a cost of $40,000. He felt ~here was a number of in~elligent people who would have excellen~ ideas ~e~rdin~ use of the Preserve. Thattype of creativity needed to be accommodated, along with bringing~elghbors a~d o~her affected ~roupe into the process, and that should be it. With all due respect to those who developed the process, he fel~ it was a very bureaucratic approach. "It was asensitive issue but could be resolved by involvin~several key " constituencies and a few meetings. He asked why Mr. Walton or some other staff member could ~ot conduct the meetings and move forwar~ rather tha~ spending $40,000 for a facilitator. MS. Fleming knew that Cpuncil Member ~azzlno was really committed to makin~ government work effectively and efficiently and .not have a lot of "Polo Al~o process." With regard.to the Preserve, sherequested that he allow staff to move forward in the ~anner recommended for a number of reasons and to give it considerable consideration. Staff bad already had a number o~initlal meetings; there was not unanimity of agreement. There was a need to bring a number of se~nents together in a cooperative manner to agree to to ~et to a place where staff could go be~o~¢ the Co%%~cil with a proposal. There was a number of @roups that had great interest and dedication to that area, bu~ ~h~ir views varied.~rea~ly, sh~ believed what the onsultan~ would do was consistent with~he’ commitment staff made ~o the Council which was~hat staff would listen to evez~one~s point o~ view, and it would be beneficial to have a facilitator there. There were times when. the more open gove~nmsnt was, ~he more the need was to have a facilitator a~ist in the process. St~ff did not have that.capability. council Member Pazzino was very supportive of open ~overnmenn, but that did not necessarily mean spending $40,~00 on a professlon&l ~acilltator. MS. Plemi~ said the $40,000 included both facilitation and desi~%. Council Member Fazzlno ’wondered if there were an alternative to using a professional facilitator unless it was absolutely necsssary to move.in tha~ direction. He asked whethez someone on staff could posDibly facilitate. MS. Fleming said-yes there were other ways to do it. She was not prepared to make that recommendation that eve-~in~, b~ she WO~id proceed wir_h any direction she received fr@m ouncil~ Council Member MCcown clarified that she. had read the recommendation in the reverse. Wha~ was really needed was a designer to design the fa¢ili~ywho could also ru~ some communitymeetlngs. Council Member Fazzino said ~he recommendatibn staeed i) leading ~rou~ discussions a/Id 2) preparing conceptual architecturaldrawings. The~a were tWO well-defi~ed roles, Council Member McCown said yes.. She referred to Exhibit A.of ~he staff report (CMR:225:97), Scop~ O£ Work, under Phase ~ - Identi~y Needs and Design Parameters, Taskl~ Facilitation, Task 2z Prepare 16 of 26 10/~0/97 09:44:52 ~UG-14-98 FRI 15:31 DEPT, OF ¢OIIIIUNITY SRV¢S F~ NO. 415"473-1965 P, 03 Conceptual Drawings and cosE Estimates for Potential Facility Types, Task 3= Meetings, Task 4: Facility Report. She understoodthe need to be more heavily on the design sid8 with a role to facilitate the input processso that City staff could give input. and not b~ve ~o act as a facilitator. Co~Icil-Member Knits agreed with Council Member McCown that the emphasis was on providing architectural services because that was the proble~ ~he Council ran into previously~rlth respect to whatthe facility would look like. She re~erred back to Council Member Wheel~r’s earlier comment ~t the Co,moil had’a e~ron~view of’what the.facillty shoul~ be which was simple, ~odest, a~d possibly reusing someof the materials in the house ~ut not reconst~ctin~ a 5,000-square-foot house. It was not a matter of moving theexis~in~ house to the bottom of the hill and redoing it. Therefore, hopefully, the facilitator would hear wha~ the Council" had to say. she asked whether staff was looking to the Council to ~ive parameters on the size and impac~ of the ~odest facility. M~. Fleming said no. Staff ~early heard what Council wanted.Council Member Kniss had previously given a synopsis of wha~ counc~l desired which was modest and small, and. that ~he house not be be relocated which was exactly what s~aff had in ~ind. Council Men~ber Yollss said while the Council might not a~ree on square ~ootage, she clarified~hat "modest" mea~It not makin~ a major ~tatement. Ms. Fleming said that was oo~Tec~. She trusted that staff heard what the Council desired. She felthavin~ a consul~ant who could¯ play m~it~ple rol©s, if such a person existed, was a good idea. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, was skeptical of the. process after attending meetings of the ~abitat Restoration and Midtown Revitalization in the past when developers proceeded to do as they . pleased regardless of citizen~’ input. She attended a meeting inAugus~ 1996 re~rding the Preserve which was an assor~ed ~roup people of which there was no agreement’ to have a facility onthe Preserve. Her undezstanding of a modest buildin~ at that t~me was about 2,50~ sq~lare feet which she felt was qui~e large. She believed there should be some parameters as ~0 wha~ was mean~ by "~odest." One objection was the cost of the maintenance w~ich more than the origin~l os~ of the building. She wondered whether~hat would be the responsibility of the City or ~ayArea Action. She Was also skeptical about havin~ So many ~ee~ings. She. urged ~he Council to ~t back the me~tln~s to three and tO have ideas for the design.work for the facility ready prior ~o the start-up of the meetln~s- He~h Borock, 2731 Byron Street, had attended the meeting in Au~st 1996 an which there was a diverse ~roup of people interested in the Preserve. Bay Area ActionpreSen~ed a fine Stewardship proposal ~ud, as he recollected, was the only group interested in a str~c~re on the Preserve. The consensus was that a Steward could d~ the work without a st~cture, 8nd it would be better for the Preserve. There were ~hose people like himself and the direct neighbors of the Preserve who a~ended meetings re~ula~ly and were involved in the process, but that ~roup was not in attendance, .and a ~rocess i~ which ~he recommendatlonwas influenced by the people who a~ended the most m~etln~s and stayed the longest did not s~em robe a Sood idea. He fel~ nhat ~ms what was being proposed w±th’ the seven meetings. It ~a~e down to what was principal in the processwhich was ~he opsn. space nature of the Preserve. T~e 20-year history was ~h Preserve had been blocke~bythe existence clothe structures because some members o~ the community, includln~ so~e Council Me~bers, felt ~hat the existence o~ the s~r~tures mi~h~ ~e a reason for sell~ng off part o£ ~he P~eserve~ even though the structures were in the middle of the Preserve a~d would be de~cllshed by any person who bough~ ~he l~nd the st%~Icture~ were 109 17 of 26 10/30/97 09:44:~2 ~1UC,-14-98 FRI 15:32 DEPT, OF COMMUNITY ~RV!;S F~ NO. 415-473-1965 P. 04 htlp:ll.www.c, ity,p~to.al...inut~1997128AP~" =’T http://www.ctty.palo-tdto,~ -s/I~’ ",v~am~mthrdnutes/lPgVl~.~APR97.TXT located on. The idea of building a structure that wo~id be in a location~ore amena~l= to being undedicated and would contain a modern str~~ure that wo~Id have to remain there again would raise- the issue of whether or not a piece of the Press.rye should be sold. Raising the issue of replacing the existing5,000-square-~oo~ house with a 2,500- to 3,000-square-foot structure ~ighn seem modes~ compared no 5,000 ~quare feet, but he did not consider that modest. He referred to page i, Attachment 1, of the s~af£ report (CMR:2~=97), Scope of Work, Description o£ Project, first.. paragraph, "...the new fac~llty would serve in-lieu of the existingstructured." "Re did non believe that was the policy ~he council had set and felt thescope should be clarified. The Aras~radero AdviSOry committee ~hat originally met about ~he Preserve did no~ need a facilitator because ~he committee was interested in ~he ’Preserve as ~ whole rather than in a particular item such as a structure. He wondered whether the Advisory C~mmit~ee was for a structure or a Preserve. In terms of Phase If, he ~elieved a park i~provement ordinance was needed for any kind of structure. ~t was possible,.dependent upon ~he ~ize and uses o~ ~he s~ruc~ure,. whether an EZR would be needed. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) showed an expenditure oZ $50,000 rather t~en ~40,000 andindicated ~hat the ~tructure would most likely have ~odems and telephones. -The. iss~ o~ any kind of structttTe ~hat would be comparable to ~he Foothills Park ~n~erpre~ative Center or Baylands Interpretive Center woul~ raise the issue of-chan~e of use from Open Space to Recreation. Council Me~ber K~iss asked what ,m~dest" looked l~ke t6 Bay Area Aution. She believed ~ere migh~ be a real d~sconnec~ between what theCouncil ~hough~ and wha~ ~ay Area Action thought- Jim Ste~.nmetz, ~ay Area Action, 886 Loma Verde, ~aid with respe0t to the meeting in August I~%6, Bay Area Action was o~ theund~rstandlng tba~ tha~ ~he "meeting was about ~he Presets and all the differen~ proposals being put forth. It was no, only Use of a facility but also Stewardship of the Preserve itself. Bay Area Action did ~ot contact all the citizens ~t knew in Palo Alto whosupported Bay A/ea ACtion’S e~forts for a modest str~uture o~ the P~eserve for use of Stewardship alon~ with restoration o~ the preserve. Bay Area Action di~ not marshal its ~orces, and ~here was only afew o~ thosepeople at ~he mes~Ing.. There were o~hers’ there, no~ all of whom rejeoted ~he idea o~ a s~zllcture, who were mostly concerned and somewha~ skepticaZ about what was b~ing put fo~ard. Bay Azea Action did not have a problem~oving forward wi~h the process and educating the public in order to de~erm~ne how to best’work ~t out. "Modest" on a~ open space preserve like the Arastrade~o Presets was almost invlsible to the naked eye. I~ would not at all resemble LyD~Chiapella=s I,~00- to 1,400-squnre-foot cottage or hU techniques that were available c~rrently, .it wo~Id hardly be visible, and could be landscaped wi~h native plante such as l~ve oak and g~&s=es. I~ it We~ designed a~d ~uilt ~orrec~ly, 2,000 to 3,000 square fee~ was modest and almost invisible to the ~aked eye. Bay Area Action wam~ed ~he opportunity to work with the architects to p~esent that not only to ~he cott~c~l a~d staf~ but also to the general p~bllc. Council Member K~iss asked wha~ wo~Id ~o on inside the facility if it were buil~ up to 3;000 e~uare fee~- Mr. Stein~e~z said much of the habitat restoration would be staged .. ~rom the ~i~e which would be the primary use, including staging habitat restoration, educatin~ people re~arding habitat restoration, a~d organization. There would also be some research, ad~inistratlon, organization of volunteers, etc. Bay Area Action envisioned having all ~he native plan~s in ~he Preserve or sdrrounding ecosystem identified and displayedi~ cases in order to educate people on how ~o maintain and p~ese~ve open space. Re~arding the dismantling o~ the barn, groups of over 40 or 50 people approached Bay’Area Action who ~¢eded to he addressed at one 110 lg of’26 10/30/97 09:44:53 UI’ UUI’II’IUIXlIIY ~KVU~ I’f’~ flU, 41b-4(~,-IYUb H, Ub ht~p:Hwww.city.palo-~Ito.~ ~/i ~vemme~mt~ut~/! 997/28APR~7.TX7 time. Ha~ing that type of interaction along with r_he restorationof the Preserve and surrounding l~nds and the opportunity to work with that amount of people effectively was important to Bay Area "Action, Ms. Pleming said that architecturally it was p0ss1ble to build a structure that was 5,000 or 6,000 square feet aRd be invisible. When she addressed ~he Council and staff 8hou~ "modest" being invisible, it was because a good architect working in an environment such as the Preserve could make a huge structure bl~nd in. She and staZ~ had continuously focused on a small facilitywhich meant limited e~ua~e footage for 1,000 plus square fee~. She had not heard any direction from Council to stale to pursue a structure from which a great deal of displays, exhlbi~s, housing, etc., could be observed. The facillty was not to r~place ~he s~ru~tures that had.been ~emoved which wao language she had removed ZEom Exhibit A of the Scope of Work and which Mr. ~orocR hod. referenced earlier. It was acceptable if the Co~ncil would feel more comfortable in g.iving staff s~mo li~tIEations on ~quare footage. Sh~ reiterated tha~ she was not thinkin~ in terms of 2,000 to ~,000 square fee~. Mr. Walton said ~he public meeting held inAugust was no~ ¯ s~e~ifi~a~ly designed to discuss ~hep~ential for a n~w f&~li~y. The m~eting intent was t~ discuss the proposed Management Plan for ~he Preserve and to tr~ to bring local communit~.o~le into a process in which sEafE c~uldw~rk with the co~mm~n~tyand get feedback on th~ entire Management Plan. There was a discussion about the facili~y~..but he recollec~ed that staff tried to defer all the st~bs~tive dlscussi~s about what the facility would be,’. what ~urpose it would serve, and what d~slgn it would entail to a later process which was the process staff had brought before. Council ~ha~ e~ening. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison 8aid seven m~etln~s seemed A~ke a ~ot, but one of the reasons staff wan~ed ~o allow for thatnumber of meeting~ with the communluy happened as.a result of AugU8~ meeting. Staff received feedback that the s~mer was not a good time ~o plan ahead and to" a~end meetings, and people who could have attended did no[ibec~u~e there w~s only one me~tlng. For wee-ks after the August meeting, ~he City ~e~ived wrlt~en ommen~s from people who wan~ed ~o mttend but w~re unable Seven meetings might be ~oo much, but staff was trying to respond to what was an enoz~ous level of input to the Management Plan. MOTION: council Member Kniss moved, seconded by. Wheeler, to authorize staff to solicit consultant proposals to provide £a~ilitatlon a~d architectural services relaged ~o a new facilityin the Aras~rodero Preserve with a ~e~uirement that the facility be a modest one and shall be no more than 1,200 to I~500 square feet. Council Member K~iss said the facility was beginning to sound llke a base of operations rather th~n simply a location for some information and a modest restroom of some kind which wa~ how she had. envisioned it from the h~ginning. . Council Membar Wheel~r thought "modest" also ~ent with gateway. As she heard the comments, particularly from the publ~c, it sounded as If.~he~e had been som~ discuss~o~ o~ leaving the site of the facillty much more open than she had envisioned. She larified it would still be a gateway facility located som~p1aue very close ~o Kr~snrader~ Road. Ms. Plemin9 said staff was still talking about a ~auaway facility. Council Member Wheeler said she wantei ~o include language in terms o£ a general location and define it as a gateway facility- Further, language should be added to ~he Scope of Work tha~ ~he design of the facility wo~l~ be consistent with the Ci~y.s 111 19 of 26 10/30/97 09:44:53 INCOR~0RATED INTO THE MOTION WITHTH~ CONSENT OF THE ~CER AND SECONDER that..the new facility be considered and defined, as the gateway facility, and that the scope o2 work be consistent with the City’s design ~uidellnes for development In the Open Space zone which would Include a .referral to the PlanninsCommlssion" Council Member Wheeler said she understood ~nd shared some of the frustration after attending the Midtow~ Pla~ning meetings. She felt the si~aticn was different in that instead of having II proper~y owners, .there was o~e sole proDerty Owner the City. TheCouncil had ultimate control as to what happened .at the Preserve, and what the Co,nell was looking for as the Sole property owner was to have the very best thought and attention the pro~ect could be given, by a varimty of people who were interested in wh&t happened on the Preserve. She Emlieved it would take some time to work out some of the issues. She knew in the andthe City would end up with a product tha~ would happen. It was supported by at least a’majority ofthe Council who w~uld take the information received from the public who used P.he Preserve very seriously in a variety of ways. She .thought it was worth taking s~ ~ime to thinka~d talk about ~he issues. It was clearthere were several issues ~obe worked through, and because the stl~ICture would be ’there for a number of years, It should be done well. She supported the ~otlon. Vice MayerAndersen opposed the motion. He felt the amendments ~hat ha~ been added were contradictory to what the consultant wasbeing asked to be involved in. If ~he Council were going to have an opportunity to see what some of the potential was, more flexibility needed to be given to the p~ocess, The Council ould always turn it down. The Councll had gzven enough indication that it wo~Id not accept a large structure, but he felt the creativity of the process was being hampered by the amendments. He hoped the amendments w~ul~ be defeated and Council would si~ly allow for the staff, recommendation to So forth with the understandln~ thatCouncil would not agree to anything beyond the scope. It was not " a recreational fac~llty, but ~t was also recognized thatit was ~n educational facility. There was going to. be educational’ process there, and ~he scope of ~hatwas beln~ limited by supporting the amendments. He hoped more cO~slderation could be given to the motion. 20 of 26 CounCil Member McCOwn supported the m’oti0n. She believed the ?ri@ina~ phrags "modest gateway facility, was what the Coune~uzy~ng ~o emphasize. It was a faci~it~ to i~^~,.-~ ~= .... wnau una Perserve was, anu she ~d not th~nk that contemplated teaching classrooms. She was comfortable with the order of ma~niuude, and the only limitation Council Member Kniss’s motion gave was to suggest ~he concept of. size. Given what input was r~oalv~d, if in an arch£tect’s opl~ion valid consensus a~d camo out of a process which could not b~ done in 1,500 square, feet, a good architect would return to the Coun0~l stating that as part of his/her report. The Council needed o set the parameters of wha~ its target a~d’expeceatlons were as well as ultimately setting a budget as to how mu~h :should be spent on such ¯ facility. As she again zead t~ough thetask~, ~he sevenmeerlngs with community participation spread on ei~herslde of the work the designer was going ¢o d~ to a~tiln some concrete concepts as to how something might look. It did not spoolfy how many meetln~s were at the frontor back end. The~e would be some mee¢ings for Input, a set of four concepts laid out, follow-up meetings £~r response, meetings with C~ty staff, and then a presentation ~o the Architectural Review Board, the Planning COmmission, and.the CoUncil. She found extremely unlikely that all of that oUld be accomplished with lessthan seven meanings. While seven meetings sounded like a 10t, that was the reality of what it would take to work wlthdesi~ input and then ¢o.take through the o£ficial b041es that needed to roview it. She ~elt seven meetings were realistic. It vras appropriate to give 112 10/30/97 09:44"~4 AUG-14-98 FRI 15:35 DEPT, OF COMMUNITY SRVCS F~ NO, 415-473-1965 P, OT some guidance which Council Member Kniss’s designation did, "and the process should move forward. councll Member Eakins asked the approximate size bf the ~aylands Nature preserve and Poothills park Interpretive Center. Mr. Walton said the Baylands Nature Preserve, i~cludlng deuklns, was apprgximatelY 3,000 s~are ~eet. Cotmcil Member Eakin~ asked what ~he s~re footage was under the roof or within the walls. Mr. Wal~O~ said it was &pp~oximately 2,~00 square fe~t. He ould not re,ember what the square ~oo~a~e wa~ ~or poo~hills Park, but was much larger. ouncil Member Eakins asked whether the~e were any modes~ facilities, which the council could use as a reference. Mr.’Walton said not ’in the City’S operation, but ~here were facili~ie~ available in other o~en space presezve~ and area~ tha~ staff would look at in order to ge~ some ideas. Council Member Eakins supported the ~o~ionl She thought having a si~e parameter as a guideline w~S a good ~dea to inspire the mosEcreativity within = limite~ area- If the Council w~nted something ~odest, it needed to be made clear. C~uncil Member Rosenbaum said ~he difficulty in specifying D~e size was that ~h~ funutlon= to be acco~plished in ~he buildiDg had not been defined which was the first thing a designer.would do." Hewould suppor~ ~he motioD if the Council kept in mlnd that if the proposal came ba~k because not much could be done wi~h 2,000 s~uare feet, it could be reviewed again- councilMember Sch~elder supported the mo~ion, although she was unhappy with 1,500 or 2,000 square feet and wo~ld prefer ~00 ~o 1,00~ square fee~. She had envisioned a ~ateway- she understood Bay Area Action’s desire for more of a grand facility because of~he amount of work it wanted to do. Wha~ ~ay Area Action w~n~ed to au~ompli~h and what the Council had in ~ind were ~wo different ~hings. She also knew that designing an efficient gateway in 1,000- to 1,500-square-~oot ~reami’ght be more di~Zicul~than buildln~ someth~n~ 9~an~ aU 2,500 or 3,000 square ree~.also believed the meetings were absolutely called for. ’co~ncil Member Fa~=~n0 supported ~he mo~ion but was still not~atis~ied with’the costs. He ~el~ less ~ould be ~penk to ~e~ ~he job done, b~th with facilitation and design. Al~hou~h . philosophically he supported wha~ council Members Kniss and wheeler said with respect to gateway and square footage issue~, he was concerned with ignoring tho6e g~ideline~ if a hette~ proposal were ~eturncd. ~f the council felt strongly about the parameters, it needed ~o make them de rlgue~r. 0therwi~e, ~he parameters should non be ~ncl~ded in the mo~ion. Mayor Huber w~nued ~o separate out the square ~ootage limitation. ~n did not ~ake sense ~o go through an entire proposal which asked for wha~ the facility Should be, ho~ big it should be, and where in should be a~d then limit it. MOTZ0N DXV~DED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST pART OF THE MOTION to authorize staff to soliclt consultant proposals to proviae facilitation and a~hitectural services ;elated to a new ~acility ~n the Arastradero Preserve! that the new facility be considered ~nd defined as ~he gateway ~acility;. ~nd that ~he scope Of work be ons~eten~ with the City,s,designg~idellnes for development in the Open Space zone which would 113 2t 0/30/97 ~UG-14-88 FR! 15:35 DEPT, OF COMMUNITY SRVOS http~/www.~JO~-~.,.~u~ 9~7~8AP .TXT httpdlwww,~.palo ,alto.c~ ~, include a r~f~rrsl ~o ~ ~1~in~ Co~smion. ~TION PASSED 9-0. FAX NO. 415-473-1965 P, 08 .... ov~am~mhm~/1997~ 8APR.97.TXT SECOND PART OF ~ MOTXON that ~he. faoillt¥ shall be no mo~e th~n 1,200 to 1,500 sq~.are feet.. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Andersen, Huber "no." 12, OrgaDizational Study of the pla~ming Division City Manager J%tneFleming said as Council was PlanningD~vzslon had a nu~r of vacancies, ~u~d staff wal track to fillthose vaoancles in May. She felt it was time an in=depththe.Planning Division and look at of issues asher memorandum dat¢~ April 28 Timin~ wascause if job offers were go he made, she neededto be clear th the applicants that a e~udy was underway.Historicall work fluctuation the Plannin~ Divisiondepended.upon ~conomy in City f~ctloned, and theC~ty had pattern of using contractplanners. ~t was Planning Division would be managed and be used, a~d what It was inoperative to ~rent vacancies wil want to ask staff (RFP) if the Council’s wi~h an RFP tO conduct a review of-theareas such as how contract planners :e~e~, how best contra~ planners could contract planners Should be given. study he~ause of the number O~ Division. but she did not a lot on a Request for Proposalwere notof the concept . ThenShe-asked~staff would returnneeded, the a~e~dments. ent assumed that ~tudy would inform as whether practices of the wereor needed be changed. He asked ~udywouldissues¯ and management or whether ssue of badrest with the City Manager than~or. MS-.eming said ~he reasons she did not wan study doneby the ~lanning itself was.that it nee to be done bysomeone wi~h an u~la and with a k~n to look.atmanagement styles,s, and what was to,ks aPlannins Division. All reportl relationships neededto be reviewed, alon~ with the ~o advise staff as ~owhat the style should be ~he were properlydelineated, whether the sho~id.b~ placedsomewhere else and if n~, how be. mamaged, oxganized,and supervised. Council Member Fazzino asked perfoz~nance of the current Ms. Fleming said ~t was not individual the study would look at neededability to find out o~ not thestaff was ~apable of that. She would be ¯ necessary cha~es. review, but and give staff ~he Planning Division to make any vice Mayor would put City Auditor William audit the contract planners.where that city Auditor ~iam Vinson said the audit of contractoriginallyfo; ~he 1996-97 fiscal year ~u~ hadstart in July or August of. the next had not ha~ a chance go review it with the City his would be that it would probably put off the Counc~l Member Wheeler concurred with the decision that the 114 22 o£26 10/30/97 09:44:54 http://www.city.paIo-alto.ca,.us/pa.., vemmentlminutes/1997 /19970428.txt staff report (CMR:199:97), under Scope Services, Item G, which annual review process. Sh ppreciated Mr. Borock’s raising ;sues because it hel staff make sure everything was being It had taken and one-half years, but she felt those years ;ell spent ~ that staff and Bay Area Action. both learned a lot move forward. Council Member Schneider was sent out, only one gro She asked when there was whether it was accepted staff’s expectations. long as the Request for Proposals (RFP) Action, responde~ to it. .y one response to an RFP~ t in adequately with Attachment G Ms. Fleming said no was not automatic.~sals could be rejected whether t was i. bid or i00. All were scrutinized carefully as was le with Bay Area Action’s bid.bid was not accepted just b~ use it was the only bid received. MOTION: Coun Member McCown moved, seconded by approve an a with Bay Area Action for the the Arastr~ro Preserve. to Council McCown was delighted to suppor project. Bay Area Ac )n had demonstrated that it was committed. It..was to point out to the community ir staff report (CMR:I what the alternative would f a public/private partnershi not entered into. It result in the City’s ability to tin the Preserve and to make it accessible and available to ublic which would seriously compromised if that type of ment could not worked out. The City would have to take a it. from a different vantage point in terms of changing exciting opportunity. not a public/private of many of those nonprofit corporations th~ Area Action proposal wa~ congratulated Bay Area together, and she loc ust forward to t )ut in resources. It was a very was a public/public partnership, in truth because the noncity side Palo Alto’s own citizens forming work with the City, and the Bay ~r example of that. She and f for putting it all ng what the impact or non-impact would be in Council Member had been on the first started could see Bay far. She wa~ ~er also cong Area Adti0n. She of Commerce Board Bay Area Action was seven years prior.~at point, she ~a Action was an organization was going to go to support the project. Council Me ~r Eakins supported the project. She to Attachmez Bay Area Action Stewardship Proposal, pag. of I, Arastra.Preserve Project, under estimated Volunteer Hours, and re~ the effort and staffing it would take the City to recruit, supervise, and reward that number of volunteers. She felt the y was getting a tremendous boost from working with Bay Area Action. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ii.Arastradero Facility Gateway - Approval of Scope of Work for Facilitator/Architect Vice Mayor Andersen was unclear as to how Bay Area Action would be involved in the consultant selection. Open Space and Sciences" superintendent John Walton said the intent was to include the Steward, Bay Area Action, in the process as one part of a public process for the determination of what that 115 15 of 27 10/26/98 1:59 PM http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/pa...vemment/minutes/1997/19970428.txt facility would be like and what it would do. Vice Mayor Andersen asked when Bay Area Action would have that input. Mr. Walton said the .public process would begin in the summer and staff would be prepared to return to the Council at a later date. Council Member Wheeler referred to page 2 of the staff report (CMR:225:97), Exhibit A, Scope of Work, under Meetings, and commented that it mentioned not only meetings with the general public but also meetings with the Arastradero Task Force. She asked whether the Arastradero Task Force was an existing task force, ¯was the same as the Arastradero Advisory Committee referred to in the Stewardship agreement, was staff, was the public or some combination thereof, or was the group she had worked witha year previous on other Arastradero issues. Mr. Walton said the group Council Member Wheeler had previously worked with was one component, but that was primarily to address issues related to capital projects for the dam spillway and creek erosion control work.~ The Arastradero Task Force would be a slightly different group of people which might include some of those key people but would probably expand beyond that. To try to bring the stakeholders for interests on the Preserve together, it would take both public and staff to working collaboratively to determine the purpose of the facility. Council Member Wheeler said there were areas of concern she had in terms of the Scope of Work for the consultant. First, she asked whether the consultant, the Arastradero Task Force, and. other people who came to the public meetings were charged with returning to the Council with some conceptual designs for the new facility. The Council in prior discussions of the item and in the Stewardship agreement always referred to the facility as a "modest facility," yet nowhere in the Scope of Work was anything mentioned about the size, shape, and materials with which the facility was to be constructed. Shewould hate to see a good group of people grow out of control and return to the Council; then Council would find it necessary to be the "bad guys" and reiterate the fact that it was supposed to be a modest facility. Ms. Fleming said Council Member Wheeler was right on target, and she had had at least one inquiry from Council Member Kniss regarding the same issue. She felt that new language needed to be added. If the Council were to approve the item, the Council should do so with the addition that the RFP be clear it was to be a.modest facility. Council Member Wheeler clarified that the Planning Commission did site and design of structures in the Open Space Zone. She believed as part of that, therewere some City guidelines for use of certain materials and certain looks to facilities that would be preferred in the Open Space District. She asked whether such language and direction to the consultant could be included as part of the Scope of Work. Ms. Fleming could not give a definitive planning statement of chapter and verse, but by general policy, the City’did not put certain structures into certain areas of the City, i.e. Foothills Park and the Baylands, without being sensitive to the concerns articulated in a number of places including the Comprehensive Plan. It would be appropriate that staff be sensitive to the locale.The City did not do work in an area such as.Foothills Park without 116 16 of 27 10/26/98 1:59 PM http:l /www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/pa...vernment/minutes/1997 /19970428.txt making sure that it was sensitive to the intent which would be the samewith the Preserve. It would be entirely appropriate if Council wanted to have certain language included to make sure that whatever structure was eventually designed would be consistent with the area and would be brought before the Planning Commission. She believed it would be consistent with the policies of the current Council and ~administration. Council Member Fazzino questioned the need for a facilitator at a cost of $40,000. He felt there was a number, of intelligent people who would have excellent ideas regarding use of the Preserve. That type of creativity needed to be accommodated, along with bringing neighbors and other affected groups into the process, and that should be it. With all due respect to those who developed ~he process, he felt it was a very bureaucratic approach. It was a sensitive issue but could be resolved by involving several key constituencies and a few meetings. He asked why Mr. Walton or some other staff member could not conduct the meetings and move forward rather than spending $40,000 for a facilitator. Ms. Fleming knew that Council Member Fazzino was really committed to making government work effectively and efficiently and not have a lot of "Palo Alto process." With regard to the Preserve, she requested that he allow staff to move forward in the manner recommended for a number of reasons and to give it considerable consideration. Staff had already had a number of initial meetings; there was not unanimity of agreement. There was a need to bring a number of segments together in a cooperative manner to agree to and to get to a place where staff could go before the Council with a proposal~ There Was a number of groups that had great interest and dedication to that area, but their views varied greatly. She believed what the consultant would do was consistent with the commitment staff made to the Council which was that staff would listen to everyone’s.point of view, and it would be beneficialto have a facilitator there. There were times when the more open government was, the more the need was to have a facilitator assist in the process. Staff did not have that capability. Council Member Fazzino was very supportive of open government, but that did not necessarily mean spending $40,000 on a professional facilitator. Ms.Fleming said the $40,.000 included both facilitation and design. Council Member Fazzino wondered if there were an alternative to using a professional facilitator unless it was absolutely necessary to move in that direction. He asked whether someone on staff could possibly facilitate. Ms. Fleming said yes there were other ways to do it. She was not prepared to make that recommendation that evening, but she would proceed with any direction she received from Council. Council Member McCown clarified that she had read the recommendation in the reverse. What was really needed was a designer to design the facility who could also run some community meetings. Council Member Fazzino said the recommendation stated I) leading group discussions and 2) preparing conceptual architectura1drawings. There were two well-defined roles. Counci~ Member McCown said yes. She referred to Exhibit A of the staff report (CMR:225:97), Scope of Work, under Phase I - Identify Needs and Design Parameters, Task i: Facilitation, Task 2: Prepare 117 17 of 27 10/26/98 1:59 PM http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/pa...vernment~minutes/1997/19970428.txt Conceptual Drawings and Cost Estimates for Potential Facility Types, Task 3: Meetings, Task 4: Facility Report. She understood the need to be more heavily on. the design side with a role to facilitate the input process so that City staff could give input and not have to act as a facilitator. Council Member Kniss agreed with Council Member McCown that the emphasis was on providing architectural services because that was the problem the Council ran into previously with respect to what the facility would look like. She referred back to Council Member Wheeler’s earlier comment that the Council had a strong view of what the facility should be which was simple, modest, and possibly reusing some of the materials in the house but not reconstructing a 5,000-square-foot house. It was not a matter of moving the existing house tothe bottom of the hill and redoing it. Therefore, hopefully, the facilitator would hear what the Council had to say. She asked whether staff was looking to the Council to give parameters on the size and impact of the modest facility. Ms. Fleming said no. Staff clearly heard what Council wanted. Council Member Kniss had previously given a synopsis of what Council desired which was modest and small, and that the housenot be be relocated which was exactly what staff had in mind. Council Member Kniss said while the Council might not agree on square footage, she clarified that "modest" meant not making a major statement. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. She trusted that staff heard what the Council desired. She felt having a consultant who could play multiple roles, if such a person existed, was a good idea. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, was skeptical of the process after attending meetings of the Habitat Restoration and Midtown Revitalization in the past when developers proceeded to do as they pleased regardless of citizens’ input. She attended a meeting in August 1996 regarding the Preserve which was an assorted group of people of which there was no agreement to have a facility on the Preserve. Her understanding of a modest building at that time was about 2,500 square feet which she felt was quite large. She believed there should be some parameters as to what was meant by "modest." One objection was the cost of the maintenance which was more than the original cost of the building. She wondered whether that would be the responsibility of the City or Bay Area Action.. She was also skeptical about having so many meetings. She urged the Council to cut back the meetings to three and to have ideas for the.design work for the facility ready prior to the start-up of the meetings. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, had attended the meetingin August 1996 at which there was a diverse group of people interested in the Preserve. Bay Area Action presented a fine Stewardship proposal and, as he recollected, was the only group interested in a structure on the Preserve. The consensus was that a Steward could do the work without a structure, and it would be better for the Preserve. There were thos~ people like himself and the direct neighbors of the Preserve who attended meetings regularly and were involved in the process, but that group was not in attendance, and a process in which the recommendation was influenced by the people who attended the most meetings and stayed the longest did not seem to be a good idea. He felt that was what was being proposed with the seven meetings. It came down to what was principal in the process which was the open space nature of the Preserve. The 20-year history was tha Preserve had been blocked by the existence of the structures because some members of the community, including some Council 18 of 27 10/26/98 1:59 PM lattp://www.clty.palo-alto.ca.us/pa,..vernment/mmutes/199//t 99/o425.t~ Members, felt that the existence of the structures might be a ’ reason for selling off part of the Preserve, even though the structures were in the middle .of the Preserve and would be demolished by any person who bought the landthe structures were located on. The idea of building a structure that would be in a location more amenable to being undedicated and would contain a modern structure that would have to remain there again would raise the issue of whether or not a piece of the Preserve should be sold. Raising the issue of replacing the existing 5,000-square-foot house with a 2,500- to 3,000-square-foot structure might seem modest compared to 5,000 square feet, but he did not consider-that modest. He referred to page i, Attachment i, of the staff report (CMR:225:97), Scope of Work, Description of Project, first paragraph, "...the new facility would serve in-lieu of the existing structures." He did not believe that was the policy the Council had set and felt the scope should be .clarified.. The Arastradero AdvisoryCommittee that originally met about the Preserve did not need a facilitator because the .committee was interested in the Preserve as a whole rather than in a particular item such as a structure; He wondered whether the Advisory Committee was for a ’ structure or a Preserve. In terms of Phase II, he believed a park improvement ordinance was needed for any kind of structure. It was possible, dependent upon the size and uses of the structure, whether an EIR would be needed. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) showed an expenditure of $50,000 rather then $40,000 and indicated that the structure would most likely have modems and telephones. The issue of any kind of structure that would be Comparable to the Foothills Park Interpretative Center or Baylands Interpretive Center Would raise the issue of change of use from Open Space to Recreation. Council Member Kniss asked what "modest" looked like to Bay Area Action. She believed there might be a real disconnect between what the Council thought and what Bay Area Action thought. Jim Steinmetz, Bay Area Action, 886 Loma Verde, said with respect to the meeting in August 1996, Bay Area Action was of the understanding that that the meeting was about the Preserve and all the different proposals being put forth. It was not only use of a facility but also Stewardship of the Preserve itself.. Bay Area Action did not contact all the citizens it knew in Palo Alto who supported Bay Area Action’s efforts, for a modest structure on the Preserve for use of Stewardship along with restoration of the Preserve. Bay Area Action did not marshal its forces, and there was only a few of those people at the meeting. There were others there, not all of whom rejected the. idea of a structure, who were mostly concerned and somewhat skeptical about what was being put forward. ¯ Bay Area Action did not have a problem moving forward with the process.and educating the public in order to determine how to best work it out. "Modest" on an open space preserve like the Arastradero Preserve was almost invisible to the naked eye. It would not at all resemble Lynn Chiapella’s 1,200- to 1,400-square-foot cottage or bun techniques that were available currently, it would hardly be visible and could be landscaped with native plants such as live oak and grasses. If it were designed and built correctly, 2,000 to 3,000 square feet was modest and almost invisible to the naked eye. Bay Area Action wamted the opportunity to work with the architects to present that not only to the Council and staff but also to the general publ.ic. Council Member Kniss asked what would go on inside the facility if it were built up to 3,000 square feet. Mr. Steinmetz said much of the habitat restoration would be staged from the site which would be the primary use, including staging 119 19 of 27 10/26/98 1:59 PM http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/pa...vernmentlminutes/1997/19970428.txt habitat restoration, educating people regarding habitat restoration, and organization. There would also be some research, administration, organization of volunteers, etc. Bay Area Action. envisioned having all the native plants in the Preserve or "surrounding ecosystem identified and displayed in cases in order to educate people on how to maintain and preserve open space. Regarding the dismantling of the barn, groups of over 40 or 50 people approached Bay Area Action who needed to be addressed at one time. Having that type of interaction along with the restoration of the Preserve and surrounding lands and the opportunity to work with that amount of people effectively was important to BayArea Action. Ms. Fleming said that architecturally it was possible to build a structure that was 5,000 or 6,000 square feet and be invisible. When she addressed the Council and staff about "modest" being invisible, it was because a good architect working in.an environment ’such as the Preserve could make a huge structure blend in. She and staff had continuously focused on a small facility which meant limited square footage for 1,000 plus square feet.She had not heard any direction from Council to staff to pu~rsue a structure from which a great deal of displays, exhibits, housing, etc., could be observed. The facility was not to replace the structures that had been removed which was language she had removed- from Exhibit A of the Scope of Work and Which Mr. Borock had referenced earlier. It was acceptable if the Council would feel more comfortable~in giving staff some limitations on square" footage. She reiterated that she was not thinking in terms of 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. Mr. Walton said the public meeting held in August was not specifically designed to discuss the potential for a new facility. The meeting intent was to discuss the proposed Management Plan for the Preserve and to try to bring local community people into a process in which staff could work with the community and get feedback on the entire Management Plan. There was a discussion about the facility, but he recollected that staff tried to defer all the substantive discussions about what the facility would be, what purpose it would serve, and what design it would entail to a later process which was the process staff had brought before Council that evening. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said seven meetings seemed like a lot, but one of the reasons staff wanted to allow for that number of meetings with the-community happened as a result of the August meeting. Staff received feedback that the summer was not a good time to plan ahead and.to attend meetings, and people who could have attended did not because there was only one meeting. For weeks after the August meeting, the City received written comments from people who wanted to attend but were.unable to. Seven meetings might be too much, .but staff was trying to respond to what was an enormous level of input to the Management Plan. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheelgr, to authorize staff to solicit consultant proposals to provide facilitation and architectural services related to a new facility in the Arastradero Preserve with a requirement that the facility be a modest one and shall be no more than 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. Council Member Kniss said the facility was beginning to sound like a base of operations rather than simply a location for some information and a modest restroom of some kind which was how she had envisioned it from the beginning. Council Member Wheeler thought "modest" also went with gateway. As 120 20 of 27 10/26/98 1:59 PM http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/pa...ventmentlminutes/1997/19970428.txt she heard the comments, particularly from the public, it sounded as if there had been some discussion of leaving the site of the facility much more open than she had envisioned. She clarified it would still be a gateway facility located someplace very close to Arastradero Road.. Ms.Fleming said staff was still talking about a gateway facility. Council Member Wheeler said she wanted to include language in terms of a general location and define it as a gateway facility. Further, language should be added to the Scope of Work that the design of the facility would be consistent with the City’s guidelines for building design in the open space zone. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE. CONSENT OFTHE MAKER AND SECONDER that the new facility be considered and defined as the ga£eway facility, and that the scope of work be consistent with the City’s design guidelines for development in the Open Space zone which would include a referral to the Planning Commission. Council Member Wheeler said she understood and shared some of the frustration after attending the Midtown Planning meetings. She felt the situation was different in that instead of having ii Property owners, there was one sole property owner the City. The Council had ultimate control as to what happened at the Preserve, and what the Council was looking for as the sole property owner was to have the very best thought and attention the project could be given by a variety of people who Were interested in what happened on the Preserve. She believed it would take some time to work out some of the issues. She knew in the end the City would end up with a product that would happen. It was supported by at least a majority of the Council who would take the information received from the public who used the Preserve very seriously in a variety of ways. She thought it was worth taking some time to think and talk about the issues. It was clear there were several issues to be worked through, and because the structure would be there for a number of years, it should be done well. She supported the motion. Vice Mayor Andersen opposed the motion. He felt the amendments that had been added were contradictory to what the consultant was being asked to be involved in. If the Council were goingto have an opportunity to see what some of the potential was, more flexibility needed to be given to the process. The Council could always turn it down. The Council had given enough ind&cation that it would not accept a large structure, but he felt the creativity of the process was being hampered by the amendments.. He hoped the amendments would be defeated and.Council would simply allow for the staff recommendation to go forth with the understanding that Council would not agree to anything beyond the scope. It was not a recreational facility, but it was also recognized that it was an ¯ educational facility. There was going to be educational process there, and the scope of that was being limited by supporting the amendments. He hoped more consideration could be given to the motion. Council Member McCown supported the motion. She believed the original phrase "modest gateway facility" was what the Council was trying to emphasize. It was a facility to introduce the public to what the Perserve was, and she did not think that contemplated teaching classrooms. Shewas comfortable with the order of magnitude, ’and the only limitation Council Member Kniss’s motion gave was to suggest the concept of size. Given what input was received, if in an architect’s opinion valid consehsus and Uses came outof a process which could not be done in 1,500 square feet, a good architect would return to the Council stating that as part 121 21 of 27 10/26/98 1:59 PM http :/ /www.eity.palo-alto.ca.us/pa... vernmentlminutes/19 9 7 /199 7 04 2 8.txt of his/her report. The Council needed to set the parameters of what its target and expectations were as well asultimately setting a budget as to how much should be spent on such a facility. As she again read through the tasks, the seven meetings with community. participation spread on either side of the work the designer was going to do to attain some concrete concepts as to how something might look. It did not specify how many meetings were a~ the front or back end. There would be some meetings.for input, a set of four concepts laid out, follow-up meetings for response, meetings with City staff, and then a presentation to the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission, and the Council. She found it extremely unlikely that all of that could be accomplished with less than seven meetings. While seven meetings sounded like a lot, that was the reality of what it would take to work with design input and then to take through the official bodies that needed to review it. She felt seven meetings were realistic. It was appropriate to give some guidance which Council Member Kniss’s designation did, and the process should move forward. Council Member Eakins asked the approximate size of the Baylands Nature Preserve and Foothills Park Interpretive Center. Mr. Walton Said the Baylands Nature Preserve, including the decking, was approximately 3,000 square feet. Council Member Eakins asked what the square footage was under the roof or within the walls. Mr. Walton said it was approximately 2,000. square feet. He could not remember what the square footage was for Foothills Park, but it was much larger. Council Member Eakins asked whether there were any modest facilities which the Council could use as a reference. Mr. Walton said not in the City’s operation, but there were facilities available in other open space preserves and areas that staff would look at in order to get some ideas. Council Member Eakins supported the motion. She thought having a size parameter as a guideline was a good idea to inspire the most creativity within a limited area. If the Council wanted something modest, it needed to be.made clear. Council Member Rosenbaum said ~he difficulty in specifying the size was that the functions to be accomplished in the building had not been defined which was the first thing a designer would do. He would support the motion if the Council kept in mind that if the p~oposal came back because not much could be done with 2,000 square feet, it could be reviewed again. Council Member Schneider supported the motion, although she was unhappy with 1,500 or 2,000 square feet and would prefer 500 to 1,000 square feet. She had envisioned a gateway. She understood Bay Area Action’s desire for more of a grand facility because of the amount of work it wanted to do. What Bay Area Action wanted to accomplish and what the Council had in mind were two different things. She also knew that designing an efficient, gateway in the 1,000- to 1,500-square-foo~ area might be more difficult to achieve than building something grand at 2,500 or 3,000 square feet. She also believed the meetings were absolutely called for. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion but was still not satisfied With the costs. He felt less could be spent to get the job done, both with facilitation and design. Although 122 22 of 27 ¯ 10/26/98 1:59 PM http://www.city:palo-alto.ca.us/pa...vernment/minutes/1997/]L9970428,txt philosophically he supported what Council Members Kniss and Wheeler said with respect to gateway and square footage issues, he was concerned with ignoring those guidelines if a better proposal were returned. If the Council felt strongly about the parameters, it needed to make them de rigueur.Otherwise, the parameters should not be includedin the motion. Mayor Huber wanted to separate out the square footage limitation. " It did not make sense to go through an entire proposal which asked for what the facility should be, how big it should be,..and where it should be and then limit it. MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF THE MOTION to authorize staff to solicit consultant proposals to provide facilitation and architectural services related to a new facility in the Arastradero Preserve; that the new facility be considered and defined as the gateway facility; and that the scope of work be consistent with the City’s design guidelines for development, in the Open Space zone which would include a referral to the Planning Commission. MOTION PASSED 9-0. SECOND PART OF THE MOTION that the facility shall be no more than 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Andersen, Huber "no." 12.anizational Study of the Planning Division City Division had a those vacancies in study of.the g outlined in her essential because if job to be clear with the applica Historically, the work flu depended upon the City had developed a planners’. It was e Fleming said as Council was the Planning of vacancies, and sta on track to fill She felt it to take an in-depth and a number of issues as 28, 1997. Timing was going to be made, she needed such a study was underway. ~in the Planning Division which the y functioned, and the ¯ of using contract y to :eview of the Planning ~ocus on areas such as planners would be manag administered, how best planners could be used, and assignments contract planners .e given. It was imp .ive to initiate a study because of the of current within the Planning Division,. but she )t want t.staff to do a lot of work on a Request for Pro’ (RFP the Council were not in agreement. She asked for Co~s approyal of the concept only. Then staff would r with an and, if needed, the budget amendments. Council Fazzino assumed that such a inform as to whether actices of the Planning Di were appropriate or ne%ded to be ~d.He asked whethe study would address issues of morale and or the issue of bad management would rest er rather than an independent contractor. Ms. Fleming said one of~ the reasons .d not want the study done by the Planning Dep~ent itself was ~ ~needed to be done by someone with an/iased view and with a :e n~t to look at management.s~s, techniques, and what was need to make a Planning D~sion. All interrelated reporting r ships needed to b~ewed, along with having the ability to as to 123 23 of 27 10/26/98 1:59 PM 124 ATTACHMENT PF(D) PC-1941 OS PC- 2050 /Project: Arastfadero Gateway / ’ PF(.D) OS Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: 8.3-99 File #: 98-D-7 98-ARB-75 Scale: 1" = 600’ North 125 Attachment I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment = = = Project Title:Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility Lead. Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Contact Person and Phone Number:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner (650) 329-2149 Project Location:North side of Arastradero Road, approximately 2,000 feet west ofPage Mill Road and 2,500 feet south of Interstate 280 in the Arastradero Preserve Application Number(s):98-SD-07; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:City of Palo Alto Community Services Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Comprehensive Plan Designation:Publicly Owned Conservation Land .... Zoning:Public Facilities (D) Description of the Project: The subject proposal would &llow the construction of a visitor information center,, referred to as the Gateway Facility because of its location near the main entrance to the Arastradero Preserve. The Gateway Facility consists of three, single-story structures totaling 1,177 square feet. The structures include office and educational meeting space, storage areas, and public restrooms. Ancillary features, such as bicycle racks, drinking fountains, informational signage, a demonstration planting garden, and an at-grade footbridge are also included in the project. The Gateway Facility is situated adjacent to an existing public parking lot that is capable of accommodating users of the facility without the need of expansion. The project also includes a Variance for a reduced setback from the requirements of PAMC, Section 20.08.020 (Setback Map). The Setback Map requires that all structures be set back a minimum of 200 feet from Arastradero Road; the Variance would allow a reduced setback of 75 feet for the proposed Gateway Facility structures. Importantly, the Variance would allow for the facility to be developed with significantly less grading \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDWLANkPLADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIAIT.doc Page 1 of 15 126 10. 11. and visual impacts to the hillside open space setting. A more detailed explanation regarding the rationale for the Variance is provided in the "Discussion of Environmental Impacts" section below. Water service for the project would be provided by an existing City water line in Arastradero Road. Electrical power would be provided by photo-voltaic equipment integrated into the proposed Gateway Facility structures. Sewage would be disposed of in composting toilets, on-site septic systems, or through connection to City sewer lines. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The 77-acre project site is located in the northern portion of the 609-acre, City owned Arastradero Preserve open space area. The site is located amid areas predominately characterized by publicly and privately owned open space. Unincorporated land owned by Stanford University is located immediately to the north, low-density residential development in the City of Los Altos Hills to the east, and public and private properties designated for open space uses to the west and south. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials X Hydrology/Water Quality Land UselPlanning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHARED~LANWLADIV~IA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 2 of 15 127 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the. proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be.a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. _ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. X Luke Project Eric DateChief Planning Offici~ \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDLPLANLPLADIVkEIA\arastraderogateway99EIAI7.doc Page 3 of 15 128 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting Information Resources I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of -- substantial light or glare which ¯would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? I1. a) b) c) Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 2,3,4 2,3 No Impact x X X3 X AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 2,3 X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 2,3 X X to non-agricultural use? II1. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district.may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct I 3 I I I I X \\CH_ASD_i~DMIN2\SHAREDkPLAN~PLADIV’~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIAI7.doc Page 4 of 15 129 Issues and Supporting Information b) c) d) e) b) c) Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard 3 or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation Result in a cumulatively 3 considerable net increase ofany criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attaiia"ment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to 3 substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors 3 affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Have a substantial adverse 1,2,3 effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califcirnia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse 2,3 effect on any riparian habitat or- other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect 3 on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHARED\PLAN~LADIVkEIA\arastraderogateway99EIA 17.doc ¯ Page 5 of 15 130 Issues and Supporting Information Resources d) e) f) b) c) d) VI. Sources pool, coastal, etc.) throughdirect removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the 3 movement of.any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies 2,3,4 or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an 3 adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?- CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse 2,3 change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse 2,3 change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a 2,3 unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains,2,3 including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known 2 earthquake fault, as delineated on the most Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X \\CE_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDkPLANkPLADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 6 of 15 131 Issues and Supporting Information Resources ii) iii) recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground. failure, including " ~’ Sources 2 2 2 b)2 c)2 liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Resultin substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of. adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? d)2 e) Potentially" Significant Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X X Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated VII. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project? 3 X 3 X \\CH_ASD_ADMiN2\SHAREDLPLAN~LADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 7 of 15 132 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Resources involving the release of ¯hazardous materials into the environment? -. c)Emit hazardous emissions-or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an .existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a.significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the--~. project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 2,3 3 2,3 Potentially Significant Issues VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality t Istandards or waste discharge ~ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X o X X X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDkPLANLPLADIVkEIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 8 of 15 133 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Resources requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the siteor area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ’stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal-Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood 3 3 3 2,3 2,3 Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact X Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated Impact X X X X X \\CH_ASD,ADMIN2\SHARED~PL.ANXPLADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 9 of 15 ’134 i) Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a 3 significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the-failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami,2,3 or mudflow? LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:. Physically divide an established 3 community? Conflict with any applicable land 2,3,4 use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable 2,3 habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES. WOuld the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability 3 of a 10cally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land ’use plan? NOISE. Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or 2,3 generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or 3 j)X IX. a)X b)X c) X= XI. ¸b) X X X X X \\CH_ASD_’ADMIN2\SHAREDLPLAN~LADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 10 of 15 135 Issues and Supporting Information Resources generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an . airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project areato excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources 3 3 3 Potentially Significant Issues XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population 3 3b) growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the -- construction of replacemei~t housing elsewhere? c) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically 2,3,4 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDkPLANkPLADIVkEIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 11 of 15 136 Issues and Supporting Information Resources altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Impact X X X Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the 3 use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include 3 " recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)’ Cause an increase in traffic 3 which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or 3 cumulatively, a level of service Unless Mitigation Incorporated X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHARED\PLANLPLADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 12 of 15 137 Issues and Supporting Information Resources standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnot~ts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIE~ AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, ¯ the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the ’ construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and. resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Sources Potentially Significant Issues I 3 3 3 3 3 Would the project: 3 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X x X X X X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDkPLAN~LADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 13 of 15 138 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources e) Result in a determination by the 3 wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with 3 sufficient permitted capacity to ’ accommodate the project’s solid . waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, .and 3 local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rareor endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the increment~ii effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact NoImpact X X X X \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDkPLANkPLADIVkEIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 14 of 15 139 SOURCE REFERENCES; 2: 3. 4. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan EIR City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 Planner’ s knowledge of the project and area of proposed development City of Palo Alto Municipal Code EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: VI.Geology and Soils Fault rupture, Seismic 9round shaking, Landslides The project site is located in an area with a high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potentia! for earthquake-induced landslides where a significant slope exists. Like much of the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area, the site is also designated as having strong ground-shaking potential during an earthquake. As previously stated, the proposed .Gateway Facility structures utilize slab-on-grade foundation designs and will conform with the requirements of the most recent Uniform Building Code, including those provisions pertaining to building construction in seismically active zones. The potential for geologic and soils impacts resulting from conditions on the project site can be mitigated by utilizing standard engineering and construction techniques. Moreover, siting the Gateway Facility on the relatively flat portion of the site further minimizes the potential for geologic and soils impacts. IX.Land Use and Plannin~l Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation The project site is included under the provisions of PAMC, Section 20.08.020 (Setback Map), which requires a minimum 200-foot setback for all development proposed along scenic corridors, such as Arastradero Road. As designed, all of the Gateway Facility structures willbe within the 200-foot setback, with the nearest structure situated approximately 75 feet from the Atastradero Road right-of-way. There are several reasons for siting the facility at this location. One, the structures will be situated on flatter terrain and at a lower elevation than if they were constructed 200 feet or more from the roadway, in accordance with Setback Map provisions. This will minimize both the visual prominence of the structures and reduce the amount of grading that would otherwise be required to develop the facility further up the hillside where the slope is steeper. As designed, the Gateway Facility structures utilize conventional slab-on- grade foundation designs that would not be feasible if the project were constructed in accordance with Setback Map provisions. Also, if the Gateway Facility were constructed more than 150 feet from the Arastradero Road right-of-way, a new emergency access road would be required to serve the project; this access road is presently not needed, and if it were to be included the site would undergo significantly more grading than is presently proposed. Two, the proposed location is adjacent to an existing public parking lot situated on the north side of Arastradero Road. Importantly, the parking lot is capable of serving the facility without the need of expansion. Therefore, locating the Gateway Facility adjacent to the parking area allows the project to tie-in to existing infrastructure and further minimizes the need for grading and paving in this natural, hillside area. Additionally, positioning the Gateway Facility next to the existing parking lot and nearer to the roadway allows it to act as a true "gateway" to the Arastradero Preserve open space area. Based on these considerations, a Variance allowing a reduced setback of 75 feet from Arastradero Road is included as part of the Gateway Facility proposal. \\CH_ASD_ADMIN2\SHAREDkPLAN\PLADIV~EIA\arastraderogateway99EIA17.doc Page 15 of 15 ’140 9 Attachment J RECEIVE ~ OCT 0 6 ’i999 Departme~ of Planning and Community Environment Oo-ro g~’-p,, ~, 1999 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 ¯ San Francisco Bay Refuge Partners A 25th=Anniversary Capital Campaign to Support Don Edwards San ,Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Introducing the about the Refuge’s wildlife, and view the LaRiviere Marsh Gateway Kiosk You haven’t missed seeing this kiosk because it hasn’t yet been built! But it can be with your support. The San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society has launched a one-year capital campaign to raise the $60,000 necessat3,to build this interpretive structure near the Visitor Center of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Fremont. The new interpretive kiosk on Marshlands Road will allow a restored salt marsh and its resident wildlife to welcome visitors to the Refuge. This first stop on a Refuge visit, with extraor- dinary views of LaRiviere Marsh and displays which describe this productive habitat, the kiosk will pique visitors’ interests and prompt them to subse- quently learn more during - and after - their visits. The site dedicated to this kiosk is perfect for enticing incoming visitors to park, stretch their legs, read shorebirds and waterfowl of LaRiviere Marsh. The kiosk itself will be an attractive. open air structure, built of sturdy, pressure-treated lumber to resist aging. Exhibits describing the natural history of the Refuge will be situated under the kiosk roof, each displaying a full-color i.nterpretive panel. Contact: Cecily Harris, Development Director. at (510) 792-0222 for more information about the kiosk. Blue prints and budgets are now available. Dona- tions are gladly accepted and can be sent- through the envelope in this new.sletter or mailed to: 25th Anniversary Campaign: "~fiosk, c/o San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society, P.O. Box 524, Newark, CA 94560. ~ Attachment K 03 J nuary 2000 Mr. Greg BettS 1 .... ~ ARASTRAD’ERO’~PRESERVE. STEWARDSHIP PROJECT A ¢ollab~ra’tivd effort between Bay Area Action and the City o[" Palo Alto BAY AREA ACTION Superintends. nt, Open Space and Sciences. City ofPaloAlto, Junior Museum " 1451 Middlefield Road ’’Oepart~, Palo Alto, CA 94301 I write on.b~ha]f of the Bay Area Action Council, A~ast~adero PreServe Stewardship Project staff, and the hundreds of commimity volunteers wl~o ha’ve dev0ted.the~f time andenergy t(~ improving the preserve. We speak with a single voice, in strong support of the gateway facility ~cheduled for.. review by the Palo Alto Planning Commission on, 1anuary 12th, 2000. As you ]~now the proposed modest facility .was thoroughly evaldated and thoughtfully designed by ’ a ten m~mlx~r community task.force, with .s~gaificant public input, between October 1997 and Octobe~ ]998. The process 6f rea.ching agreement won a recreation/community s~rvice award of ’- merit at the California State Park and Recreation Society:s 1998 annual meeting. Now, .14 months ¯ later, the design has passed through a prelimin .a~ review by the Architectural Review Board and awaits a recommendaltion from the Planning Co~missio.n before undergoing final review by ,the. .-., City CounciL, , ¯ Throughqut the long interval bCt~’een BAAs’ successful dismantlh~g of the puSlicly-o~ned fac~ties " in 1997 and now, proj.ect volunteers .ceaselessly inquire about when the new facility WJli b~ buflt.--~ . ¯Quit~ frankly, the public is tired of waiting for their assets to be mstor~’d.,It is within this context that ~ write to solicit the full support, of City staff, .the-Planning Com~nission, and the. City Council to rapidly, cohclude this process an@ build a state of the art publicfacility-,which serves ~e publics’interest in stewarding the natural resources of.Arastradero Pteserve..I-am certairi that failure bY the City, to follow through 0B this project will severely erode pdblic. SUpport for 6ur work at the ’ Th~ facility, w~ serve the general public i~y pmv.i .ding basic amenities (water,,shelter, resEooms,, information, telephone), as well as supporting City.and steWartl~hip goals by ProViding much . needed 0fficespace; sterage for;tools and supp,lies, and a. gathering p]ace for .volunteers to .b~,. oriented to the tasks at hand. The facility willg~afly~improv~" our ability toeducat~ stu’dents apd the. generalpdblic about the restoration and maintenance activities.jointly imde~ken by the.Ciiy and BAA. Furth~, the buildin’~ its~If will ~ a teaching..tool for the cdm~Unity.- As a r,~odel green building incorporating passive arid actiV.%so]ar energy and, alternative building materials the’ building " .w.ill educat~ the cdmmunity about the possibilities of sustainable building t~chnologies and clean ,. energy sources, ’ - ’ Bay Ar a Action is co i d s"ppo the tac ity h;Zping rai the .ec ssa {, ds to domplet~ the project.In flzis.mgard I must point. OUt that community.financial support will b~ exEemely difficult to garner without a-substantial contribution from’ the Arastra Fund. Our ,constituency is very clear that the Arastra Fundwas created in part to replace the facilities removed from th~ Pmserve...I cannot, over emphasize how str6ng]y the commu~ty feels ab’out obligating .... some of these funds t(> constmct.a public.f.acitt.ty at the Preserve. 265 Moffett Boulevard Mountain View, CA 94043 650-625-1994 p_l~one 650-625-1995 fax www.Arastradero.or~ www.baaction.org 153 Finally, we offer our services to aid in the ~nstmction’by. providing volunteers for suitable tasks. Straw bale construction is particularly, well suited to volunteer support, and many other aspects can-’ be undertaken by we.ll-supervised Volant .egrs. We encourage the City to specifically request ’ contractors to incorporate" voluriteer s~rvices’into their construction bids., Not only will this reduce ¯ the overall cosY, it provides handson e, ducation for the community about sustainable building " techniques arid w.ill instill a valuable Sense of ownership in the completed facility. , We are M1 extremely excited about the potential £.or this facility to elevate the already outstanding commuhity support f6r stewardship at’Arastra’dero Preserve. David Smemoff Project Director Luke Connolly, .Planning iDepartment PaloAlto planning Commissioners 154 Attachment F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Draft Verbatim Minutes February 17, 2000 Chairman Robert Peterson: We will go to the first item of New Business, which is item number five (5) Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility [98-D-7; 99-V-10; 99-EIA-17]: Request by the City.of Palo Alto Community Services Department for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed development of an 1,177 square-foot visitor information center (Gateway Facility). The proposed facility would include office, meeting, and storage areas, public restrooms, bicycle lockers, and associated site improvements on a 77-acre, City-owned property within the Arastradero Preserve. The Variance application would allow a reduced setback from the provisions of Section 20.08.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. Luke Connolley, Senior Planner: Thank you Chairman Peterson, members of the Board. Staff recommendation on this is that the ARB recommend City Council approval of the Site and Design and the Environmental Impact application based upon the findings in Attachments A and B and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment D. The variance findings as noted in the staff report are in there for informational purposes only, they were discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting last month and will acted onby the Council on the upcoming meeting. This item was before the ARB, just for a refresher to the public, as a preliminary plan in August of 1999. Since that time it has been to the Planning Commission on January 12, 2000 as a formal application. At which time all of the applications, including the variance were discussed. Only one issue that had not been previously raised, was raised at the Planning Commission hearing and that related to safety. Several residence in the adjacent Los Altos Hills neighborhood had concerns about increased night time activity and potential for arson vandalism, things of that nature. Since that hearing the police department reviewed a proposal and in addressing these issues they did not see any basis for any of those activities being increased. On the contrary they thought better coverage by rangers and other public presence would detour any type of activity like that in the area. Other than that staff recommendation is made, I would like to turn the project over to the Community Services Department, Greg Betts and the design team that has a briefer presentation than what there was in August. Thank you. Chairman Peterson: Thank you. Board Member Lee Lippert: I have a brief question. As part of this report that we have received, we have not received the verbatim minutes of the August meeting. Is there a reason why we did not receive this from the prelim? Mr. Connolley: To be honest, I thought that there was a lot there already and that the minutes, being a fairly recent meeting, would not need to be included. It was not an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 oversight I just didn’t think it was something that needed to be attached to the report; given all of the other information that was there with it. Board Member Lippert: Thank you. Greg Betts, Open Space & Sciences Superintendent, Community Services: AS I understand it the two main concerns of the ARB at our last meeting were the access from the parking lot to the building along the trail for handicap individuals and the substraight . of that trail. And the other was beefing up a more aggressive landscape program for around the parking lot and along Arastradero Road in front of the building to buffer the building. I would like to introduce Peter Bluehom and Annie Tilt from our design team who will explain their new landscape plan. Peter Bluehom, Arkin & Tilt Architects, Architect: .Let me briefly talk about the design of the building and a little about the landscape plan. As a reminder this was a process where we had-a task force and public workshops to develop the design that you will see here. Annie Tilt, Arkin & Tilt Architects, Architect: Thank you, the development of the Gateway Facility involved a lot of planning as you well know. This is a model of the site. The area that has been stringed off is the area that we were looking at for the possible placement of this facility~ As you can see by the diagram that we pinned up on the wall there, we actually considered for different sites. After a long process of elimination, the one that we were looking at more closely was number two. It worked well with the topography, was close to the parking lot, and also as a safety issue. This is a view from the parking lot toward that land, and as you can see basically on that side of Arastradero Road there is very little foliage. I think David is going to talk about Bay Area Action’s plans for restoration. This is a view of the woodside store and a bit of the presence that we were looking at for the building. Taking the building and breaking it up into smaller pieces, to have a more rural character. The project starts at the end of the parking lot, there is a small seating area and some signage and the bike lockers, and the path has been relocated to follow the contour so you essentially can move past this building but sort of experiencing it, but not having to interact with it unless you need to. This is just a slightly skewed view, but again from the entry area from the end of the parking lot, towards the building. Just a quick walk through here, there is a slight swail on the site and the path moves across that. Peter will talk a little bit more about the surface of the pathway, then there is a slight crossing that is handicap accessible and a widening from the pathway, the ranger station and the office. There is a fair amount of storage here, then the meeting room then the bathrooms at the end. This area has storage all around it, basically is pulled off between these building and is an area where volunteers can gather, access tools and then go off and do some restoration work. The meeting room, is of a very simple design, it has a wrap around porch for meeting and seating for people who are not using the meeting room and it has a on the back side which will serve as a cooling device and fire protection from the grassy 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 slope on the back side. This is just a simple elevation of the meeting room and then restrooms at the end with some drinking fountains. This is the view up Arastradero Road from the project. If you look at the contours, it tucks into the hill and from this direction of Arastradero Road you can hardly see it until you get quite close to it. And again because of it’s low profile, it’s a modest landscaping that Peter will look at with you. I also want to say, which I think is new since our last ARB hearing, that the photovoltaic system which is proposed to power the project has been given a grant fromthe City of Palo Alto for complete funding. So that is good news. Mr. Betts: We had come to you with this plan back in August. Just to speak briefly about this area, we wanted a site that was close to the parking lot~ that was not to far -from the road, but a safe distance away for the purpose of children and other people so you are not right up against the road. We also wanted it on a fairly level part of the site and between the parking area and the way into the preserve. So we presented this landscape plan and the basic philosophy is quite simple. Bay Area Action is very involved with this park for the purpose of restoring the native plant species both trees and shrubs as well as the grasses, with a focus on the grasses. We wanted this building to fit into that and maybe have a concentration of shrubs and trees around it, particularly to take advantage of the swail there. We drew this up, it reflects something where there is a bit of concentration but it is almost as if it is a natural state. In response to your comments in August we wanted to show just simply that we do plan and I think Bay Area Action plans to expand that idea out beyond the buildings. So just to briefly describe this drawing with three different types of plants types and heights. You have Oaks scattered threw out, then the next would be Toron which is a mid-height native plant species, and the California Buckeye is fairly mid-sized for a long time, it takes a long time for it to be large, so we wanted to sprinkle some of those around in the appropriate places. And then finally the lo, op end, I am not sure how they feel about Coyote Bush, but.that type of perennial woody species would be distributed out and the idea is that it would go out towards the parking lot area and if there are concemsabout wanting more shielding from the ¯ roadway, we have shown some larger Oaks being placed from Page Mill Road, so this Oak here and here could provide some additional screening from the road. The rest of it would be a native plant restoration effort as far as grassesl David would you like to say a few word here about Bay Area Action? David , Bay Area Action: Bay Area Action has been working on native restoration throughout the whole 600 acre preserve and we would continue that effort around this facility. One of my comments would be that we are willing to assist the City in the planting and maintaining of all of this vegetation and maintaining the temporary irrigation system and keeping that working while we are getting these plants established. Eventually we would like to remove irrigation because as this is a native landscape and the species that we will be putting in here are drought tolerant and adapted to the landscape, we wouldn’t envision having permanent irrigation at this site. There are afew stands of native grasses already existing near the site and one of those is down and 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4i 42 43 44 45 46 1 around this area and another up above the hill. So we will be expanding those plots, we 2 will be adding new species of native grasses. It is probably a higher density of trees and 3 shrubs that would normally exist in this landscape, but to soften the facility I think it is 4 very appropriate to put those in ~here and in a sense it would be a native demonstration garden in helping the public to understand native species. So we would be putting in the shrub species and some other native trees and things like that. If there are aoy specific questions that you have about what we have in mind, I will be happy to address those. Chairman Peterson: Thank you. Mr. Betts: The other comment regarding the paying surface. The parking lot is currently a decomposed granite type surface. I am not sure of the exact granite, but that type of surface. We plan to use a product with a nature resign modified emoltion product called ’Road Oil" the brand namel It is a binding material for use on small aggregate. It provides a durable weather proof surface throughout the year for tires from trucks as well as wheelchairs, and that is what we plan to use for this whole pathway. The other point is again to emphasize that the gradient overall is always less than 5% throughout the site and that is why it is placed where it is. I think that is about all on the landscape plan. Chairman Peterson: Thank you, I am sure we will have some questions. Joe do you have any questions? Board Member Joseph Bellomo: Just a couple of questions. The roofing will be etched corrugated, this has been decided? Ms. Tilt: that is were we are at the moment. It is a corrugated metal that has been treated to reduce its reflectivity. Board Member Bellomo: And where would the PV panels be? I noticed something blue onthe models, does that indicate the panels? Ms. Tilt: Actually they are awnings on this first ranger building that are seasonally adjustable and in the winter time they would be a bit higher. Board Member Bellomo: And these are the panels? Ms. Tilt: These are the panels, actually as an awning, and in the summertime they would be fairly fiat and provide more shade. Board Member Bellomo: Just some clarity on this emoltion coating. Does that go through the path, to the facility? What is the actual path? Ms. Tilt: Yes, the actual path surface, it looks like a decomposed granite, but it is bound together with this emoltion product. These areas would be concrete, as well as concrete slab on the buildings. But all this area would be ’Road Oil’ product. 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Board Member Bellomo: The sanitary system, as far as a septic tank, how would it be accessed, and where is it proposed? Ms. Tilt: I believe we were suggesting composting toilets and I don’t think the City is going to go along with that. There is quite a bit of land to be looked at. I guess we would put it up above the parking lot on this side. That hasn’t been decided. Board Member Bellomo: But you would have the tank away from the buildings. Ms. Tilt: Yes, but close to the parking lot for accessibility. Board Member Bellomo: Can you describe your lighting? Ms. Tilt: The idea with the lighting was that it would be very minimal because it is mostly a day use, so there would be some lighting in these areas that would be essentially down lighting. Just for safety so that if there was some activity, it would be visible from the road. Board Member Bellomo: So at night it would be lights of~.. Ms. Tilt: By 10:00 PM. Board Member Bellomo: Thank you, I will let my colleagues ask questions. Chairman Peterson: Frank your questions. Board Member Francisco Alfonso: I want to state for the record I did speak to the applicant prior to today’s hearing. I had a couple 6f questions. One has to do with landscaping. What is the plan for implementing this landscape relative to the buildings construction timeline? In other words is this going to be done over a period of a year, or right away? What is the relationship there between implementation of such a plan and the actual building construction? David : Well I would presume that once the building is completed we would go ahead and put in some of the larger tree species and these would be maybe one, five, maybe fifteen gallon size trees that we would put in the various locations. Establish some of the shrubs, the native grasses we would wait until a winter season, because those would be relying on just naturalprecipitation and some of the native annuals as well, so some of the smaller species would be phased in over a period of several years. We have had very good luck establishing native grasses in other areas nearby in the winter season and they grow quite quickly. So we would establish the large species fairly quickly after the building is complete. Board Member Alfonso: From the last meeting I remember there was some intent to reuse the existing lumber is that still the case? 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Tilt: Yes, just as a reminder there was a barn on the property that was torn down in 1997 and there is a fair stock pile of lumber from that that is in storage units that we will be reusing as much as possible. Board Member Alfonso: And did you ever find out how that stuff could be rated? Ms. Tilt: I think it is something I am working on generally in practice, there are graders that can grade stamp it. Board Member Alfonso: Thank you those are all my questions. Chairman Peterson: Drew, your questions? Board Member Drew Maran: I also spoke to the applicant before this meeting. Are there any non-native plant species planned for this site? Ms, Tilt: No. Board Member Maran: Everything is native. And at this point, when is it slated to - begin? Mr. Betts: This is the last stop before taking the project to City Council for final approval, optimistically we would hope to take this to council March 20, 2000 and we have secured funding for the building from the Arastrafund for $290,000, they have challenged us to come up with matching grants in $75,000 which we are confident we can do. It is in the CIP budget for this year, assuming that the money will be reimbursed through private donations or through grants so in answer to your question, the final design could begin after Council review and construction potentially could begin this summer. Board Member Maran: And how long do you think the construction will take? Ms. Tilt: As you are aware, it is difficult to get things built down here. My guess is we could be looking at about a six (6) month calendar, given the state of subs in this area. It is a fairly simple building, there is no large commercial kitchens and the most complex system is probably the photovoltaic and that is a complete package that will be installed by a subcontractor so I think that is a reasonable length of time. Board Member Maran: So conceivably this project could be built out in a year Or so? Ms. Tilt: Conceivably. Board Member Maran: Aside from the photvoltaic and the recycled lumber, what are some other sustainable features of this project? I was not on the Board when this was reviewed last time. 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 .32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Tilt: I think that the primary sustainable or ecological aspect really is its passive solar design which is a combination of thermal mass in the floors, orientation of the windows to take advantage of the winter sun, but really provides as much shade as possible in the summer time so that over heating is notan issue. It is a very simple sort of vernacular design that has basic vernacular passive solar strategies in terms of window placement and natural ventilation. I think that we will look at rain water cat~chment and really the other intent of it is to provide and area that regenerates the native plant species. It will also be a background building in that respect and to facilitate the restoration. Board Member Maran: What is the projection of how many people are going to use this and can you also summarize the functions? Ms. Tilt: Sure. There is a small ranger station/office for the steward; Bay Area Action at this point. It is really quite minimal that we project some computer use there otherwise, not a lot of activity. There is only room for two or three people in that space. There is a meeting hall that is sized for about 30 people which they could be showing slide for small school groups. It is not envisioned that this space would be rented out for any other purpose than educational. Specifically related to the preserve. Probably the biggest users would be those volunteers who are working on the preserve and again as I mentioned the bulk of that will happen in this outdoorarea. So that people who are walking by can see them without having to feel that they are needing to participate also. And other than that it is for the casual everyday users of the park bicyclist, equestrian, and hikers who basically can use the restrooms and the shade. Mr. Betts: I just wanted to add one comment to this. It is an important principle through our consciences process with the n,eighbors and Bay Area Action it is not a facility to increase use that much it is more to create an amenity a convenient place for the restoration efforts and there is some educational component to the general public, but it is not meant to be a new meeting place for the community to use. Board Member Maran: Is the larger intent to encourage use of the park, of the preserve? Mr. Betts: Not really, it is the restoration program. Right now Bay Area Action needs to truck everything up there, the tools and So forth. The other thing that Annie mentioned which I am most excited about in the design is for the public. Just to be able to come through and use the park, they have a good place where there is a ranger, they can use the bathroom, but at the same time these activities can take place without creating a crowd around the entrance. Board Member Maran: Ok that is all the questions I have. Chairman Peterson: Lee, your questions? Board Member Lippert: Is there any type of material board or color palette? Ms. Tilt: I thought we left one of those with you? Do you know Luke? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45. Mr. Connolley: I honestly don’t, I thought in August we had one, but to the best of my knowledge, staffdoes not have one. I am not sure were it could have gone offtoo. It did exist. Ms. Tilt: I can go through the palette. It is quite a simple palette. We are looking at corrugated metal roof, treated to reduce reflectivity. A board and batten siding using as much of the old barn wood as we can which will be stained just for preservation, maybe a natural color. Windows will be aluminum in a fairly dark color, a dark green or a black. These are sign boards for maps and other information that could be rotating. Some large sliding glass doors so that you could open the whole meeting hall up, again those would match the windows. Some salvaged wood posts and other structural members. Concrete slab that would probably be stained just to mute it out a bit. Again it is a very simple palette. Board Member Lippert: Why would the City not consider composting toilets? Mr. Betts: Based on the number of users, we have seven park rangers for 5,000 acres of open space and we don’t have staffto get up there on a regular basis to be able to ensure that it would be properly turned over and maintained. Mostly a maintenance issue. Board Member Lippert: Are you familiar at all what the National Park Service uses in remote areas, like in Yosemite? Mr. Betts: Mostly pit toilets. Board Member Lippert: Has that been looked at, at all? Mr. Betts: No it is subject to whether a pit toilet would be allowed by the building department. Board Member Lippert: What mitigating measures would be taken with regards to the septic tank to preserve as much field and natural space as possible? Mr. Betts: It hasn’t been mentioned, the City has also considered just simply plumbing to the sewer line in the middle of Arastradero Road as well, our concern is just as you say to minimize any type of impact of the environment there, to try to keep grading of the hill side to a bare minimum. Annie do you want to make any comments as to what would be the criteria for final selection of sewer system? Ms. Tilt: I do think it is a balance between cost and impact. I think there are ways we could be looking at a modified that could work in with the landscaping that could provide a little more than the gray water system. It is a balance with what the City is going to require and also there is quite a bit of public coming through that area. If we can connect to the sewer line that is down the road that might be an option we could consider. 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 It is a balance of what kind of moneys we have got and how much impact that [Leachfield] would really have. Board Member Lippert: With regards to public outreach the working group has done, can you review the kinds of meetings they have had with the public and the kinds of testimony that has been solicited from the general public? Mr. Betts: Well it was the foresight of the Public Works department and Community Services to conduct a consensus process. They hired our team and we put together a ten (10) member task force that represented Bay Area Action, the adjacent home owners and advocates of bicycles and horsepeople and naturalist. It was a full year pr6cess in the design and it consisted of three (3) public workshops and ten (10) task force meetings in every step of the way there was full agreement on City goals, principles and elements of the program and final design. We had a final workshop before it was ratified and then nine of the ten members ratified the final plan and we feel like the task force represents a good cross section of the interests. The recurring issue was is this going to intensify use and for some of the people thatlive near by feel it somewhat changes the nature of the preserve and for the reason we have designed it down to were it is not going to be public for hire facility. It is really intended for continuing the mission of the preserve. So the issue of use did come up and we have tried to address it. The parking lot for example is the same size. It is not meant to be capacity increasing tool for the park. Board Member Lippert: In the working group you said you had virtually a consciences, nine out of ten members where in support? Mr. Betts: That is correct. Board Member Lippert: The one member that wasn’t.., inaudible.. Mr. Betts: The one person that was not supportive at the end, was not supportive in the beginning. The tenth person is an adjacent homeowner and she felt it was not consistent with the mission of the preserve and so were others, not only her. The view is that the preserve should be in a completely natural state with no buildings. Board Member Lippert: What is the disposition of the Bresler Estate and whether that will be incorporated into this preserve at some point? Mr. Betts: The City Council at Tuesday night’s meeting voted nine to 0 (9-0) to ask for a appraisal of the property it is scheduled to go on action February 28, 2000 There is known to be one bid from the International School and Council has indicated an interest in pursuing the purchase of the building. Because it is an inholding, it is a 13 acre lot essentially right across the street form our parking lot. The purchase of the property would ensure that there wouldn’t be development right across the street but the purchase to the Bresler property would not change the sighting or the plans for this building. Board Member Lippert: Thank you very much, I don’t have any further questions. 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chairman Peterson: FineI have just a few. On the parking lot, how many does that hold and it is not striped now I don’t believe and has that ever been a problem, people figuring out how to park there? Mr. Betts:. The parking lot holds 43 cars. Technically on the left hand side there is a post and cable fencing that was designed to be used as an overflow parking lot. In the last three years that I have supervised the park, that has never been opened up for any occasion. There is as you may know there is a park and ride parking lot not the far away from the preserve. We have activities on the weekends we encourage carpool or hiking from the park and ride parking lot. The lot is not striped and that has not been a problem. There are two spaces that have been designated for handicap parking in the lower right hand comer closest the purple area on the diagram which seems to be adequate as far as I have heard. Chairman Peterson: On the temporary irrigation for the new trees and things, what is the nature of temporary irrigation? Mr. Betts: I think the typical drip irrigation systems. Chairman Peterson: Once they are established then you would remove it? Mr. Betts: That is correct. Chairman Peterson: On the lighting, I think I heard that it would be offby 10:00 PM are all those fixtures shielded? Ms. Tilt: Yes, they would either be shielded or just shinning down on to those patio areas. Chairman Peterson: On last question having to do with utilities, where are the utilities coming in, how will the connections be made, is there water, electricity? Mr. Betts: There is currently water to the parking lot, there.is a drinking fountain for the public, so the water connection would be tapped into that. The building itself is essentially off the grid. It is completely sustainable and independent for it’s power generatioh. The telephone would have to be wired in, and that is probably our biggest obstacle, connecting to existing underground telephone lines. Both for a pay phone in the parking lot and a telephone in the work office. The sewer line is across Arastradero Road and there are no other connections proposed. Chairman Peterson: On the power will you have a battery system? Ms. Tilt: Yes it has a battery system that is actually on display in the last storage area. There is not a very high use. The system is designed for eight (8) hours of slide projection which is a lot more than lighting and that is the maximum use that is projected 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 for that building. It has limited number ofphotovoltaic panels and a battery back up that should keep you through three cloudy days. Chairman Peterson: Any other questions? Board Member Bellomo: On the issue of utilities is the waterline ample to support the restrooms? Mr. Betts: Yes. It is a two inch line and it should be more than ample. Chairman Peterson: Thank you very much. We do have some cards from the public. Lynn Chiapella. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: You have my letter which I submitted. I have a question on that variance, where the City says the variance has already been granted, I don’,t know if it has or not. I am concerned about the rationality because, of the Bresler property and the Stanford property next door being developed using similar types of ideas, for the public good of some kind maybe we can put in a (International)school or Stanford can develop that property next to this parking lot area. I have some other points one is that the new impervious material, I can’t tell if it continues to the parking lot, and all the way down to where you cross the road. Or if it is only here in this tiny area, and then it switches over to some other product, I am surprised to the amount of impervious material I see, I guess it is necessary for drainage, I had thought it would be more landscaped in around the buildings. The only reason that I bring it up is that the path, if you walk up there during the summer time, since the fire in 85, there has been absolutely no shade, because the City cut down all of the trees along Arastradero and there has been no shade for people hiking through that entire path. It is a very hot, long, dry hike. There have been at least four parking projects along there and my problem is, how much of this is conceptual and how much of it is real. If you look underneath the plan they just put up there, you will see that there is a total of nine trees, and if you look at that plan, it looks all exciting and lovely, but it is only a concept, there is nothing required. In the past years June Fleming went out and planted 50 trees out there, Oaks, I believe. The department of Community Services did maintain those, but as you know we did have a long dry period, so all of those trees, except two have died. A second planting was put in there maybe seven years ago or so, those were cut down in a weeding process. A third planting was put in maybe five, four years ago and I think there is only one or two of those trees actually living, I believe BAA actually did that and there are some surviving trees. My concern is that Community Services has never insured that anything survived out there and should BAA be gone, or something else, the City should ultimately be responsible rather than placing the burden on the BAA, which I think is excessive. So when you have that long path, I am asking that there be plantings along the path, as planted and planed by the City Manager. That be done in conjunction through the City and the department of Community ~Services department rather than having it be a BAA project. I think that if this is not done, we will have a continuation of what we have had since 1985, no maintenance by the City, no water and the trees have consistently died. The last planting was a natural planting, where Oaks and Walnuts came up all along the 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44. 45 46 area between the road and the path, within the last four months, those trees where cut down, there is now one tree left between the road and the path. So this is a very persistent and consistent pattem of not marking, not earing, not paying attention. Those natural trees, the Walnuts and the Oaks, probably would have survived. They all grew in swails and areas where there were dips and water storage. I would ask that those be restored they have been cut down by apparently by the Utilities Department with or without the permission of Community Service, I have not been able to ascertain what happen there. Thank you. Chairman Peterson: Thank ~ou Lynn, next is Herb Borock. Herb Borock, P.O. : One of the issues that is related to some of the questions about the Bresler property and the Council’s action last night is the variance. An issue tha~ was not responded to by the City Attorney at the Planning Commission was the fact that the location of this building will be detrimental to the property across the street which is the Bresler property. The views that you were show of the property did not show a comparison of the views from the Bresler property of this location or at the two hundred foot special setback, when in fact from the-Bresler property this building will look about four times as large then it would from the two hundred foot setback. This is related to the statement about funds from the Arastafund. John Northway, a current member of that committee that makes decisions on the funding and Jim Mackan a former member of the committee have been working with I believe thee International School on the Bresler property .And it is the interest of anybody developing the Bresler property beyond what is currently allowed to have anything across the street that is developed more than current set backs allow. There is an issue of inverse condemnation on the Bresler property. That is if the City creates a condition where it is fudial for the owner of the property to even make an application. Then they don’t even need what is normally required to file a inverse condemnation suit, which is a rejected application. Normally, for public property and open space should be requiring specimen trees, not 5 gallon or 15 gallontrees. In the landscape plan, before approval we would like to see tree species and size called out in the plan, and you don’t have that here. The preliminary minutes should have been provided. Normally when you don’t get minutes it is because the tape has already been destroyed or somebody doesn’t want you to see what you have said.before, One thing I recall mentioning is the type of building the store bell construction, photovoltaic is a fad. There is one over at Hidden Villa, being done, by I believe the same architect. The so called public member on the task force is the architect most recently mentioned in the paper for a similar building in another open space preserve. The meeting room is not going to be restricted to just this one use. Meeting rooms throughout the City are used, because they arethere by all sorts of other types of uses, such as the Baylands Building. The City Council made quiet clear that there idea of the facility was quite different from Bay Area Action in terms of the intensity of use, such as how many people are being brought there, how often and for what purposes. The police comments that were mentioned in response to the comments of the neighbors on Ratcliff and Page Mill Estates are not responsive to the concerns of those neighbors about night time use. You have been given several conditions of approval and in the copy of the staff report I have it is one page of Attachment D that stops in the middle, there is clearly at least a second 166 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40. 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 page of the conditions of approval. Finally on the use of the Arastafund, that is a five 2 member committee set up by the conduit for the money thatincludes the appointment of 3 one City Council member and a staff member from the Manger’s office and the 4 Attorney’s office. It is City Coiancil policy first to determine how much funds the City 5 wants to ask for the Arastrafund. It is not something for staff to be going out on its own 6 and making the request. There is material available that indicates if this amount of 7 money is taken out of the fund as suggested, and the fund is not replenished the funds for 8 habitat restoration would dissipate within the current five year term with Bay Area 9 Action. The people on the task force who were opposed and expressed reservations 10 about this project are the very people who represent both themselves and others who have 11 given money to that fund and would be the ones to be asked to replenish that fund. So I 12 think that there views need to be taken into consideration in that respect, and also the idea 13 that this is a pot of money to be used up in five years is the wrong attitude for staff to 14 take. Habitat Restoration is gonna be ongoing. In regards to the Bresler property it is my understanding from what I have heard from Bay Area Action is that they would prefer to have a facility like this on the Bresler property so that they would be proceeding with this at the very time the same people are coming before the ~ty Council and asking that it not be kept open space but in part to have a structure like this on that property seems to be Contradictory. Thank you. Chairman Peterson: Thank you Herb, I have two more cards here, and I can’t remember which of you by name has spoken before. Ok. Jerry Hem. Jerry Hem, Gateway Facility Task Force Member: As you have summized from what was presented today, this project was a result of a very, very comprehensive planning effort and the planners themselves have been modest enough not to mention that they actually won an award for this planning process,, and also when it came before the Planning Commission they sited it as one of the .best projects they have seen in quite a while. I would like to say that the general overall intent of my point of view on all of this is was to deal with the increasing use of this preserve~ The use is increasing whether we lille it or not. The intent of this facility is actually to shape that use so it strikes a balance between the needs of humans and the needs of the resources. The two points that I can see that would function like that are as a center of the on going restoration efforts and also as an educator to offer a facility where environmental education possibilities could happen and we could bring young people into this preserve and establish and ethic of environmental activism. Throughout this project, we paid great attention to the site to try to lessen the disturbance to the environment itself. Some of the siting features that we have here, we sited it very close to the parking lot to minimize during construction the amount of disturbance that would have to happen. We brought it down offthe hillside to reduce the amount of removal of material of the hillside. My concern is the seasonal wetland, and I consulted a number of people who assured me that the project would not affect the wetlands. We brought it down as so it would not be a dominating feature. Since it is a public facility it needs to meet the requirements of the ADA. If it was set back to the 200 foot setback, it would create a greater disturbance to make that facility meet ADA requirements. The buildings were kept low and rustic, and were broken up to diminish impact. The attempt will be to restore this to its natural state. In closing I would 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 like to say I am very happy with how this whole process tumed out and the look of this project and I think it deserves your recommendation to be presented to the City Council as it sits before you. Chairman Peterson: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions from the Board? Board Member Lippert: I have a minor question, and it is actually for the Acting Zoning Administrator. Regarding the powers of reverse condemnation, is this a treat to this project at all? Mr. Hashimoto: I am going to let Mr. Connolly answer that question he has been with this project and has meet with the Commission and with the Attorney’s office on this issue. Mr. Connolly: Thank you, there were a few questions raised by the first two speakers that I think related to the variance and the inverse condemnation process. To answer the first speakers question about the variance, it was discussed on January 12, 2000 by the Planning Commission and approval of the variance was recommended at the time this ¯ goes through the City Council. I do want to repeat that the variance is not at issue today. Regarding the Bresler property and how this works, a variance is always a site specific approval it specifically dealing with this piece, of property and this project as it is designed and it is strictly regarding this setback of this property, so it in no way affects the property across the street which is actually a different zoning designation. This property is zoned Public Facilities, the Bresler property is zoned Open Space at this time. So they are very different issues. I realize it is an adjacent property, but this question was also asked by the second speaker to the City Attorney at the Planning Commission Meeting last month. As shown on the notes in the staff report, the City Attorney felt the variance findings stood up very well and were quite extensive to support this projectl The comments about the Police and there response, I believe the second speaker said did ffot address the night time use. Those comments specifically address night time use as far as safety, so I don’t see any further issues with that. Chairman Peterson: I have one question on the status and the development of the landscape plan, has there been defined or when will that be defined and will that return to us when that is done? Mr. Hashimoto: We could certainly have it return to a Board review when we do have the final landscape plan. At this point we do have a conceptual and of course you will see final landscape plans. Chairman Peterson: I am not sure it needs to come back to us. Mr. Hashimoto: If you feel comfortable with staff reviewing that as long as the’intent of the concept plan is in place we would have no difficulty with that. 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Chairman Peterson: Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? Seeing none,.I will return to the Board for comment. Yes, if you would like to make a comment, you can and then fill out your card afterwards. Tom Turner, Los Altos Hills Resident: Our concern in Page Mill Estates is for some sort of Police action, there are about 8 homes that back onto this open space and those are our backyards and they are open. We feel, even now without additional attraction, that there are people that have direct access to the back of our houses and there is no patrolling there is no control over this at all. I am surprised that some of the other people aren’t here. I was one of the homes that burned down in 85, and there is nothing up there but grass. You know when my house is empty, so that does work me and the others adjacent to that property. Thank you. Chairman Peterson: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Seeing none, I will return to the. Board for comments, Joe. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Board Member Bellomo: Thank you for the presentation today, first of allas I said in 18 August, I would like to commend the task force, Bay Area Action and the design team for 19 their efforts put forth on this project. There has been a lot of good though, good 20 resolution to site plan and I appreciate it. Also, I think what could probably be of 21 educational value, what ever can come of that could be good. Having grown up in Los 22 Altos Hills and having traveled that road on bike a thousand times it is rooted in me to 23 question development and to look at this as a change. I agree with some of the comments 24 that there is a human need for this facility. There are art groups that frequent this parking 25 lot on weekdays. I do think you build it and they will come and this will be a use that 26 will be like that. I think more people will participate in this area for its beauty because of 27 a facility like this and there are concerns of overflow parking and I am sure it has been 28 looked at and talked about. I think those things need to be looked at further. You 29 mentioned a cable chain for overflow parking that has never been used that chain 30 probably might come down, as .we see things increase in size. Specifics with regards to 31 my comments made in August, particularly with the recycled materials. What will be 32 used, what will be newand what will be old. How it isstained before it is implemented. 33 There has to be a careful assessment of materials graded and how they will be used and 34 stained~ You mentioned a natural stain. Obviously a 50 year old wood will stain much 35 differently then a new wood and I am just concerned of that exposure. One. think that I 36 feel is lacking in this presentation, is the details (gutter connections, base plates, bolted 37 connections, etc.)in my minds eye I know you will probably do a nice building. Just by 38 the way you speak and the approach. But I would like to see the detail I’d like to get a 39 handle on how the post are used, how the base looks, mitigation of moisture., etc. I think 40 it is in those details where this building can be very exciting. So I hope to see a proposal 41 come back with those details and a material board, etc. I brought up the sanitary system, 42 and I was eluding to what is in the street, what you can get to in the street and you have a 43 2" water line so you probably don’t have to go into the street and get a sanitary line. I 44 very much support the use of a sanitary system in the street versus a septic tank just 45 because of the scarification of the adjacent land. I spoke of a delicate lighting approach, 46 with zero cut off. There is a concern of safety of points of vision, I think the sighting is 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 good. There is a concern of the pathways, does the material hold up in regards to mountain bikes. Having said all that, thanks for the presentation and I look forward to seeing the details. Chairman Peterson: Thank you Joe,. Frank. Board Member Alfonso: I want to support what Joe is saying about the process and the design approach of.this, I think it has been very successful. My comments are going to be towards the landscape implementation. I think that the conceptual plan that I see her today is a good one. One thing that I will add to this and I think has to be looked at more carefully when it is reviewed with the final landscape plan is that this idea be carried out in a wider range rather than intensifying landscape use immediately around the area in question so that as one approaches there is a more gradual transition to this more heavier planted area. I think it gives a sense of artificiality if in fact. the conceptual you are trying to create a naturalistic setting, but at the same time you are focusing intensity of planting in the immediate compound, as opposed to gradually building up and down so that your concept of a natural setting is in a greater area, rather than a smaller one. I think that is really important and that the screening of the buildings is part of the concept in a naturalistic way. I think it needs to be implemented in a greater area and maybe using ¯ smaller type of plant material. I am basically in support of what I see here. I think the issues regarding details and lighting are valid ones. I would support the final landscape of this project to be reviewed at staff level keeping in mind the comments I made regarding the gradual intensity of implementation as you get to the site. Chairman Peterson: Thank you Frank, Drew. Board Member Maran: Thank you for the presentation and thank you to the people who spoke about this from the community. I am very much in support of this project and I wish there was a way that we could distinguish between projects of this nature and project that have to do with development for profit, or some other purpose than providing educational value and facilitating the enhancement of our environment. There are two parts that I look at. One is the general use, the landscaping and the integration of this development into the existing environment as well as the way it encourages people to appreciate the Arastradero Preserve. I think it is done very well, I think it is sited very well, I think that the consideration of the designers of this and the planners is excellent. It looks to me that it will not interfere with the vision and the approach of this area and in fact is subtle and discreet. The second part of course is the buildings themselves and the specific species being used in the landscape. It is a sustainable design, it uses recycled materials and generates its own electrical power. Provides a model for buildings in the future as to how we can develop buildings all over, it doesn’t have to be only for preserves and open space, we could actually do this in commercial buildings too. I think it provides a great learning tool for all of us and especially those of use who are inclined to look at altemative power and methods of building. I am fully in support, I don’t want to take a lot of time in making comments that have already been made. I also don’t want to somehow imply through a lengthy comment that weneed to spend a whole lot of time on a project like this. It is a low budget project, the people have worked very hard to get 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 their money together to build this thing and I think we owe them a streamlined, approval process wherever we can, as I said to distinguish between this and a project that has a very different intent which is what we usually see on the board. I really congratulate those developed this and there working with the community and the task force seems to " have been a very positive process. Thanks. Chairman Peterson: Thank you Drew, Lee. Board Member Lippert: I want to thank the presenters as well as the general public that has come before us to speak on this item, as well as staff. This is an exemplary project, I really am enthusiastic about it and like a kid in-a tow store I want to go out and visit this facility immediately. I want it built tomorrow. I think the only other way for this facility to respond to the natural landscape is to have it actually grow out of the landscape. It really is a wonderful use of materials it responds to the environment beautifully. There is not much more to say in support, other than I endorse it and I am going to vote in support of it. With regards to the process, I am a bit less enthusiastic. I do miss the fact that we don’t have our minutes from our preliminary hearing. There were other members of the Board. I don’t remember if former member Piha had any comments or spoke to it at all and I think that would have been very helpful as well as Board Member Maran being able to see our comments as well as being able to see what we said previously. I think that this little oversight doesn’t undermined the process I can think for myself right now it does sort of short circuit things a little bit. In the future it is really important that we get those verbatim minutes from preliminary hearings included with these packets. The material and color board is the only area that I have a concern with, if it could be found or dug up I would have no problem blessing that. I would like to see it brought back to us on consent one last time. I agree with Frank’s comments with regards to the details and I would like to see those also return on consent. Those are my comments and I really am in support of the project fully. Chairman Peterson: Thank you Lee. In light of what Drew has.said about the process and trying to streamline it, I think what has happened here is that we like it so well, we want to talk about it. IfPalo Alto has one problem, it is a process problem, we like to process things forever. I am in full support of this, I think you have done an excellent job. I think the public process was successful and well done. The architecture has a light touch on the land, the landscape concept seems completely appropriate and I am in support of this so I would like to entertain a motion from someone. Board Member Bellomo: I would like to make a motion to approve this project with a further study of the landscape plan and building details, sketches, as well as a materials board brought back to us on a consent calendar. Board Member Lippert: And I will second that. Board Member Alfonso: Can I make a comment? I think I would say final landscape plan so that there is some definitive size, location, and strategy. It would be ok with me if it was handled at staff level, I don’t think it has to come back on consent. 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Board Member Bellomo: The landscape plan only? Board Member Alfonso: All of it. Chairman Peterson: Joe, how do you feel about that? Board Member Bellomo: If staffwants to review those details, so be it. But I think we owe it to the applicant. If the other Board Members feel staff can look at those items, and everyone is comfortable with it, then I guess I do, but it would be nice to see them. Board Member Lippert: I do appreciate trying to streamline this process, but I think that it is part of our responsibility to review them on consent calendar. Applicant: We fully agree and we would like to do it as long as it would come after it was approved by the Council Chairman Peterson: That is the intent. We have a motion and a second all those in favor? (Aye) Opposed? None. That passes 5 to 0, 172