Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-24 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DATE:APRIL 24, 2001 CMR: 210:01 SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO THE CITY MANAGER REGARDING THE VENTURA SITE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council provide the City Manager with parameters within which to negotiate with the School District regarding the use of the Ventura site. Staff also recommends that the Council direct the City Manager to engage the community in a discussion about the optimal use of ~he site, given the physical, financial and other restrictions under which development of the site is predicated. BACKGROUND On March 23,2001, the City/School Liaison Committee discussed the proposal from Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC). and Avenidas regarding the creation of an intergenerational project at the Ventura site. Minutes of that meeting are attached (Attachment 1). The School District followed up with a formal statement of its position (Attachment 2). On April 16, the four Council Members who represent the City of Palo Alto .on the City/School Liaison Task Force for Joint Master Planning with the Palo Alto Unified School District met to discuss the proposal the Ventura proposal. Vice Mayor Ojakian and Council Members Kleinberg, Burch and Lytle agreed that the purpose of that meeting was to frame the issues surrounding the PACCC/Avenidas request, and to bring those before the full Council for discussion and determination of direction to be given to the City Manager. DISCUSSION The Councilmembers developed three lists (Attachment 3): CMR:210:01 Page 1 of 2 ¯Principles/goals for consideration of the proposal ¯Issues and concerns identified with the proposal ¯Scenarios or options to consider in responding to the proposal. The Committee requested that the City Manager provide the pros and cons of the various scenarios, but theshort turnaround time between the April 16 meeting and the April 24 Council discussion did not permit this additional level of analysis ~t0 be completed. Prepared by: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Emily City Manager Fr~ager Attachment 1" Attachment 2: Attachment 3" Minutes of March 23 City/School Liaison Committee Meeting Letter from Superintendent, PAUSD Principles/Goals, Issues/Concerns, Options/Scenarios to Consider CMR:210:01 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY/SCHOOL LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING FRIDAY, March 23, 2001 Palo Alto Unified School District Conference Room A 25 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto MINUTES Representing the Palo Alto Unified School District Bob Golton, Associate Superintendent for Business Services John .Barton, School Board Vice President Gail Price, School Board Member Representing,the Ci_ty of Palo Alto Judy Kleinberg, Council Member. Nancy Lytle, Council Member Jim Burch, Council Member Frank Benest, City Manager Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager Gayle Likens, Senior Planner ¯ Paul Thiltgen, Director of Community Services Others Mike McKeever, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. Lisa Hendrickson, Avenidas Margo Dutton, PACCC Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barton at 8:10 a.m. Oral Communications from the Public Joan Marx and Kelly Kvam, representing the PTA Traffic Safety Committee at Gunn High School, requested support for a proposal to add bus service to the Arastradero corridor to relieve congestion during school hours. Mr. Barton encouraged them to bring this before the City Council. Approval of Minutes - February 22, 2001 MOTION: Ms. Kleinberg moved that the minutes of the February 22, 2001 meeting be approved as written. Mr. Burch seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. o Avenidas/PACCC Request for Consideration of Accelerating Decision on Ventura Site Mr. Barton reported that the PAUSD Board of Education discussed the Avenidas/PACCC request for space at Ventura School. He said that the District was not willing to give up its right to buy back Ventura and wanted to maintain the repurchase option. He indicated that a letter from Dr. Phillips would be going to the City regarding this decision. Mr. Burch asked if the District would be willing to give up part of the site. Mr. Barton said that there were three potential elementary school sites available to the District if enrollment growth should indicate a need for another school. He said that the site wasn’t needed now, but it might be in 5 to 10 years, and that Ventura was the most logical location. He also stated that the Board felt a need to refocus on educational issues and the mission of PAUSD. Ms. Price added that the Board wished to protect long-term flexibility for the District. Mr. Ojakian said that the City needed to focus on their facilities, too. Dr. Benest added that the four.Council members on the committee should schedule a meeting to discuss how to present a recommendation on the Avenidas/PACCC request to the City Council. He said they would let PAUSD know the outcome of that meeting. Ms. Kleinberg suggested that perhaps the City and PAUSD could discuss developing the property jointly and then perhaps later exchange. She asked if the District wanted the City to make a decision about Ventura or did the District want to participate? Ms. Price said that the District did not have adequate staffto devote time to joint planning. She said that the District wanted to maintain its option rights, and that ultimately it was a City decision to consider this request for community service space and look at other potential sites. Ms. Lytle said that the City must allow for school needs when they did planning and that it was important to work together with the District and consider each entity’s interests. Mr. Burch asked if the District had information through its enrollment projections to know what needs could develop. Dr. Golton explained that there was a large degree of uncertainty in long-term projections because they were less accurate the further out they went. He said that.enrollment growth had leveled off somewhat, but that the District was not certain where it would go in 10 years. Giving away land was not something the District was willing to do. Mr. Barton called upon members of the public who requested to speak. Larry Klein, a member of the PACCC Board, said that he was disappointed with the position taken by the Board of Education. He said that this proposal was not asking the District to give anything away, but was proposing a trade. He said that in exchange for giving.up the option to repurchase the property the District would receive half of the land free. Mr. Klein added that the need was great for this joint facility and the issue needed to be addressed soon. Barry Taylor, CEO of the PMCA, said that his organization was in support of the proposal from Avenidas/PACCC. Ms. Lytle left the meeting at this point. o Mr. Barton said that the idea that some of the Ventura land would be free to the District had never been stated by any City official. Ms. Kleinberg said that the City did not have a formal position on the proposal. Mr. Ojakian said that the City helped to foster both Avenidas and PACCC and had an interest in keeping them within Palo Alto. He said the City needed to decide its position on this issue. Dr. Benest¯ said he would schedule a meeting. Report on Results of City Council and School Board meetings on the Joint Facilities/Services Master Plan Mr. Barton reported that the Board of Education had discussed its participation in the Master Plan and that some of the Board members were concerned about pursuing the study further. He said that the District had interests in the shuttle and library services which might be addressed jointly, but they were not in a position to spend money on a consultant. He said that a joint library might be at Terman or at Gunn, although he added that the Board had just approved the schematic design for the Gunn Library and would be moving forward with construction soon. Dr. Benest indicated that the City library staff had leamed that State funding might be available for city/school collaborative services and that this should be explored further. He suggested that the two groups have a joint meeting with their library people. He said that the City’s interests were also in joint library services and the shuttle, as well as future planning for community use facilities. Ms. Likens explained that it cost $350,000 to run the shuttle last year. She said this was funded by an initial grant plus s6me funds from CalTrain. She said that to run. the program next year and maintain service at the current level would cost the City $220,000, or approximately $100,000 more than the City was paying the first year. Dr. Benest said that the City Council should decide where to cap spending on this and also whether to add new service. He asked if the District would be interested is helping to fund an additional line in the Arastradero area. Mr. Barton said that.the District had not yet discussed that idea. Dr. Benest said that the City would have to replace the grant funding with General Fund dollars, and if the District was willing to help fund additional shuttle service they needed to know. Ms. Kleinberg commented that everyone agreed that the shuttle was providing crucial service. She wanted to work with the District on that. She also suggested that perhaps the Chamber of Commerce could help mobilize the private sector to support the project as well. Ms. Price asked about the possibility that Stanford’s Marguerite service could help. Ms. Likens said that Stanford was not interested in providing service off campus. Mr. Ojakian confirmed that libraries and the shuttle were potential collaborative projects for the City and the District, and he thought it would be good to move ahead on those. Dr. Benest said the City needed to know if the District was willing to contribute funding for an expansion of the shuttle. Mr..Barton said he would agendize this issue at the next Board of Education meeting. He said as a school district they might have access to trahsportation funding that would not be available to the City. Everyone agreed that this should be explored further. The next meeting was set for April 25 at 8:00 a.m. at the District Office. Mr. Barton said that he wanted to agendize further discussion on the makeup, focus and mission of the City/School Liaison Committee. Ms. Harrison said that adding more City Council members on the Committee this year was based upon working together on the Joint Facilities/Services Master Plan. Mr. Ojakian added that good research was done.on the surveys and the future of the joint study needed to be addressed.. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 a.m. The next meeting will be Wednesday, April 25, 2001, at 25 Churchill Avenue. ATTACHMENT 2 PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 25 Churchill Avenue¯ Palo Alto, CA 94306 ° " . Telephone: (650) 329-3737- FAX: (650) 321-3810 OFFICE OF March 28, 2001 Frank Behest, City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Frank: The Board of Education discussed at its last regular meeting the proposal by Avenidas and PACCC regarding the Ventura site. The Board is highly supportive of these two fine organizations ~d recogn~z, es the important roles they play in our community. However, the request to relinquishe option for the School District to repurchase the property at some future date as set out in the -agreement is of grave concern to the Board. The Board’s fiduciary responsibility is to ensure the very best education for not only this generation, but for generations to come. Having neighborhood elementary school facilities to support present and future enrollment is a critical component in ¯ maintaining a quality school system, one that has long been valued by this community. Our enrollment projections over the next three to seven years suggest that we will have sufficient elementary space with Garland and Greendell to support enrollment growth even at the high end of the projected range. However, beyond seven to ten years projections are much more difficult to make with confidence. Stanford’s General Use Plan and the City’s Comprehensive Plan call for significant growth. In particular, the plans call for extensive high-density housing on major transit .corri .dots.and.along El Camino Real. While future development is always uncertain, we can easily hme.agme _that the pressure to address the jobs/housing imbalance could add even more impetus to¯ evelop housing. We can further imagine that traditional notions of density may have to beIncreased to maintain essential open space. These factors could easily lead to an explosion in development around the Ventura School site which would likely lead to- significant increases in school age students in.that area. While we know this development is well in the future and might not materialize, the Board firmly believes it would not be prudent to give up its option to repurchase the Ventura site at some future date. The Board recognizes that the City could move forward.and develop the Ventura property as set out in the purchase agreement to better meet community needs. We are not currently in a position where we would exercise our option to purchase the Ventura site if the City does this. If the City should develop the property, this would obviously make reacquiring the site more expensive for the School District. However, maintaining our option allows the City to move forward with possible development of the site while preserving options for the District to repurchase Ventura in the future. warm ~,g~ds, ~ ¯ Donald A. Phillips, £d.D. Superintendent of Schools cc: Board of Education ATTACHMENT 3 PRINCIPLES/GOALS Within the Comprehensive Plan stalv~iards: ¯Preserve Senior Day Health in Palo Alto ¯Support PACCC renovation at Ventura ¯Improve Ventura site, and consider compact development in any redevelopment of the site ¯Ensure neighborhood services for Ventura community (recreation, parks, human services) ¯Recognize potential need for future school facilities for Ventura community ¯ . Ensure walkable destinations for schools and services ¯Consider traffic impacts/mitigations for any and all proposals ¯Recognize that PACCC and Avenidas are Citycreated non-profits which is the reason they merit special City attention ISSUES/CONCERNS ¯School District’s right to re-acquire Ventura property . ¯Timing for any Ventura school ¯Irregular shape of Ventura site and access issues ¯Certainty about improving site ¯Potential for tax-increment financing ¯Dollars - City’s and other people’s (primary source of funds should not be City dollars) ¯Loss of neighborhood services at the site ¯Loss of Senior Day Health in Palo Alto ¯How to anticipatefuture needs of community (City and District) ¯How do we accommodate larger citywide population? ¯How do, we accommodate different demographics? ¯What does the data (census,.non-profit projections)indicate? ¯Public input from Ventura communityand broader community ¯City and District’s responsibility to high-need Ventura community ¯Senior Day Health timeline ¯Need to collaborate and plan with School District POSSIBLE OPTIONS/SCENARIOS TO CONSIDER o 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Multi-service project at Ventura: establish intergenerational project at Ventura while preserving current services and leave existing open space Do nothing PACCC/Avenidas may not be able to be together anywhere; Senior Day Health located somewhere else Cubberley as site for intergenerational project Maximize use of remaining 1.2 acres remaining for community (i.e. Ventura site is 4.6 acres, of which 2.2 is park/open space, 1.2 would be the multi-service project and 1.2 acres remains) Expand Ventura site Consider alternative sites for schools, community services Design Ventura site to accommodate a future school Put Senior Day Health in Roth building, even temporarily; Avenidas and other non- profits Would pay for refurbishing Roth building Find other sites for Senior Day Health (by itself or with others) Help PACCC refurbish at Ventura