Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-24 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting April 24, 2001 1. Report from City Council Members of the School Committee Requesting City Council discussion and direction on the Ventura site ......................... 43 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. .......... 63 04/24/01 92-42 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Fazzino, Wheeler. SPECIAL MEETING 1. Report from City Council Members of the School Committee Requesting City Council discussion and direction on the Ventura site Mayor Eakins stated that Council Member Wheeler would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because her employer, Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC), had significant long-term contracts with both the City and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) City Manager Frank Benest stated the City Council would formally consider the future of the Ventura site as it related to the Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC)/Avenidas proposal for use as an intergenerational facility. The City purchased the Ventura site for $1.2 million in 1980. The site has been leased to the PACCC for $1. per year since 1981. The site is serviced by the PACCC Administration; two independent child care centers; a police substation; an adult education center; training programs for adults and teens; the Henry Page computer lab for middle and high school students operated by the YMCA; the teen YMCA; youth community services; and programs for those in need as well as community use of the facility for neighborhood events and meetings. The buildings on the Ventura site required major renovation. PACCC’s five-year lease commenced July 1, 2000, which could be extended five years from 2005-2010 if PACCC painted the facility within three years. The rent of $245,000 would be waived with the provision that the PACCC provided full service community based childcare. PACCC is primarily responsible for all maintenance and repair on site to their facilities. The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) had the right to repurchase the 2.4 acres at current market value. They could also purchase the other two-acres at half of current market value. Any repurchase required one year advanced notice. The PAUSD must also pay the amortized costs of improvements made by the City. The City could not make any 04/24/01 92-43 improvements that exceeded $100,000, plus an inflation factor since 1980 without giving the PAUSD 60 days written notice. The letter from PACCC and Avenidas that was included in the packet of Council material identified their intergenerational proposal. The proposal involved a two-story, 40,000-square-foot building, with a guarantee of no loss of park or open space. 1.2 acres of the 4.6-acre site would remain for community use. All uses and services existing on the site, including community space, would be maintained and enhanced. The City owned the site; however, the PAUSD had a repurchase option. A letter submitted by the PAUSD stated enrollment projection for the next three to seven years illustrated sufficient elementary space in other elementary schools. The seven-to-ten year projections were challenging. The Comprehensive Plan and the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) might impact enrollment and cause a significant increase in students to the PAUSD; therefore, the PAUSD Board did not wish to give up the repurchase option. Since the City was the owner of the property, they could go forward and redevelop the site or work with PACCC and Avenidas in redevelopment of the site, which would make repurchase in the future more expensive. The City/School Liaison Committee (The Committee) had worked on a Joint Master Plan of facilities and services. The PAUSD indicated it was unable to support Phase One of the Master Plan at the present time. The PAUSD agreed to pursue a joint library proposal and an extension of city shuttle services with the City. Members of the City/School Liaison Committee met and identified general principles and goals to be applied in considering the future of the Ventura site, as well as the PACCC and Avenidas proposal. The Committee agreed to preserve the Senior Day Health program; support the PACCC renovation; promote compact development and redevelopment of the Ventura site; ensure neighborhood services for the Ventura community to include recreation, parks, playground, and open space, as well as a variety of health and human services. The Committee also considered walkable destinations and the impact and mitigation of traffic. Issues and concerns included the PAUSD’s right to reacquire the Ventura property; to consider the timing of when a potential school site would be needed; the irregular shape of the Ventura site for planning purposes; some level of certainty for improving the site; the potential for tax increment financing for improvements; and a general concern about City dollars. The Committee did not want a loss of neighborhood services at the site or a loss of Senior Day Health in Palo Alto. Input from the Ventura community, as 04/24/01 92-44 well as the broader community, was welcomed in consideration of the proposal. It was the responsibility of the City and the PAUSD to meet the needs of the Ventura community. Senior Day Health had a short timeline to find a solution to the long-term facility needs. The Committee drafted scenarios that included the Avenidas/PACCC proposal of the multi-service intergenerational project; acknowledgement that PACCC and Avenidas might not be able to co-locate together; doing nothing with the Ventura site; utilizing the Cubberley Community Center as the site for the intergenerational project; and maximizing use of the remaining 1.2 acres for other community uses. Of the 4.6 acres at the Ventura site; 2.2 acres is park and open space, 1.2 acres could be for multi-service project, and the remaining 1.2 acres to be used for school or community uses which would enhance the Ventura site. There was some discussion about expanding the physical location of Ventura. Finding alternative sites for schools was also discussed as well as community services. A suggestion was made by the Committee to relocate the Senior Day Health program to the Roth Building, even temporarily, whereby Avenidas and other non-profit groups would pay for refurbishing the building if that could be a multi-service center. If the intergenerational project was not a good idea for the Ventura site, there was a suggestion of finding other sites in Palo Alto for the Senior Day Health program, or finding a way to help PACCC refurbish the Ventura site. Margo Dutton, Executive Director of Palo Alto Community ChildCare, 3990 Ventura Court, stated the Ventura site first began 20 years prior with needs for senior services, youth services, childcare, and women services. The only service that had changed was the women’s services that had not been presently identified as a need. The remaining services were high on the list of needs for the community. The condition of the building was beyond maintenance and repair status; it needed significant renovations. The primary reasons why the intergenerational project was advantages to PACCC were: 1) PACCC would collaborate with Avenidas in fundraising, making it possible to complete the renovations needed, and 2) the land use issues and high density housing planned for the Ventura site made good sense. In the 1980’s, argument was made not to close Greendale. It was felt the Greenhouse project was a high-density housing project which was going to swamp the PAUSD with additional enrollment. That additional enrollment did 04/24/01 92-45 not happen and Greendale had been, and was still the site for the preschool family and other PAUSD uses. The Palo Alto Central and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation family housing projects located at California and Park Avenues where also slated to increase the enrollment in the PAUSD, which did not happen. School enrollment had increased in Barron Park and somewhat in the Ventura area. The Barron Park Elementary School was reopened as a neighborhood school and it had a significant number of vacant slots which could accommodate growth in the future. Finally, the Crossroads project in Mountain View did not impact the Los Alto Unified School District in terms of enrollment. It was believed that Ventura was a good site for that particular program. Lisa Hendrickson, President of Avenidas, stated a proposal to build a 40,000-square-foot building on a maximum 30,000- square-foot footprint. Avenidas was committed to build on the 1.2 to 1.4 acres that was asked for. Approximately half of the 40,000-square-feet would be used for childcare services and resources such as the Childcare Provider Resource Center. The other half of the building would be split equally between the Senior Day Health Center and community use. Of that quarter of the building, half would initially be set aside for the many community uses. The remaining half would be utilized to bring more senior services to South Palo Alto, where more than half of the seniors live. Avenidas needed to go out into the community to be of greater service to the many seniors who remained underserved. In looking at the Ventura site, there would be ample space for additional use by the PAUSD. Rob Huggins, Ventura Neighborhood commented on the activities that occur at the Ventura Activity Center. From his house, which bordered the Center, he could see the south side of the facility, the park area, the play structure and the basketball courts. He had lived in the area for over ten years and had a good sense of the activities of the Center, the current tenants, and the persons who utilize the services offered at the site. He had frequent interactions with PACCC, first when his own children went through daycare, and now with PACCC as a neighbor to his children and their friends. He observed the facilities heavy usage from dawn until well past dusk. It is a positive and safe environment for residents young and old. He was interested in finding a safe and exciting environment for the pre-teen and teenage children who 04/24/01 92-46 gathered in the park. Most of these kids have chosen skateboarding and spend countless hours learning and practicing. The Ventura Activity Center keeps skateboarders out of areas where skateboarding was prohibited and away from local businesses. The people of PACCC were supportive of the kids by giving them a place to play, tolerant of their exuberance and interested in their needs. The YMCA was also supportive of the skateboard facility. The proposal for the multigenerational center should be strongly considered. Marge Quackenbush stated in her opinion the multigenerational center was a win-win proposal. It was one that would renovate a deteriorating City structure using private funds. She believed it was also important to keep an Adult Day Health Center in Palo Alto. Between 1985 to 1991 she had four immediate family members in nursing homes. Adult Day Health was less expensive. It delayed placing someone in a nursing home. At an Adult Day Health Center better care was received and was a more stimulating environment than a nursing home. Looking at the aging of Palo Alto, there were not many nursing homes around the community. If a family member needed to go into a nursing home, it might not necessarily be in Palo Alto. One might have to move to be nearer, or more importantly be concerned about the care received. Staff who worked in nursing homes generally received minimum wage and did not have the medical training and skill that staff at the Senior Day Health Center had. Michele Wilkinson, Activity Director, Avenidas Senior Day Health Center, commented on the joy, sense of worth and accomplishment derived from the intergenerational programs. Older adults needed to nurture, have a successful life review, be able to communicate positive values; and children needed to be nurtured, learn from and about the past, and have positive role models. A generational divide existed between the seniors who created the history and the young people who needed to learn of it. There could be an opportunity to provide caregiving solutions for both young and aging to greatly enhance the quality of life, and increase community involvement. The intergenerational community envisioned was not just a day center for either generation, but a place of higher learning. Avenidas had the opportunity to give entire libraries of informational history based on first-hand experiences of the seniors and families served to the children of the community. Seniors 04/24/01 92-47 would develop an increased sense of worth and importance and children would develop an understanding and positive attitude of the aging process. Jeanne Wohlers, Chair of the Avenidas Board of Directors, discussed two considerations that were both urgent and critical: timing and money. The Senior Day Health program lease expired in four years, and four months. Time was needed for fundraising, planning, obtaining permits, and actual construction. Avenidas was currently behind schedule. Avenidas with PACCC was committed to raising the money to build the intergenerational center from private donations. It was estimated to cost between $10 to $12 million. A capital campaign would be successful if properly structured. The Ventura site was ideal in many ways, but with one complication. The property, owned by the City, was encumbered by the PAUSD option to repurchase it at any time. We could not be successful raising money for an intergenerational center unless assurances could be provided to the donors that the facility could be used for its intended purpose. If it could be ensured that the economic value of the facility would be preserved, the capital campaign could still be successful. One suggested solution was to provide a fair value buyout option on the facility to the City or the PAUSD, with support of the Council. The Board of Avenidas was committed to continue to provide the Senior Day Health Program in Palo Alto or elsewhere in the Mid-Peninsula area. Peter Wing, Director of Heffalump Cooperative Nursery, 3990 Ventura Court, presented a video on adult daycare for frail seniors and childcare in a shared site. He stated he was the director of one of the independent childcare centers who subleased space at the Ventura site. The childcare center supported the proposal presented by PACCC. He cautioned the Council not to make a decision based on increased density. He encouraged the Council to make a decision with the thought of what type of effect the proposal would have on the Councils’ children and grandchildren, and what kind of place the Council Members would like them to live. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked how many children Heffalump serviced. 04/24/01 92-48 Mr. Wing stated Heffalump was licensed for a capacity of 22 children, but enrollment was held below that amount. Because of part-time usage, the total amount was about 25 families per year. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the childcare center currently serviced children from the neighborhood. Mr. Wing stated yes. Generally some local families as well as those families outside of Palo Alto were serviced. Annabelle Woodard, 467 Ferne Avenue, supported the proposed building of the new center at the Ventura site. It seemed that many children lacked contact with grandparents, and the elderly enjoyed being around children. The concept covered the spectrum of life. As a parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent she felt fine being an elder, especially in Palo Alto. Her husband had dementia. As his caregiver, Avenidas Day Health Care had been a lifesaver for those who needed to be part of the program and for those who cared for them. Staff welcomed every participant who came to Avenidas Day Health Care with skill and care. Their gift to the community was caring for frail family members. She trusted that the City of Palo Alto would continue to give the community the benefit for the children and the reward of the Avenidas Day Health Care Center. Katherine Putral, 3375 Alma Street, #378, stated she started volunteer work at the Palo Alto Community Childcare Center at semi-retirement and realized that raising children presenting was different from when she was young. Many of the children do not have grandparents and she was proud to be a surrogate grandmother. She believed having the Senior Day Center and Childcare Center together was a well thought out and welcomed innovation. Rachel Samoff, Executive Director of the Children’s Preschool Center, 3527 South Court, stated their center was a non-profit agency serving human needs. Most of the non- profit organizations in Palo Alto feared ownership changes and repossession that left them to wonder where they were going to go. It was difficult for non-profit agencies to survive in Palo Alto. The Avenidas and PACCC proposal allowed the Senior Daycare Center to stay in Palo Alto, but it provided a new and innovative way to combine human services, make the most of a facility, keep both programs in Palo Alto, and ensure going forward in innovative ways 04/24/01 92-49 in serving the community. She urged the Council to seize the opportunity. Barbara Bowden, 2001 Middlefield Road, supported the Senior Day Health Program and the intergenerational program; however, she did not feel the Ventura site was the only place where that could happen. She was distressed at the City/School real estate exchanges that had taken place. Taxpayers paid to build and maintain the schools, to have the City buy the schools, and then to have the PAUSD buy the sites back from the City, and each time at the inflated real estate costs. Palo Alto citizens needed to search for a long-term home for a center to provide care for the elderly without short changing students in the future, particularly in an area of already planned high density housing. Mona Miller, Board Member of Avenidas, 751 Christine Drive, believed the concept of an intergenerational project was a good one. She knew from personal experience how important the Senior Day Health Center could be. Her husband went from despair about his weakening condition to looking forward to his days at the center. The proposed intergenerational center would serve in a positive way, many members of the community. Avenidas was in need of a place for intergenerational care plus a well-developed space for the nearby community. Bill Evers, 1146 Waverly Street, felt the PAUSD should give a waiver to the intergenerational center’s portion of the Ventura site stretching as far as 35 years. PAUSD’s own possible interest in the Ventura school, rested sometime in the future. The PAUSD could build a two-story facility on the remaining portion if they decided it was needed. He supported the City’s consideration of improving the site with high quality work. The possible loss of the Senior Day Health program in Palo Alto was a serious possibility. There was also a possibility that the center could migrate to Mountain View. The timeline for the Ventura site was reasonable, understandable, serious, and a reality. He urged the City Council to do its utmost to facilitate the historic opportunity. Amy Balsom, 3705 Park Boulevard, stated that her family had lived in the Ventura neighborhood for four years. While it would be great to have a school in the neighborhood and not have to cross El Camino Real, she did not see how the 04/24/01 92-50 demographics supported yet another elementary school in that part of town. Barron Park Elementary School currently had less than 200 students. She was hesitant to preclude the use of the site for other vital community services on the potential shift in the population when there was additional capacity at nearby schools. It took a lot of parent participation and involvement to start Barron Park Elementary School. The school struggled with parent participation due to the diverse population that was serviced by the school. Palo Alto needed to ensure that non-profit organizations had a place in the community. The use of the Ventura site for Avenidas and PACCC, along with other community serving organizations, was very important. Council Member Kleinberg stated the Council initially tried to locate that evenings meeting at the Ventura site; however, it could not be filmed live or recorded because the filming crew required two weeks advanced notice. If another meeting were held on the issue, the Council would try to have it at that site. Karen Kang, 535 Patricia Lane, believed in both the Avenidas and PACCC organizations. Both of her children attended the after-school daycare program for many years, and her mother was a patient of a nursing home. The issue was not whether Avenidas and PACCC provided worthwhile services to the community; the issue was whether or not the community needed the Ventura site for a school in the foreseeable future. It did not make sense to invest a lot of money and property that the PAUSD may need in a few years. Existing tenants would fight to stay. The location of a school must take precedence over other uses. The proposal to give up half the Ventura site to the intergeneration facility for a few acres to the PAUSD made no sense. Two acres was inadequate for a school that needed open space for playing fields. The Ventura site was not the only location for Avenidas and PACCC; other locations should be investigated. Palo Alto was too willing to offer school sites as available property for non-school uses and owed it the community and the children to think beyond what was expedient and do what was right for Palo Alto. Wing See Leung, Outreach Director of Palo Alto Family YMCA, 214 El Camelo Avenue, stated the YMCA had been located in the Ventura neighborhood for about five-years. The teen center was a part of the YMCA since the Fall of 1997. Many of the needs of the facility were not being met because of 04/24/01 92-51 its poor condition. A state-of-the-art facility was needed. Community support recently came from Intel Corporation with a $25,000 grant for equipment, but the current condition of the computer lab could not support the amount of power needed to operate it. Having a site for the kids they could call their own has made all the difference in positive character development and empowerment. Character development was equally as important as academic development and the YMCA needed to work together to ensure the longevity of both. Betsy Allyn, 4186 Willmar Drive, said asking the City of Palo Alto to make those types of decisions was like asking them to choose amongst their children. Palo Alto and Stanford were in discussions over the use and availability of six-and-a-half acres at the Mayfield site located on El Camino Real. The Mayfield site should and could easily be shared with other Palo Alto non-profit groups such as PACCC and Avenidas. The Ventura site was a possible future school site and should be protected by the PAUSD as such. The PAUSD should not relinquish the Ventura site or any of its sites nor should pressure be put on them to do so. The controversies with the Terman and Palo Alto High School sites demonstrated the serious and high regard in which students, parents, and grandparents held their schools and the extent to which they would go to protect and maintain the integrity of the school site. It was not wise to continue to put the school sites in jeopardy. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, stated that although she was not a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, her neighborhood had also suffered at the loss of Hoover School, which was now occupied by apartment buildings. The portion of land in Midtown currently used by tenants on Middlefield Road was acquired by the City in exchange for dedicated parkland at the Palo Alto Golf Course. A portion of the 3.73 acres at that site was currently used for the Winter Lodge and parking. The City was proposing to create a private tennis club on the remaining portion of property surrounded by a ten-foot cement wall. The proposed piece of land for the tennis club would be an ideal location for PACCC and Avenidas. Palo Alto presently had more than 60 public tennis courts and access to many private clubs and institutions such as Stanford University, Foothill and Menlo Colleges. Available land for education and public use had become scarce. The proposed childcare center and senior care center would be compatible with the Midtown 04/24/01 92-52 neighborhood and the existing Winter Lodge skating facility. David Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, stated he had lived in Palo Alto for 43 years near the Ventura School and had seen many changes. The Ventura neighbors would like to be included in the decision-making so they could form an opinion of what the effects would be. Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, stated the Senior Day Health Center met critical needs among the frail elderly and must be preserved in Palo Alto. The short timeline to relocate the valuable community asset should not push the choice as a permanent home, a site that would likely be needed by the PAUSD in the future. The City acquired new community center sites where the Senior Day Health Center could relocate to without threatening PAUSD sites or dislocating valued non-profit organizations. On either the six-acre Mayfield site or the eight-acre Cubberley site, multi-structures could be built to accommodate Avenidas and PACCC, among other uses. An intergenerational community center such as the Cubberley Community Center would extend the value of Senior Friendship Days now co-sponsored there by Avenidas and the City. Mayfield and Cubberley would offer convenient access via major transit arteries. Neither of those sites would set in opposition the needs of today’s frail seniors against the needs of tomorrow’s young children. Both offered potential capital campaign donors the reassurance that their contribution would build a truly permanent home for the Senior Day Health Center as part of a South Palo Alto intergenerational center. She urged the Council to designate a permanent home for the Senior Day Health Center combined with PACCC rather than pushing toward the Ventura school site as a temporary site for that essential Palo Alto facility. Kristen Johnson, 245 Wilton Avenue, had lived in the Ventura neighborhood since 1986. As a member of the Ventura Neighborhood Association and on the Special Events Committee, she believed it would be an enormous mistake not to take the time and effort to get community input. She urged the City to take the opportunity to create a multi- use facility in Palo Alto that had not been created elsewhere. Leannah Hunt, 245 Lytton Avenue, stated the issue was of land-use that had generated a great deal of emotional 04/24/01 92-53 response. She urged the Council not to create another difficult situation, similar to that of the Terman site, which would further divide the community. It was essential that the Council finalize a long-term land-use program and work with the PAUSD to look at all possible sites. Vikki Velkoff, 4060 Park Boulevard, lived in the Ventura neighborhood, and would like to see more dialogue between the Council and the neighborhood on the pros and cons of the use of the Ventura site for Avenidas and PACCC. She urged the Council to consider having another meeting on this issue at the Ventura site. Kirsten Leuhrs, 2150 Birch Street, had a child that attends Heffalump preschool, located at the Ventura site. As a working parent she was familiar with the childcare and preschool options in the Palo Alto area. Since 1997 she had been on four PACCC waiting lists and was unable to find part-time childcare for her youngest child when local employees were there to take the full-time vacancies. The community needed childcare for part-time workers and the self-employed. The PACCC and Avenidas project deserved further attention from City staff. She asked the Council to consider defining PACCC and Avenidas priority for enrollment for families who lived in the City. Uri Berman, 810 Miranda Green, participated in the Senior Day Health Center and believed it was a unique and important asset of the community. The Center had a good nursing and health program. The health program included physical therapy, speech therapy, and exercising. He urged the Council to support the effort. Janice Gaal, 290 Ventura Avenue, #2, stated her three children enjoyed the Ventura site. They used the treehouse, participated in creative play, and used the play structures. She felt her children were safe when they played outside. Carolyn Tucher, 4264 Manuela Way, cared for both the Avenidas and PACCC proposal as well as the PAUSD. She asked the Council not to repeat its mistakes of the past. There was no answer as to whether school enrollment would increase or decrease in the next fifteen years. If housing increased to meet some of the regional needs and school enrollments increased beyond PAUSD capacity, where would the children be educated and who would pay. 04/24/01 92-54 Bobby Lane, 649 University Avenue, #404, valued the Avenidas program. It currently served the needs of the varied economic neighborhood. He urged the Council to keep it going. Pat Burt, 1249 Harriet, would like the Council and staff to include in their plans the needs of the independent childcare providers located at Ventura. His children had attended Heffalump. They benefited from the nurturing environment and diversity Heffalump provided. He urged the Council to ensure that independent childcare providers continue to have affordable space available to them. Max Gaal, 290 Ventura Avenue, #2, lived in an apartment without a backyard, and he and his brother frequently made use of the grassy fields, the play structures and the bike ramps at the Ventura site. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, said the concerns of the City Manager were well taken in keeping flexibility on the Ventura site. She supported the intergenerational facility but was bothered about decisions being made before deliberations as to the best use of the site. If the PAUSD was not ready to enter into joint planning at that time would that mean giving up planning all together. She felt the Council should insist that whatever new structures were built would be convertible to a school. Sheila Mandoli, 729 LaPara Avenue, had recruited senior volunteers to read, play, and spend time with children in PACCC. Both young and old had laughed and enjoyed those times. An intergenerational program was vastly different. It would enable young and old alike to form relationships that would provoke growth and understanding. Lissy Bland, 235 Wilton Avenue, was deeply disturbed by the condition of the site. If the PAUSD did not believe it needed the site for a school for seven to ten years, would the site continue to deteriorate. At the middle and high school level, the PAUSD had been careful to make social-economic status of the school relatively even. At the elementary school level this was harder to do. If the Ventura site does became a school again, it would do better as a young fives program or a magnate school. Her main concern was that the Ventura site not continue to languish in such a wealthy community. 04/24/01 92-55 Boo Strauss Bullis, former Social Services Director, Senior Day Health Center, 1155 Pimento Avenue, Sunnyvale, felt a sense of panic for the Senior Day Health Center to find a home. In speaking with a group of young children who would be visiting the Senior Day Health Center, she found that very few of the children came into contact with older adults who were impaired. They did not understand what was wrong with them and were a little frightened. When they came together, both the young and the elderly had a wonderful time. Trina Lovercheck, 1070 McGregor Way, supported the concept of a multi-generational use on the Ventura site. Many people moved to Palo Alto far from family members so their children grew up without grandparents or other family adults. The proposed program was one way children would find that connection or have other older people who could make a difference in their lives. Both PACCC and Avenidas provided important services for Palo Alto. It was hard to believe that the PAUSD would need the Ventura site as a school again. Both Barron Park and Juana Briones Elementary Schools were under capacity. If enrollment growth occurred, it would be a long time until that enrollment growth impacted to where Ventura would be needed. Larry Klein, member of the PACCC Board, 872 Scale, stated the intergenerational project would be a win-win situation for Avenidas; for PACCC; the Ventura neighborhood, which would benefit from a newer facility; the City; and the PAUSD. It was in the community’s best interest for the PAUSD to be cooperative in the matter. The proposal from Avenidas and PACCC was for the remaining one-acre of developable land be available to the PAUSD at no cost. For the PAUSD to exercise its option to repurchase the Ventura site was something the PAUSD could not afford. By providing the acre of “free land” was more than a good deal for the school district. It would enable them to have flexibility. He hoped that the Council would proceed accordingly and provide the win-win condition for the community. Mayor Eakins announced the Public Hearing closed at 9:18 p.m. RECESS: 9:20 p.m. to 9:25 p.m. 04/24/01 92-56 Mayor Eakins announced that one speaker card was missed from Mr. Huang and she declared the public hearing reopened. Royal Huang, 3996 Second Street, lived adjacent to the Ventura Park. His family was an intergenerational family that had used the park for playing on the equipment and playing basketball. Mr. Huang expressed concern for the implementation of the traffic impact measures. Mayor Eakins stated Mr. Huang’s question regarding traffic impact measures would be addressed when a decision was made. Currently no decisions have been made. She said the presentation of the proposal by PACCC and Avenidas was only an initial presentation. The staff had not yet received direction to explore anything at that point. May Eakins declared the public hearing closed. Vice Mayor Ojakian agreed with the City/School Liaison Sub-Committee which put together a series of items that were discussed with the City Manager. As the Chairperson of the Committee he added the following recommendations: 1) inform the PAUSD of the intention to improve the site; 2) affirm that a portion of the site should be maintained as open space for the public; 3) maintain and enhance the Ventura site services including possibly the PACCC and Avenidas project at the site; 4) consider neighborhood preference system for services provided at this site; 5) retain a portion of the site to be undeveloped for future needs possibly by PAUSD; and 6) encourage continuing or additional public dialogue. He reminded his colleagues the former Ventura School site was owned by the City. It was the last site that the Council would have joint discussion over with the PAUSD. The former Ventura School site was built in 1958. It had been decommissioned as a school for more years than it was active. The site was in poor condition and something would need to be done about it. It had the original electrical system, heating and air conditioning system, and lighting fixtures. The City should step in and take a leadership position and repair the Ventura site. The recommendation to retain a section of the parkland as open space would ensure not losing the site. Currently 2.2 acres of the parkland was open space and was purchased at a discounted rate under the Nayler Act, with the specific intent of being open space. The facility improvements that were proposed would retain the current 04/24/01 92-57 services provided by PACCC and could provide the additional services of Avenidas. When the Ventura School site closed in 1978 and switched hands to the City in 1980, there were few takers that wanted to occupy the site. It was suggested at that time that the County of Santa Clara (the County) could provide services for persons in the neighborhood. The County as well as several other agencies turned that proposal down. The only agency who took the offer was PACCC and they had continued to provide services for persons in the neighborhood. Avenidas was a unique non-profit organization. They provided services to persons who were at risk. The City had an obligation to try and retain a particular type of service. The suggested alternative site of the Cubberley Community Center (CCC) would overlook the Cubberley Master Plan. The concept was one of a “piecemeal” operation and planning “on-the-fly”. It ignored some type of improvement at the Ventura site had to occur. In terms of maintaining and enhancing the Ventura site through the proposed PACCC and Avenidas project, there was supportive information in the Comprehensive Plan (the Comp Plan). There was a South El Camino Workshop held in which there was public input. During that workshop there was emphasis to retain the Ventura site as a community center and for daycare use. The section entitled, “Policy C14” of the Comp Plan “encouraged intergeneration interaction and provided solutions for childcare need”. The City Manager should have additional public meetings on the issue, within a short time frame. Council Member Lytle said the City had a responsibility to move forward with the project. It was an important project for the community and should be acted upon expeditiously. The City also had the responsibility to plan the future land use and infrastructure to support population growth for the community. The Comp Plan EIR projected for the Ventura site would be needed by 2010, as would other sites as well. Palo Alto housing estimates and those of Stanford combined with the demographic trend made that projection realistic. Why should the City plan for a future school. If the City decided to build a project in four years that would need to be reclaimed for a school three years later, that would be a disservice to the community. When the PAUSD was compelled to sell the Ventura site, the community wanted to maintain the quality of life and walkable schools to meet future needs when the population of school children increased again. A plan was needed to plan for uses for PACCC, Avenidas, and the PAUSD. We should not trade one for 04/24/01 92-58 the other. These were alternatives to consider and there would be a responsibility to the community to look at those alternatives as well as a California Environmental Quality Act responsibility. Ventura could be improved for neighborhood and school purposes in cooperation with the PAUSD. The City had the ability to find and accommodate the intergenerational project with a long-term and permanent commitment to them. She would like to see the City explore with the community in a swift process the Ventura site as well as other sites in accommodating the community and the needs of the City. Council Member Mossar said how a previous speaker talked about the drive to continue to find new services for increased population and density. As part of the planning process, the Council needed to acknowledge an obligation to care for those persons who were here. It should not be assumed that Palo Alto would continue to grow in employment and populations without careful consideration. It would therefore be a mistake to take, as a foregone conclusion that the community would be larger and need more services in the future. The Ventura site should provide ample room, with careful planning, for facilities that were adequate for community services and PAUSD needs, if necessary. The City previously had a strong commitment to community services with Avenidas and PACCC in particular. If the Ventura site was not developed, it would cause a blight in the neighborhood that might not be converted to anything. Developing the site to improve community services for those known to have real needs for those services was good planning. Council Member Beecham stated his first concern was relative responsibilities. The community had elected officials with the responsibility to decide the future of the schools, needs for the schools, and future demographics, It is not the duty, role, or right of the Council to make those decisions. Secondly, the PAUSD and the Council were in sync for the site. Twenty years prior the PAUSD and the City signed the purchase agreement for the Ventura site. In that agreement it specifically allowed for the City to make investments on the site. However the City proceeded, he hoped the Council and the PAUSD could mutually decide what happened at Ventura. Council Member Burch did not doubt the community as a whole supported an intergenerational facility. He believed the 04/24/01 92-59 City should explore the possibilities at the Ventura site before seeking out alternative sites. Public dialogues were important and should continue; looking long and hard on how Ventura could work. He concurred with Mr. Klein on his win-win approach. It was imperative for Avenidas to find a home for Senior Day Health and hopefully the Council would receive a report back from the City Manager by July 1, 2001, to move forward and give PACCC and Avenidas a clear sign to either go ahead or find an alternative site. Council Member Kleinberg said there would be opportunities to hear from all different sectors of the community, but most importantly from the persons who lived in the neighborhood and who would be served by either a multi-service center or a school. The fastest growing population in Palo Alto was seniors. There was an array of adequate services, particularly non-profit services for seniors, which was something everybody should consider. A plan was needed for senior services. The project by Avenidas and PACCC was an inspired and forward thinking opportunity. Whatever plan the Council came up with should maximize the community’s investment in the Ventura site without precluding the future use of the site by the PAUSD. Vice Mayor Ojakian emphasized that the Ventura site would need about $1,000,000 for renovation costs per the infrastructure study. The money would come from Avenidas and PACCC and not the City. Mayor Eakins stated that if the Council were to go forward with the Avenidas and PACCC proposal, the follow-up meetings would need to be at Ventura, the outreach needed to be improved and the neighborhood needed to be more involved. She enjoyed hearing from the audience that the Ventura site would have full-service capabilities. As part of the Housing Element Update, she called for having the community as a whole, look carefully at how to add housing to the community. There was plenty of call for affordable housing. The community had not had discussions about how much housing to add, at what rate, and what type. That would be done at part of the Housing Element Update. It was anticipated to be parallel with some of the explorations that occurred in the Ventura community. The El Camino Corridor had been rezoned for multi-family housing. That could be looked at as small units, which was the ideal way to get the most affordable housing. If the units were 04/24/01 92-60 small, it might not produce the number of children that larger units produce. MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Beecham, to direct the City Manager to pursue the site for a PACCC/Avenidas intergenerational facility and provide appropriate parameters, and to engage the community in discussion on the optimal use of the Ventura site given the constraints. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND SECONDER to collaborate, using the City's best effort to engage the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) in planning for the best use of the site. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER that the City Manager report back to the Council by July 1, 2001, with an initial report. Vice Mayor Ojakian stated that with any final proposal, the City retain the 2.2 acres as open space. Council Member Beecham said he would include consideration of keeping it as is until there were more plans and it is known what would happen and what the uses were. Council Member Mossar suggested voting on the main motion. Mayor Eakins agreed to vote on the main motion with the two incorporations and then add any additions. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the collaboration with the PAUSD. She questioned the suggested timeline, in terms of moving along and facilitating the process. Council Member Beecham said if the City asked the PAUSD to participate in the discussion, and it was not able to do so, the City had done what it could. Council Member Kleinberg stated it required collaboration with the PAUSD. Should the motion state, “make our best effort to engage the school district in co-planning.” Council Member Beecham agreed. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Lytle "no," Fazzino, Wheeler absent. 04/24/01 92-61 Vice Mayor Ojakian wanted to add to the motion the following: 1) maintaining a portion of the site as open space; and 2) if the site is developed as a community center and service-type use, that some preference be given to the people in the neighborhood Council Member Kleinberg stated confusion over the previous vote and requested clarification. There seemed to be some confusion as to whether the Council voted to pursue the Ventura site or to ask the City Manager to explore “a site”, of which Ventura could be a site. Council Member Mossar clarified the motion as stated in the staff report did not state Ventura. Mayor Eakins clarified the previous vote to pursue a site. Council Member Lytle stated she understood the motion and the wording to be site meaning the Ventura site. Her vote was against pursuing the Ventura site for PACCC/Avenidas intergenerational facility, not “a” site. She was committed to finding an appropriate site for PACCC/Avenidas but had not come to the conclusion Ventura was the appropriate site. Council Member Beecham interpreted the motion to mean the Ventura site. MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Lytle, to reconsider the motion. MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to: 1) direct the City Manager to pursue the Ventura site for a PACCC/Avenidas intergenerational facility and provide appropriate parameters, and to engage the community in discussion on the optimal use of the Ventura site given the constraints; 2) collaborate, using the City's best effort to engage the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) in planning for the best use of the site; and 3) direct the City Manager to report back to the Council by July 1, 2001, with an initial report. Council Member Kleinberg stated the proposal needed to be expedited and to direct the City Manager to consider the Ventura site as well as alternative sites. 04/24/01 92-62 Mayor Eakins asked for contingency plans or a survey of other available sites. Council Member Kleinberg specified direction to the City Manager was needed to analyze the Ventura site but also to look at other sites. Vice Mayor Ojakian supported for the motion. The City needed to maintain and enhance the Ventura site services. Council Member Burch stated discussions that evening were all about Ventura and meeting at Ventura with the Ventura community. The Ventura site should be pursued and if that did not work than look elsewhere. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Lytle "no," Fazzino, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, that a portion of the parcel be maintained as open space for the public, and that consideration be given to the neighborhood preference system for services. Council Member Beecham supported for the motion based upon the contract with the PAUSD and the Nayler Act. The City was obligated to keep a portion of the parcel as recreation and/or open space as long as the City owned it. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to ask the City Manager to review other sites including the Roth building as a temporary site or as a contingency plan for the proposal of PACCC and Avenidas. Council Member Lytle would like the motion expanded not to be interim but contingency. MOTION PASSED 4-3, Ojakian, Beecham, Mossar "no," Fazzino, Wheeler absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. 04/24/01 92-63 ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 04/24/01 92-64