HomeMy WebLinkAbout0165.092· . ------
~ sta!le. *Oi t_
1-'" ""
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Attention: Policy and services Committee
~STRADERO PRESERVE I.M_:P_RgY_~_H:ENTS
Members of the council:
Report in BriEtt
--'"-.. ~
3
This re.port provides background inforrnaticn on the Ara.strddero
Preserve and requests Council to provide direction to staff as to
the f-.,cture use oi the improvemerlts wi thin the Preserve.
BiI5c.kqroun~
In August 1969, Arastra Ltd., the o\.,mers of the: Arastradero
property, applied for a Planned Community zone change for construc
tion of 1[776 d'wel1ing urLils. The City denied this proposal.
During this same period c,f time, tr.t: City hired a consultant to
study land use and the abi 1i ty c;.£ the .::i ty to provide services to
potential foothills develop~ents.
The City council amended the Cocprehensive Plan in June 1971, to
include most of tne foothills area in "Open Space ... Controlled
Development. n An Open Space Ele:-nent fer the General Plan .. as
subsequently adopted in April 1972. In 1972 tf1.e City also adopted
an Open Space zone district which required an average of t~n acres
per d...,elling unit. In Septem!::er 1972~ Arastra sued the City
claiming $15.6 nillion in damages, plUS interest, attorn2Y's fees
and costs.
Litigation proceeded for the rlext thr-ee years. In September 1975,
U. S. District Court Judge Robert Schnacke ruled in P.rastra l s favor
that the zoning amounted to a "taking" of Arastra's property and
CMR:16S:92
--. ,.
,
s
,-
I
I
I
I
tt.at all that r-ema ined to be cOl':1pleted !,Jas deter;nination and
payment of the vc-lue of the land as of Septel::ber 197~. Judge
Schnacke ordered the city to p~rchase trle land. The City faced a
value-setting trial '",:hich '","as to beg i n i:! Febru.ary 197t5. Arastra
and city officia;ls ::net several ti't1es and reached agrecl!:ent out of
court to settle the suit. A settlement fee of $7,475,000 was paid
to Ar~stra in July 1976, a~d th~ City became the fee owner of the
property.
The Clty became the fee owner of what officially was named the
Arastradero P~eserve. In addition to the 50D acres, the Arastra
dero property also includes ~ six-bedroom, 5,965 square foot house,
a large barn and a second, small t~o-bedroom house. A flocr plan
of the main haus~ is included as Exhibit A.
On October 5, 1981, the CO'Jncil adopted Ordinance No. 3305,
dedicating 432.781 acres of the Arastradero Preserve as park land.
Ordinance 3305 prov ided that approxir.:ately 1 acre .... i thin the
dedicated p~rk land, on 'lI',rhich the ~J;in house is located, may be
temporarily used for non-parK pur-poses on a J-'ear-to-year basis for
a specific time. Council extended the date to November 5, 1985
during lease negotiations for hostel use (CMR:526:6).
The Council, on June 16, 1983 (CMR:J63:3) dir£cted staff to!
1. Activate the }I.rastra Park Study as a high priorit}'· study on
the Planning Division's special studies list. This study
should proceed within a conceptual framework of creating a low
intensity and low cost park, 'ooIich emphasis on the natur~l and
open space amenities of the land and sens i ti vi t:{ to the
fragile foothill ecology~ Uses planned for the park should
not duplicate those pro'/ided in urban neighborhood or regional
parks. If the Council · ... rishes to entertain a different or
broader park concept, staff should be so instructec.
2. Establish ail ad-hoc citizens advisory conn.ittee to I!l.ake
recomr.:1endations O~l apt:ropr ia te park lJses and conceptual
locations of .::.rnprover.:ents. 'These re,:ommenaatians shOUld be
submitted to thE Planning Comrnissi:ln and City Council b~'
December 31, 1983. Tha council should request the follololing
groups to nominate one nember and one al~ernate to serve on
the committee:
The Palo Alto HQrse~en for Trails Preservation
The Comrr.i t't_ee for Green Foothi lIs
The Sierra Club
The Santa Clara county Inter-Governmental Council Trails and
Parks Committee
The Palo Alto Planning co~~ission
CKR:165!92
,
.. ~
~
i •
I •
-
The Mayor should be authorized to appoint two members fro~ the
public 3t large.
On July :23, 1984 (D1F.:416:4) I the Council approved the R'§!Qort of
the Arastra cJutJzens Advisory corrLmitutu?u~ ___ -'2.rl ___ u:p_arl< Improvements and
I'..Q].icies, including the Arastradero Preserve M.3ster Plan, and
adopted a Negative Declaration for the elerr,ents in the Master Plan,
'Which included the operat ion of a youth hostel, with no gU<8st
vehicular traffic and the maintenance of the existing barn and
stable area. On July S, 1985, the Council approved a Request for
proposal for a lease of the stable .. and amended the ccnditions for
the hostel to alIa' .. ' 20 ene-way vehicle trips per day by guests. On
August 25, 1986, after revie·wing the propcsed uses for the
Arastractero preserve, Council took action to: 1) cvntinue with
plans to lease the main house to the F.mer ican Youth Hostels. Inc ••
2) J:l.ake $28,000 of safety improvemE'nts to John ~al.thel"s Lane, 3)
discontinue the use of the small house as a park ranger residence
end 4) close the barn and the stahle. The interim lease with
tenants in the main house was terminated and the non-park use of
the main house ~as discontinued. Two men associated with ~~erican
youth Hostels immediately rt10ved jnto the main house rent free in
anticipation of the house beccrdng a YO;.J.th hC'stel and, more
inportantly, to provide security.
On August 24, 1987 Council approved a lO-year le3se of the main
house to the Golden Gate Cour.cil of the A:T1eric;:l.n youth Hostels. On
september 27, 1ge7 adjacent n~lghbors filed for and were granted a
temporary restraining order prev~n~ing the use of the main house as
a hostel. The neighbors brought suit against the City and the
youth Hostel claiming the City"s environmental reviev was inade
quate. The Superioi" Court ruled in favor of the residents, holding
that an Environmental Impact Report {EIR) 'Was required for the
project. The Youth Hostel appealed the decision. However, the
Court of Appeals upheld the Superior CQurt decision. In order to
resolve the issue of attorneys I fees, the parties agreed to a
settlement.
In brief the settlement establ ishes tr,e foll,:-t,."ing candi t i011s:
a Prevents American Youth Hostels i Inc., and the Golden Gate
Council of A!Tlerican iouth Host.els, Inc., from ever having a
hostel on the Arastradero Prese-rve or having anyone under its
employ or on its behalf from ever o.:cupying the main house.
o The gate ..... here John Marthens Lane enters the Preserve sha 11 be
kept locked at all ti~as until January 2, 1994, except that
not more th"~n four specia 1 events may be held in e'3.ch calendar
year prior to January 2, 1994.
CMR:165:92 3
f
!
I r
I
I
i
I"
"', ,
.:.'~ -.. , '~:}\l>'~: .~.
>.
I -
A. Main Bouse
The main house has bee.'"l. occupied by" vd!"ioll5 tenants since the
City obtained tbe property in July 1976. It. is no' .. considered
park dedicated property and can no longer be leased out as a
residence. In anticipaticn of quick solution to the litig~
tion problem, the two men remained in the house rent free as
caretakers. They are no lon';er associated with A:rnerlcal'\ Youth
Hostels. A f~w minor repairs have been made, but in general
the house has deteriorated. Irl oct:ober of 1990. a structural
pest cant-rol inspection report I.:as made of the facility. The
contractor identified about $18,000 of structural da.mage. It
~as also strongly 5uggestea that further professional inspe~
tion of the roof. paolI tile .... ·ork, and areas that -were not
easily accessible be conducted. The p':-cl needs to be resur
faced. Last yea.r r City staff made a prelirr.inary investigation
of the premises to establish an appro:.: i~ate idea of .. 'hat \r,'Quld
be req:uired to make r-epairs and update the facility for
possible future use. That estimate was $130,000. Staff also
obtained an estimate of what it would cost to demolish the
house and the pool. That rcugh estimate ' .... as $35, 0:)0.
B~ Barn
The City inherited a tenant ",'hen it; took over o\olnership of the
Arastradero Preserve. The. tena.nt ran the stables and the barn
facility. The stable use 'Was discontinued in favor of the
hostel proposal ir. August of 1956. The b<1.rn is generally i;l
good condition. A new roof ~as put on the barn in the early
1980' s. The Parks Division currently uses the barn for
storage of park equip~ent used throughout. the park system.
The Junior Museum also uses the barn for storage purposes.
c. Small Rouse
The small house has only been occupied for a brief ti~e during
the City's o\.men:;hip. It, too, is considered to be in good
condition. Staff had originally planned to have a park ranger
occupy this house in order to provide continuous site securi
ty; but conflicts ",ith variou.s labor issues proved insurmount
able and this proposal v"as dropped. In a staff report dated
April 21. 1988, £taff reco~mend~d and council approved the
demolition of this facility. At the. ti!1',€ the cost of demoli
tl.on was esti-:11ated to be $5, 000. The a::.t.ual dCr.'Iolition was
postponed until the John Marthens Lane litigation issues were
resolved.
CMR:165:92
-L
•
,
-
o. Alter-nate Road.
In CMR:425!6 and C."'1R:172:7, Council was alsD presented \!lith
sU9gested alternatives to access by John Ma~then5 Lane. The
t-w.'o alternatives (Exhibit E) consisted of 1} reconstructing
the Corte Madera Pump station road and trail .;9.t an esti1t',ated
1986 cost of $3~O,OOO, or 2) improvements to an existing fire
trail at an estimated cost of $305, (;OO~ Both alternatives
bisect the Preserve and ' .... ere considered by staff to be too
expensive and inconsistent ~ith the original intent of the
park to be a natural preserve.
Use of Park Dedioated La~d
In 1984/ the City Attorney's Office advised the C'.Juncil on the
legal issues involved in the private use of park-dedicated City
land. The advice ..... '3S given in conl".ection .... ith the council's
consideration of the Palo Alto Yacht Club's earlier proposal to
build a sailing station :at the Palo Alto Harbor. In general, a
leased facility located on park-dedicated land must be an appropri
ate park use a~d prov1de a 9ublic benefit. The use ~ay not operate
to the exclusion of ~ernb€rs of the public nor interfere ~ith the
public's enjoytll.ent of the park. Coutts have -.1pt-.e,ld t.h.-a use of
structures in parks for various purposes as long as the structure
is designed for cot1:1munity recceation and enjayrment and some degree
of general public access is maintained.
Staft has received several calls regarding use of the facilities~
Most of the proposed uses ... 'ould not meet the pari<. dedication
restrictions, limited use of John Marthens L2ne or would require a
new r-oad be constructed through the center of the Preserve. 'l'here
are. hO'l{ever, two proposals for the main housf' that have been
presented that staff felt ma;{ have some merit and might serve as an
alternative to denoliticn.
As an interim USE, one suggestion is to have an employee occup}' the
malon house and pt"o,.ide a.ll thE: labor that would be required to
rehabilitate the house in exchange fOt" free rent (staff estimates
the labor CC$t to be about $78,000). Under this scenario the City
would provide I!1aterials requi.red for rehabilitation at an estimated
cost of ~52,OOO. Once the house is put baCK into usable condition,
the City ,"QuId be faced, once agai!"l, ,,~ith the issue of its
appropriate use~
The second proposal ","'as presented to COl.lnci 1 on January 17, 1992 by
Jim Bronson, Chairman of the Board of Advisors for the Challenge
Learning Center. Mr. Bronson suggests that the main house and the
barn be developed in~o an outdoor, environffientally-based learning
facility. In Mr. Bronson's proposal of J3nuary 17, he stated the
use 'Would be particularly for serving youth: "The facility -will
C!<IR:165:92 5
Ai lilI'
".
-
uniquely providE outdoor r adventure education to populations that
currently have groT/II'ing n8eds for it". H~ cit,ed t'Wo target groups:
youth coping with serio~s health challenges, and students who have
a history of low success with traditional school programs. Under
Mr. Brcnson's proposal, he '..:ou~d rehabilitate the facilities at no
cost to the City. specific ~etails as to the necessity for some
degree of g~ne~al public a~ces~ to the house and barn have not been
discussed witt"! :'lr. Bronson, but on the surface his p!"ogram appears
to be ,",'orkable within the park dedication reserve mechanism.
There may be other concepts and ideas for use of the facilities
that meet all of ~he conditions. If Ceuncil determines it is
importal"'t to try to sa'",'p. tr.e main h0l.1Se, given all the restric
tio~s, staff could prepare a Request fo~ Proposal (RFP) following
Policies and Procedures 1-11 concerning leasing of City facilities,
to solicit additional ideas. Staff ',",'ould also "'ork with the
Attorney's Office to ensure that the RFP ",,0:.11d include all the
legal requirement.s for leasing a facilit'j located on park-dedicated
land.
Any environmental assessment ' .. 'C"J Id be dependent on the direction of
COUI";ci 1.
In summar}', the City o ... rns t'Wo hous!?'s and a barn Or] a park-dedicated
open space preserve -wit.r. limi~ed to no access .from John Marthens
Lane~ The park dedication req~ires t.hat any use of these facili
ties must be for park related purposes. Also by past council
direction, staff has been directed to "create a 10"'" intensity and
low cost park, .... ·ith emphasis on the natural and open space
amenities of the land and sensitivity to the fragile foothill
ecology." Given a 11 the restrictions. the costs and the past
Council direction, staff is cocoelled to r€corn~end both the main
house and the s~all house be de;olis~~d,
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to 1) demolish the small
house; 2) demolish the ~ain house; and J) retairl the barn for use
by Parks Division p8rscnnel.
Respect fu 11 Y s'J.bm i t ted r
'(.~ d. ?~!"'U<"'-
WILLIAM W. FELLMAN
Real Property Manager
CMR:165:92
--(fj/ltilr~£)
Director of Finance
6
-)
( f~~?-::/ _
wI"LaAM ZANER
Ci ty: Manager
•
•
. j
I
I
P.elated. St.aff Report'?i~
CKR:16S;92
CHF~ 355:4
CMR:614:4
C~R:121:5
CMR:J63:3
CMR:363:S
CMR:12~:6
CM.R:42G:~
eMF.; 525: 6
CMR:526:6
CMR:172:7
c!orR:Z46:B
7