HomeMy WebLinkAbout0228.094" «J.
• • .:tJ
April 14, 1994
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, california
Attention: Policy and services Co~~ittee
QPTIONS EOR DISPOSITION ~J<R~Ql1FO PR2MBYlU1JUILllQVG.\I~~MI,1o
MUSE IU!!> BARN
Members of the Council:
Report in Driof
On Auqust 2, 1993 r Council referred the question of the dinposition
of th~ Ar~stradero Preserve main house to the Policy and Services
Committee, for consideration of subdividing ten acres and tha h~ll\o
for use as a single-family residence or "other options that may bo.
determined". This report presents five possible options for Policy
and Services Co:mm.ittee discussion and recommends Council dlroct
staff to pursue 'What it believes to be the most-desirable option.
This report also presents possible options for. the. disposition of
the small house and the barn.
BAckground
The Arastradero-Preserve is 510 acres of dedicated parkland located
on both sides of Arastradero Road between Page Nill Road and Alpine
Road. Located about 1/4 of a mile from the end of John Marthena
Lane l inside at the uppermost portion of the Preserve, are
improvements, comprised of a main house, a barn and a small house.
In March 1992 (CMR: 165: 92), staff requested council d~rection as to
tho future of the improvements within the Arastradero Pn'l.SarV.Q4
staff recommended the demolition of the main house, as wall as the
small house, and the retention of the barn for use by Recreation
and Open Space and sciences Division. Council instead directed
CMR:22B:94
,." .
o
staff to proceed with a Request for Proponal (RFP) to solicit
al terna.tivQs for use of the structures on the Arastradero preserve,
consistent yith the requirements of the park dedication ordinance.
In J\11y 1993 (CMR:432:93}, staff presented the results of the
responsos to the RFP. The Challenge Learning Center (eI.C)
responded and than withdrew its proposal, citing in its decision to
withdraw, the "unwarranted, large time and expense anticipated in
dealing with tho opposition raised by Arastradero neighbors, and
tho fact that staff ~ould, not be abla to recommend the proposal to
council in light of neighborhood concerns. II staff aqa.1n
recomm~nded the demolition of the roain house, as well as the sm~ll
house, and the retention of the barn. , Council instead referred the
question of the disposition of the Arastradero Preserve main house
to the Policy and services committee for "consideration of
subdividing the home for use as a single-family lRsidence or other
options that may be determined".
The main house is a ranch style, single-family horne that contains
approximately 5,695 square feet. The house, built in the late
1940 /s, has six bedrooms and five bath~ooms and a single-car garaqe
with a workshop. The:t'e is a living room ana dining room, larqa
pantry with breakfast nook, a large kitchen, walk~in refrigeratot',
two fireplaces and a pool. No major remodeling hag been done since
the house was built, and many of the original fi>ctures have never
been replaced or upgraded. In 1991, a structural pest control
contractor and City building division staff ~6timated there were
about $150,000 of st.ructural, code and upgrade repairs th~t needed
to be done, including corrections to the septic system and water
lines. Additionally, the Fire Department indicated both fireplaces
needed structural repair. The swinull.ing pool is also ill need of
substantial repairs. (No :repair estimates we:ce obtained for aither
fireplaces or the pool.) The composition roof was replaced about
tEt'n years aqo. currently, there <:ore two caretakers in the main
house.
constraints on PRe ofJKain House
The entire 609-acre Arastradero Preserve has been dedicated as park
land. In 1984, the City Attorney's Office advised the Council on
the legal issues involved in the private use of park-dedicated City
land. In general, a leased facility located on park-dedicated land
~ust be an appropriate park use and provide a public benefit. The
usa may not opel.'ate to the: exclusion of rnembars of the public nor
interfere wlth the public's enjoyment of the park. Courts have
upheld the use of structures in parks for various purposes, as long
as the structure is designed fot' community recreation and enjoyment
and some degree of gener~l public access is maintained.
CMR:228194 2
\
\ ,
(
I
"0V'~! '!I)~~f11'
".'"
"
)
\
In early 1992, tho John Marthens Lane litigants, the Golden Gate
Counoil ot the American Youth Hostels and the city settled a law
Gult pri~ar11y over the issue of whether an Environmental Impact
R~port (EIR) lIould be requir.od for the Youth Hostel's use of John
Martheha Lane. Both a Supe~ior Court and the court of Appeals held
that an EIR was required. A settlement with the litigant.s 'Was
reached. The only remaining condition of the settlement is the
prevention of .!\merie-an youth Hostels, Inc:. and the Golden Gate
CO\lnol1 of American youth Hostels, Inc. from ever having a hostel
on the Al"~stradero Preserve~ All the other conditions of the
settlement have t'Sen met or have expired. The liti9ation raises
tvo i~port8nt issues. First, non-residential use of John Ma~thens
Lana will most likely result in the need for an EIR. Based on a
Comparable SIR, it is estimated that the cost would be
approximately $90,000. Second, even though the past litiqatio" has
be,en settled, the threut of new litigation is sti 11 real, given the
Challenge Laarninq Center's recent expe~ience.
Statf from the departments of public Works, Planning, Fire,
Finance l Human Reso\!rces, Human services and the Attorney's Office
h<we worked together t.o develop variolls options for Council
consideration. Hem~ers of the Palo ~lto Board of Realtors were
also asked to view the site and express their. opinion as to value,
. and a house mover was consulted regarding the possibility of moving
the m~in house. The results of the discussions and site visits are
sUltIlnarized below as to what staff believes to be th~ five most
viable options for the main house:
1. Subdivide and Bell the main house and related t.en acresj
2:. Hove the main house to another location 'Within the 1\rastradcro
Preserve;
l. Lease the main house as is, with limited access;
4. O~molish the maifi housej or
5. Construct a neW' aCCESS t'oad through the center of the Preserve
in order to preserve the house for public use.
The attached chart lists the pros and cons and the estimated costs
for ~ach of the above options.
Option 1: sub~ivide and 8e11 the main bouse ~nd related ten aore~
(shown as Option 1 on the attached map):
CKR,Z28:94 3
·' _~'~ _ ~ ,,; ~~. -_.:;,~ >-~'.".".:r:*,;:;:ti.:o)i;·:;$?i':-?'~.
o
Rdpresentatives frQ~ the Palo Alto Bo~rd ot Roaltors estimated the
value of the house and tel\ acnlS to be between $1,350,000 and
$1,500.,0(10. Several ot the :t'6altors also observed that the value
ie not In the house, but in ,the location of ,the land. They also
notfl:d _that anyone .1ntereBtoOd' in purchasinq the land would most
liKely remOVe the existing houpo and build their Pfdroam hontCl II • The
park~dedioation ordinance would require the proposed sale of the
prop&rt)' to be approvod by 51 percent of. the voters. The
uubdivi$ion ot tQn ~cr~s to create an R-l residenco, as proposed,
would er •• tQ a flag lot. rlog lots 0<0 no longer permitted in the
R-l .00i"9 (City or Palo Alto Hunicipal Code, section 21,20:301b).
If! order to rel!Ody thls sltu.tion, the Code "ould eithet' have to ba
amended tot this spacial situation, or a Npublic streot" would have
to be constructod within the Preserve fro~ the current end of John
H~tthena t..a110 at the gate to the lOain hOUGIJ. The estiV\~ted cost to
conptruct 4 pUblic street 10 $205,000. There would also be costs
Involv.ed for J}reparatlofl of .n parcol map and related processing
f~e$, e.tlB8ted at $l~OfOOO.
Statf proposed oolUm) tho house in a staff report dated June 28,
1984 (CKR:35S:4) I in 'ordor to pay for cCl"tain park i!'l\provemcnts
prior to oponinq tho Proserve. At that. time, the majority of
Council voted .ftgainst sel11ng the-prQjlcrty and creat.ing a private
in-hold estate:.
PRQ: Gennrate~J revonulJ ($1,350,000 to $1,500,000) for other
public pUt"pose.
CON: Ct"cat(}s privAte in-house. estate; requires voter approval;
ton acres in a pri~Q location of public open space would
be elh."inatcd~ Proposed location would affect the
conf19ur~tion of the park and craate a flag lot,
requiring ~n allJ:endment to the ordinance or the
construction of a private street.
OptiCb a t Hove the maiD bouse to another location witbin the
Araatr.a(!exo PreB.rve (possible location ahowli as option 2 on
.. tholled UP)'
According to a profeooional houso mover, tho main house can be
I;oved even thou~h it is on a concrete slab. Moving the house would
not only prooerve it j but would allow the house to be used tor a
variety Qf purpo8Ds including a mini-conference center or
interprotive centor. The noving process would require the house to
be cut into seYen sections, :noved and reassembled in the new
location. It tho fireplaces and the garage were needed at the new
location, they would have to be reconstructed,; The house mover
astim1!!tod it would cost $87 ,000 to move the house. Staff estimated
it would cost anothor $300 1 000 to repair and reT1lodel the house,
CKR,228.94
L
I ( .
'.
!
I
f.>
!
I t·
\
i\· .. ..
'.-. \
":-I" .. \
..... ~ .....•........ ,:.,-,-. -",-1
'.,',
"
connect util.ities., and install landscaping. '.rho estil!lated total
cost of moving, repairing ~nd rSQodollnq the nal0 house is
approxi~atoly $70 per square root. StNtt ostinates the per square
foot cost to build a new cOJ:lp:trabl4J facility ",-'ould be about $125 to
$130.
If the house were mov~d to a loc&tion vlthin.the Pr~sDrv0, staff
felt the bast location 'WQuld 00 l~e8t A:t'astradeto ROlld, as aho ... n on
the attached map. The locotlon is fairly level and the l".st
disruptive to neighbors "nd the open {;pace c()ncept or the park ~
The access, directly fro,", Arastra.dero Road~ Would DlOS.t likoly
require the construction of I} new t\.lrn lane. Tho cost to construct
a tUrn lano in 1986 was $S6,000.
If tho main house were moved,' leAsed and ron by the clty as 8; rJlini
conJerence or reception facility, staff e!JtLnated t.he revenuo
generated at approxinately $40,000 to $50~OOO per year (baE~d on
full-time use or other co~unlty (acLlitie~J.
PRO: Maintain:s the r.J(\in hQuse for a. public lISC that ,would not
be 1 imited by access. )!ovlng the house would not create
an inhold estate.
CON: EstiFlated cost of $473,000, ph.l8 l'ldditiofl"-l cos.ts, if
city services ~re provided at the facility.
Option 3~ Lease the bmin house as i. vith li&ited Docoa41
Lease of the main house lias iD t ll w~th limited access ..... ould l"cq\ll:re
preparation of an, RFP, in the hope ot finding ft' tonant who ~'ould
use the house for a public benefit and oither not Gntor t.hO: house
from Joim Hax:thens Lane or be prepared to p-ay for th.o pr-eparation
of an EIR (estimated at a CQst o( $90,000) and any futuro
litigation. The prospective ten~nt would also be, rcapontllble for
repairs and roaii'lt~nance of tho ""ain .house, estinated at $125,000.
Und~l· this option thore is .no financial benc( It to the City, but;
there are no City costs assocl~ted with addItional construction.
PRO: Preserve main housn for limited public banotit and
~inimal cost to tho City.
CON: Possible cost. of EIR estimated .at $90,OOOj possible
neighborhood litigation; limited publio benefit.
Option 41 Demolish the main house:
In the summary and recotT1nendation to -CMR:165:92 and CNR:432:93,
staff reconunended that the main house and sma.ll hOUGO be
CMR:228:94
i·"
I
i
I .
I
I
. ":.
" _.;;1~'~[,~·c~~ .•. ··
demolished. In those reports, otoff stated that liMited access and
the public park. reqlJi:r.ernento have made the main house and the small
house functionally unusable. Given the restrictions, costa. and
past Council direction ,to create a low intensity, low cost parKI
staff recommended that both the mll.in house and tho 8m"ll hOUSQ, be
demolished. Re'rnoving the houses maintains tho intogrity of the
preserve, but it also means the loss of tho use of ~n asset and no
financial benefit to the city. The cost to remove the house and
the pool was estimated at $32,000 in J.992,
PROt Maintains the int6grity and low intensivo use of tile open
space Preserve at limited cost to the city.
CON: Loss ~f the public's use of a City-owned facility.
option 5i CODstruct a new aooe98 road tbrough the Aidal. of tho
P~a8erv6 and direct staft to return to CouDcil with a .ore detailed
proposal (shown as option 5 on attaohed map) I
In CMR:42:6:94 dated August 21, 1986, staff suggestod and then
discarded the notion of cOJ1structing a road through the Preserve.
The alternatp. route would run from Arastradero Road on the curvo
above the Bressler property, continue in a southarly direction to
the center of the Preserve I and then wcst up the steep qrade to the
barn and then the main house. Staff rojected this proposal tor two
reasons. It bisects an open spaCE) preserve, and tho cost 1s
prohibitive. A road reconstruction alternative similar to this was
previously considered And rejected by tha Arastra clti'ZCllS
Committee and the Planning Comrr,ission.
PRO: Public use of the main house would not be limited due to
access.
CON: The bisecting road and relatQd traffic are contrary to
the concept of an open space preserve.
piapo~itioD of other preserye Improvement1
The Arastradero harn is large enough for 10 to 15 horses, and there
is an office and a t~ck room on the ground level. The loft has an
&rea that was been roughed out for living quarters. The root vas
r~placed by the City in the earl}' 1980 /s. The paddock and paatllre
fe.ncing have been removed, and the barn is currently used to store
park equipment.
In CMR:432:93, staff requested the barn be retained for continued
use by city staff for park-related use. Staff also presented a
CMR: 228: 94 6
":,
..
'.
..
r
~ ... ~. ,:"'J.
.'.
'}"~~~~~'
. ~"'--';"'.: :::"~ ~'~~~:~::~;; \
".' \~~~~~,;,;;) . ,: I
.. ',-: ,. I . "\¥~;;"';'. ~.' . . -;
' ... ' -',~.:'.:o.-'
proposal from the rnternational Equine Htrmane Asflociation (IEHA)
tor an additional use of the barn and the area adjacent t.o the barn
(sae Exhibit ~)~ lEMA's proposal would not include use of either
the lilain house or the small house. IEHA also claims it has no
interest 1n entering the property by using John Marthens Lane.
IEHA pr~poses to use the existinq firebreak road in the center of
the Preserve as its sole accoss to the barn. IEHA's proposal has
not been reviewed by staff, and is brought up at this point so that
staff can rec~ive di~~ction from council as to the city's position
on this proposod use, Qr any future proposed uses of the barn or
the former stable and pasture areas. If Council gives direction to
staff'to pursue: this use, or if another use of the barn would havo
marit, staff should be directed to prepare an RFP for lease of the
barn and related areas.
The small house, formerly the stable master's house, has two
bedrooms, one bathroom} a small living room with a fireplace, ~nd
a small kitchen and pantry area. In 1983, city staff installed a
new roof, carpeted and painted the small house. The small house is
currently unoccupied and boarded up.
Council approved demolition of the small house, as recommended in
CHR: 246: 8. The issue of demolishing the small house is being
reintroduced in this repol:t, due to Recreation, op.cn Space and
Sciences staff's concerns regarding protection of the Preserve. At
one point, the small house ... 1as occupied by a City park ranger, but
due to restrictions in the revised Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Public Employees Retin~ment system, the resident ranger plan had to
be terminated. It is currently unoccupied. On numerous occasions,
and mainly on weekend nights, the caretakers in the rnain house have
called to report four wheel vehicles in the Preserve and other
illegal activities. If the main house is demolished, the city
would lose the ability for oversight of the Proserve. The 8]'Qall
house has a good view of most. of the Preserve. Staff proposes that
if the main house is removed, Council direct staff to make minor
repairs and prepare a RFP that wouhl lease the house to someono who
would call the City in case of qn emergency or illegal activity~
Once the house is restored to good cond.ttion (estimated at $20,000
cost), staff estimates the rent would be about $750 per month.
Environm.ntal Impact ~ssessment
This report presents conceptual proposals for discussion purposes.
An environmental impact assessment, as may be required by the
California Environmental Quality Act, will be performed in
connection with the recommendation of the final proposal.
CMR:228:94 7
. . L···
·.,." .... .;::;.
.. --, ........ .
',"
0" _,
.\
o
I!.t.~lIluM&t tOD
staff reco~$nda that Council direct staff to pu~sue one of the
following.
Xf C<Junol1 prftfers optio~ 1, begin tho. process ()f selling the houso
and ten bo~e8 by directing st.ff to develop an app~opri.te
sUbd!iI:lleion plan to in placed on the November 1994 Ballot, in
conjunctIon vith undedication of parklands;
It Counoil pt'4ferl!i option 2, movinq the. house to a sitE! near
A_t'46tradAro Road, direct staff to return to Council with a more
detailed propo.al;
Xf counoll. pretors Option 3. lColse tho house lias iS" with limited
lIcc~as, d irdct staft to return to Council with a contract and
audgot AEendment Ordinance for an Environmental Impact Report and
a now Request for Proposal; and
If Counoil protera Option .. , l"equest staff to return with a
contract to dsmolish the house and a Budget Amendment Ordinance for
such costs" and direct staff to return to council with a detailed
estimate of the cost of repairs needed to make the BIlIal1 house
livable, a Budget Amendment Ordinance and a Request for proposals
to lease the facility to someone who would oversee the park.
It Cotll1011 preters option 5, build a new access road to the house,
diroct staff to t"eturn to Council with a mo).."'e detailed proposal.
Statf also recommonda that the barn be retained for continued use
by City statf for park-related purposes only.
CIIR.22e'94 8
·~._o
L
".
,
r
\
,.;; . . .1
, . "
. ';.,~~,.:.',. '~<"'''~''''·~>''''''''"'''''''~-:-~4''!'.~cI;''<-_~':'_ ...
R~8pectfully submitted,
I(JJJ~IJJ;I~ ___
HILLIAM W. FBlJ.HAN
Manager, Real Property
Ral.tP,Q stoff reports I CHR 355 4
CHR 614 4
CMR in 6
CMU 36) 5
CMR:426:6
CKR:5:C5:E:'
CHR,526:6
CKR: 172:7
CKR:246:8
eMIl: 16s,n
CKR:4n:93
Attachrumts; Options Chart
K&p of Arastradero Prene~v8
ce: ArAatrA Citizens AdviGory Comaitte.
Hr. Jim Bronson, Chairftan of Chnllang9 Learning Center
Luoi J. Christian International £quina H~mane Association
Hr. , Hrs. Robert Davis
Hr. John Dohner
Artemas Ginzton
Mr. & Hrs. 1> ... .,1 Rei".r
Hr. & Mrs. John ~"oun9
Ms. Lois Vanderbeek
Mr . .:rim Kellencdf\
Hr I Robert' Baas
Hr.JAg.dish Chandra
Ms. l(ansa Jones
Hr. Albert Myrick
Hr. Ja .. e. Smith
Mr. Dwight Briqht
Ms. VirginiA Harri.
CHR:228:94
".
\
Hr. Emery Haachger
Hr. Awotu Simasso
Hr~ Court Taftt
Mo. Audrey Irwin
Ms~ Goraldine B. Waite
Ms. Jeannie Buscdqlia
Ms. Sandra HcFarlin
Mrs. Mildred Scranton
Hr, Willi ... Radcliffe
Ms. Pamela Russell
Ms. Lol'i Dillow
Ms. Josette Alexander
Mr. , Mrs. Frank C. SK~lloy Jr.
Ms, Judy Williams
Ms. Libby Koponen
Ms. Harion Redler
Mr. Gary Brown
Ms. Lisa Bernstein
Ms. Michele Dallam
Ms. ~icole Oallarn
Mr. Jon Barkhurst
Mr. J. G. Wood
Kr.& Mrs. RJ Pinata
P~. & Mrs. WL Ll~foot
Dr. & Mrs. John Schulte
Ms. Mary Ann Agosti
Ms. Laverne Oi Gino
Mr. Ramsay Waterman
Hs. Katherine Bazak
Mrs. Skipwith Athey
Mr. Drew Lanza
Ms. Dorothy Low
Ms. Linda Brown
Or. W. Hickey
Nice! Prentice and Robert CUlle:nbine., Cornh.h £: Caro~
Corrine Goldstick, Fox & carskadon
Scott Barnum, ~atherine Lerer, Judith B. PJerce, S~vl11e
Properties
CHR:228:94 10
, .•.
. • ,1
\
( I
I,
I
"
';',
,\'
-.
\
:,-', ',',' t
USES Single Family
ACCESS Unlimilod Unlimilcd limited
---------1------------
UTiLlT!ES
PUDl1C 8ENEFIT
POLICY 'SSU ES
ENVIRONMENTAL
lEGALISSU ES
Responsibility or Reql/i,e all RepaIr sewer
~!ctl"!.ser ____________ ~Jllili~~, ____ _
Use rev~nuc lor Crealioll 01 UCpCllrJS on
olner_p_~~~_~ ________ "_ _J?_lJ~_I.!£..!. acilily _____ . ____ . ___ ,_~_c_~_~_~~ ____ _
I='(tv. resjacnce in
_ public Jl..(_El'_~c~t:! __ _
loss 01 10 acres
_of prime o~n spa..£~_
Ballollo revelse
Pub lie use in
eubliEJ)(e~el ve.
Require r'R
large house
lor limited Us{)
.-----------------
F~equrre EIR
OPCH .. , .. leo
loss (II "",sset
Relurn land
(0 ~_()_~£..rya
/-____________ park dedication ______________ ~ ___________ ~.x_e..r a~~ ________ _
COSTS $345.000 $473,000 for $90,000 lor EIR .$35,000 (01
road, bal~ot ErR,renab.,ulil. pfus continuod demolition
·---~6PTKm 5:--'
NEWROAO ------exlii"np1=-.. ':"'----1
l}lOlet,P:uath'O
2)C""'eJe~ __
Unlimiled
CW1'l1i1J1I ('I'
_~I·~_f_~_t.i~~y
Public uw In
Dclermllb' 88 in
__ en"irl):-_l!~eS¥~_~_I __
$386.000 for
COJ1S1f{~lon /-________ +-& parcel map _____ p~~~rd. lmE!:... _____ ~9?SIS _____ . ________________________ ~
REVENUE $1.35-$1.5 M $30,000 to $-10,000 $3l),ooo 10 $40,000
(Onelim!L ___ -'~r_y.ar __________ , ______________ , __ ~1"-"!... ____ _
IMPACTON Remove small Remova small Remove small ftelaln sm. house RamoY9 ~ma"
OTHER PR ESE RVE house and hou se and house and lor careta"'er ho(.lso and
P~OPERTI_E:oS"_ __ _'_,_oje,aS&_b_ar~.----_____ ~_~_~,,_.~_""_-_rn ________ ~oa~~~ ____ ~ __ I~~ barn ___ J~!:S6 b.RfO __ _
: i
-0
.. ::.-.\ "
MAP OF ARAST~ERO PRESERVE o
\ ,
I
----------Prt'Stne Eoundry
Paved Ro-:ld
UllimjHO\·€d Dirt
R(loldffrnil
....... !Uking\Equffi-rj~n Tf;}ii
____ lIikirlg\BiJiing.
-F.qutslri3i1 Trolil
HlK LN£LIB f!.lLS.
TAAIL
CORTE hL\DERA
f'£JU,\fF;TLR
MEADOWlARK
ACORN
. "<
MJLES KILOMETERS HIKING
TIME
I)' 2 •• 1 ". ... ... 40 eniD .
1.25 1.0 1 "'.
1."15 U 1.5 hr_
".,