City Council Schools

Upcoming Los Altos Public Lands Meeting – Even more Constraints

City-School Public Lands Committee. Shown Marcia Sommers, Tamara Logan, Vladimir Ivanovich, Jeannie Bruins, Jan Pepper.
City-School Public Lands Committee. Shown Marcia Sommers, Tamara Logan, Vladimir Ivanovich, Jeannie Bruins, Jan Pepper.
Written by lalahpolitico

The last Los Altos School District board meeting of Feb. 8, 2016 reveals some concerning “positions” of the board that suggest that more Los Altos Public Lands committee meetings – such as the one scheduled for March 21, 2016 — may not be useful, but rather just theatrical. Basically the LASD board’s stance is that using existing school land for permanently housing the charter as a 10th school is off the table because they are holding the District’s existing 100 acres “in reserve for possible future enrollment growth that would require an 11th site/school.” They claim the City does not yet really “understand” about the inviolability of the board policy of Small Neighborhood Schools(SNS) and all that that means for student traffic safety.

Feb. 8 LASD Board  Discussing Jan. 27 Public Lands Meeting

A Short Summary 

At the Feb. 8 board meeting,  Logan and Ivanovich reported on their  Jan. 27 Public Lands Committee meeting. In reaction, the Los Altos School District board and administration said that the board priority is finding more land. Period. They say they already have plenty of ideas for how to add schools to their existing 100 acres and don’t need to listen to City ideas for doing so. Superintendent Baier reminded everyone the District is talking to real estate agents and landowners – a rumor floating is that a 9 acre area of large homes on large lots in north Los Altos is being pursued. Eminent domain? And of course, LASD wants to talk to the City of Los Altos about the Civic Center/Hillview site.

LASD board meeting scene

LASD board meeting scene

The Los Altos School District board of trustees says the issue with using its 100 acres to add a school is traffic, traffic, traffic – basically the safety of District kids. Lalahpolitico: Apparently there is no amount of traffic at Hillview generated by adding a school there that would adversely affect kids enrolled in District-operated schools.

Trustee Ivanovich made some remarks on Feb. 8 that may be his opinion alone. Paraphrasing him, “The Civic Center and downtown planning should be done all together. The ideas of architect Bill Mateson [use of 3-d modeling to help voters visualize changes] and the ideas of developer Peter Pau, Sand Hill Property Company, [finance through Public Private Patnerships] should be taken up by the City.”

Link to Jan. 27 Public Lands article  LASD shows 3 sketches of BCS Co-location Sites

But first… a Summary of Public Lands Meeting Feb. 11, 2016

Here is summary of action at the Feb. 11 Public Lands meeting. Basically, it was agreed to a redo of sketches for all three sites – Egan, Covington, and the Civic Center including Hillivew. However the City’s reps, Pepper and Bruins, said they had to get full Council permission to add in Hillview at the March 8 City Council Meeting

Public Land Committee. At the February 11 meeting, Moderator Spano coaxed the group into sticking to their June 2015 agreement to discuss Egan, Covington and the City Civic Center.

Public Lands Committee. At the February 11 meeting, Moderator Spano (dark sportcoat) coaxed the group into sticking to their June 2015 agreement to discuss Egan, Covington and the City Civic Center.

Feb. 11 Meeting Summary:

The facilitator helped things greatly by the way he started off the meeting.  He recounted how everyone had agreed to the “examine-3-sites” approach in the beginning, when he first joined in the June 2015 meeting.  He reminded them they all had agreed to that, and to eliminating the Blach School from the discussion.  At a couple of points, Superintendent Jeff Baier pointedly reminded everyone that this Public Lands discussion is a parallel effort. LASD is continuing to look for land.The facilitator pointed out that the City wants their land to be used only as a last resort, and the same can be said about the school district.

The facilitator pointed out that the City wants their land to be used only as a last resort, and the same can be said about the school district.

So basically, they all agreed to list some constraints on the 3 sites and then to have a paid consultant create a design. Supposedly there will be cost numbers associated with the paid consultant’s work.  Marcia Sommer, City Manager and the Los Altos School District duo — Jeff Baier/ Randy Kenyon — will see to it that the consultant is setup to work.

Next the Transcript of Feb. 8, 2016 Board Meeting

Reading the Tea Leaves: Skim for bold text, and yellow highlighted text

Here is a transcript of the 02/08/2016 Los Altos School District Board Meeting, Item F4 on losaltosk12granicus/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=213. What was supposed to be a 10 minute item expanded to 50 minutes. Speaking are Jeff Baier, school district superintendent, Pablo Luther Board President, trustees Tamara Logan, Vladamir Ivanovich, Steve Taglio, Sangeeth Peruri. Let’s try to read the tea leaves.

I edited a bit to improve the speakers clarity and brevity. The   [content in brackets] is my inserted remark intended to clarify a pronoun or a this or that. Some stretches of inconsequential niceties I just omitted with an ellipsis … As always a reader can skip my remarks which always start with LALAHPOLITICO:..

Start time 2:03:03
Item F4 on losaltosk12granicus/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=213. 

Jeff Baier, LASD SuperintendentBaier: … a week or so ago [ Jan.27] there was a meeting of the public lands committee.…Bruins and Pepper representing the City…Logan and Ivanovich representing Los Altos School District reps

[President Pablo Luther asked Logan to summarize the Public Lands Meeting of Jan. 27, 2016.]

 

Logan: We went through hypotheticals which said if I throw enough buildings and gym at whatever to accommodate 900 students on that site – it might be for BCS or it may not –where could we construct those buildings. What would happen with traffic scenarios? Staff was working with the city engineer to come up some ideas.

“The outcome of [our discussions of District’s architects drawings of the 3 sites] was mixed. The city representatives seemed to focus on why are the buildings in this exact location. This was not the important thing we thought we were trying to talk about. We wanted to figure out how to handle safety issues, at least on District sites. [not to understand the traffic safety on the Civic Center site] How safely could you put 1500 or 1800 kids at a site was very important.


 LALAHPOLITICO: So Charter kids’ traffic harms District kids’ safety when Charter and District kids are on the same campus? But the routine traffic of hundreds of visitors to the Civic Center does not harm Charter kids when the Charter and the Civic Activities are on the same campus?


Logan: That’s my summary.

Ivanovich: I guess our suggestions had problems. That’s obvious to us. We’ll see what happens next.

Logan: The other thing we got out of the meeting was the plan for the meeting on Wednesday night. Are we done? If not, then what else are we going to talk about. What are the constraints?

Baier: The idea there is stepping back, looking at our charge from when the committee first got together. Taking inventory. Are we done? Are where we thought we would be. What other work needs to be completed.



Break for Public Speakers..



 

Taglio: Was there no discussion except about drilling into the use of our space. Is that true.?

Logan: We did get to talk about the Civic Center side of the City site briefly, but not the rest of the site [Hillview]


 LALAHPOLITICO: How confusing Logan makes it. The three sites were agreed to last October. At that time City Council was hoping Measure A would pass and a new community center building would be built on the Hillview part of the Civic Center. So the site agree to last October was the Civic Center side only.


 

Steve Taglio LASD trustee

Steve Taglio

Taglio; I’ve been annoyed by this process all along. Maybe we haven’t been blunt enough about what we’ve [they’ve] offered to move off [of the Civic Center]. That was not their intent. Their intent was to create a hub of activity downtown. To revitalize the downtown. If they weren’t interested in moving things off, perhaps a more blunt proposal about how to do that would have helped us along the way. I see how the conversation got jagged early on. It got away from the idea of sharing, which was the original intent. If we are not talking about sharing [the civic center] then I don’t know why we are having this conversation. If the next Public Lands meeting calls a truce and moves on [to talking about sharing], I’d support that.


LALAHPOLITICO: Why does Taglio think there is broad support for moving functions – theater, library, police, etc. — off of the 18 acres of the civic center? Even if there were, I’m not sure the City would be interested in the District’s ideas on how to do that.


 

Vladimir Ivanovich LASD Trustee

Vladimir Ivanovich LASD Trustee Los Altos Public Lands Commitee

Ivanovich: I thought the purpose of the past months was to help the City understand the constraints that we know, and that they may not know, about neighborhood schools, about traffic issues, about what it takes to site a school, how much does it cost. Those kinds of things. That’s been a long process.

 


LALAHPOLITICO: The Los Altos School District trustees have POLICIES that are the CONSTRAINTS that prevent solutions for the Charter part of enrollment growth and for needed changes like grade reconfiguration. [Think of these like City Zoning Codes. Like zoning, policies could be changed.] 1) Policy of Neighborhood schools – no magnets or choice schools. Rather, attend the school near you. 2) No k-6 school should be greater than 500 students 3) reconfiguring 6th grade to move to junior highs must be for educational reasons, not to reduce k-6 school size from 600 to 500. Also there are these trustee PROMISES OR POLICIES: 1) there will be no attendance area redraws, aka, “no closing a school.” 2) the intent is not to reduce the land of parks and open space 3) there will be no school buildings on Rosita or MacKensie Park. Does the City of Los Altos need some POLICIES… like there will be no new uses added to the Greater Civic Center 18 acres?

Taglio: [irritated] It [The Jan. 27 Public Lands meeting] came across as [the City] auditing the process we had already done. To be quite frank, it went down that road. …We spent the bulk of the meeting on getting them to understand our process… we never got to what else we could be doing.It was always intended to gain our support for their bond. Which didn’t happen um,  from a community wide perspective. And to delay any action we might want to take. [what action?] I’ve seen no interest in the City wanting to work with us at all. Not in meeting notes, or outside conversations would lead to me think otherwise.


 LALAHPOLITICO: Wow, pretty harsh. So the City reps didn’t just accept at face value everything that the Los Altos School District reps asserted. They audited you. You had to give all these explanations. How annoying. Gee, before they’d lease you some land they have been planning on continuing to use for ongoing City recreation services, they’d like to understand that your back is really, really, really, up against the wall. How unreasonable. Did you prove that your back is up against the wall?

BTW it was hilarious to me when Pablo Luther and Doug Smith attended the first Public Lands committee back in 2014 just before the Measure N campaign and didn’t know the first, simplest thing about the operations and services of the CITY where they live! They had not done a shred of preparation. LOL


 

Los Altos city school facilities sharing redux

 

Ivanovich: I don’t think the City could have any conversation with us about sharing or exchange of property without understanding the details of our facilities. It was necessary to go through that process. Now they are through that. Time to move on.

Luther: Sangeeth, your remarks please

Perurui: I’ve gone to most meetings. As I understand it the focus of the committee was to discuss 3 or 4 large properties.

Taglio: [interrupting] No, the initial focus was to talk about our joint lands. The City redefined the joint use, in the first meeting. That was their intent, not our intent. I disagree. [ City is responsible for a redefined focus to 3 or 4 large properties].

Sangeeth Peruri LASD trustee

Sangeeth Peruri LASD trustee

Peruri: OOOOOOOOOOKKK. Moving on.

So the goal of the City and District was to solve our Enrollment Growth problem. When the City thinks enrollment growth problem, they are thinking land. So every time they think land, they go, there is a lot of land at Covington, there is a lot of land at Egan.

Our concern when we think enrollment, we’re really worried about traffic. And that’s a really big problem. They say go look at Covington. Because there is land there. But our issue is traffic. So we’re not talking on the same page. So the City keeps saying look at Covington, and we keep saying look at Hillview, because that will alleviate / spread traffic.


 LALAHPOLITICO: A small activist cell of LASD apparatchiks are all singing out of the same hymnal. The current song is an assertion that adding 900 students to Hillview will not have much of a traffic collision with the hundreds of daily users of the civic center/library, etc. Look for their tell-tale wording, “because it will spread traffic.” But no peaks at time of day study has been done!?!?!

Everyone is screaming, “My horrible traffic is way worse that your horrible traffic. My kid’s safety is more important than your kid’s safety. Your kid’s safety is more important than my grandma’s safety? Really?”


Peruri:

Any time the question comes around to Hillview, people come out of the woodwork. Some people like it; some people hate it.   We have all these random opinions from all these different special interest groups. None of which are based on fact. They are a lot of hyperbole and opinion. And similarly around traffic, we’re not doing much fact finding around the traffic either.  My opinion is that you couldn’t put 900 more students here [at Covington], but we haven’t done the analysis. The first thing we need to do is figure out Can there be 1500 students be done here? We haven’t really done that analysis. Everyone just complains about it. If the answer is we can’t do 1500 student here, then it is a pointless conversation. If it can be done, then it’s worth a conversation. I’m not sure that it’s ideal or not


 LALAHPOLITICO: Yup, I think it might take an outside traffic consultant to try to guess who will have the worst traffic of them all.


 

Peruri: Similarly, on Hillview when we talk about land, I think we should get an opinion survey done to figure out what are the opinions of the community. Some people say they want orchards, some people say they want a pool, school want or not want. I’d like to have a properly research opinion survey that’s done between the City and the District. I think we should definitely do that.


 LALAHPOLITICO: I agree with City led visioning – using deliberative polling, MIG planning consultancy, Open City Hall, or other method. BUT this Los Altos School District proposed “scientific” survey is a shameless setup to insert bias. The proposal is to let Joe Seither and his PAC, the Huttlinger Alliance, pay for half the cost and have input in selecting the sample, framing the scope and probably wording the questions, etc.?!?!?. No way.

But more fundamentally, as a citizen of the City of Los Altos, I absolutely do not want people who do not reside in the City included in the sample. Why survey them about how to use City-owned land? They don’t own it. They don’t pay City property taxes. No representation without City taxation.


 

Sangeeth Peruri LASD trustee

Sangeeth Peruri LASD trustee

Peruri:  Third point. After Measure A failed, at that next council meeting, I heard a member say they had heard Los Altos School District had plans around what can work, what can’t be done, but he/she‘d never had seen these plans. When I [Sangeeth] visualize what could be done at Civic Center/Hillview area, I think we have a lot opportunities for collaboration that could come up with a win-win situation for the community, the School District and the taxpayer. But we’ve never had an ability to present that sort of solution. Right now this collaboration in the Public Lands Committee is not working because one person is talking about land, the other about traffic. You know, there is this saying — it’s better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. Let’s ask for forgiveness [not permission]. Take the lead


 LALAHPOLITICO: Sangeeth, Sure. Absolutely. Please put a strawman plan down on paper for Hillview. Is this the BCS school and the community center in one building? Or two? Or moving city functions off the civic center – library, police whatever? What’s the traffic plan? What’s the financing? Maybe Ivanovich can help explain the Private Public Partnership magic coins?


Peruri: We [LASD} should envision for ourselves, what a school plus Civic Center rebuild would look like at Hillview. And have an honest community conversation around that.   The question I have is, initially the City gave permission to talk about Civic Center only. Post measure A, I understand that the conversation could be enlarged by the two representatives to include Hillview at this next Public Land Committee [March 21]? True?

I think the District should take the leadership and put together a plan. We should try to take that leadership role and see what we can up with.

2:30:30

Luther: I had a spirited discussion with Mayor Bruins over the weekend. I think keeping collaboration going to be useful. Don’t give it up.

Eventually we will need two sites. Several Los Altos School District citizen committees over the years have reached the same conclusion. To absorb the enrollment growth, we not only need a 10th site, we may need an 11th site.

Right now it would be good to accommodate enrollment growth while maintaining current density and the educational quality that Los Altos School District has to offer. Given this, we should keep in reserve our land for expansion purposes for a later period, while looking at opportunistic areas today to expand the footprint to add another site. Because if we use our existing sites today to expand [accommodate] our enrollment growth, we are going to have a problem down the road.


 LALAHPOLITICO: Are you hearing this? The “direction” is to maintain current density [on existing campuses-Los Altos School District sites, aka, not adding schools ]…”we should keep in reserve our [Los Altos School District] land for expansion purposes for a later period.” In other words, BCS should not be permanently sited on any existing Los Altos School District land. Why? Because sometime we might want to co-locate a“DISTRICT OPERATED” school on one of our larger sites. We can’t co-locate BCS on those. Lalahpolitico: Yup, this is yet another Los Altos School District self-imposed “constraint” that makes solutions all but impossible.

 

Pablo Luther, LASD trustee, 2016 LASD board president

Pablo Luther, LASD trustee, 2016 LASD board president

Luther: As you’ve seen there is a lot of construction in the cities around us. And there may be a time when we don’t have this window of opportunity where there is land, whether to buy or purchase [lease?] to accommodate the growth later. So I think we should keep our sites in reserve for this future enrollment growth, this 11th site growth.

So having said that, maybe it might be helpful to start with a clean sheet for the 2 or 3 sites, be it Covington, Egan, the entire Civic Center / Hillview site. The spirit of no constraints, without sacred cows, without preserving certain buildings. The results might be, we might rule out some options, or include others. Look at them from logistics, architectural rendering point of view, see if any fit the needs of the City AND the District. Can we collocate things the City wants and some things the District wants?


 LALAHPOLITICO: Sure. Let’s look at these clean sheets. Is my traffic worse than your traffic? Who pays!?!?

 

Luther: We’ve been approached, offering to split the cost of a poll, to see what our community feels about this issue. That might be a good thing.

Baier: Agendize that?  Yes.


 LALAHPOLITICO: This proposed Joe Seither – Huttlinger Alliance – poll/survey is a set-up/ploy designed to pick the pockets of Los Altans. Tax paying Los Altans, let’s not be suckers and get involved with a biased Los Altos School District parent-driven survey. Oppose this wacky survey idea. I love my City of LAH, MV, Cupertino and even County neighbors, but don’t much care about their opinions about my how to construct and PAY FOR my City Civic Center. You all are welcome to use it and pay the extra fees! See you there.


 

Logan: Let me review the history of the Public Lands Committee. It’s primary goal was to work for the potential siting of a 10th school on District or City lands. We took horse trading off the table. By that I mean we used to talk about putting a pool on Egan and that sort of thing. That was off the table for this committee.

Our first try of at putting a school on the Civic Center was constrained by Measure A. [We could only look at the Civic part of the 18 acres, not the Hillview part of the 18 acres.]

 


 LALAHPOLITICO: Thank goodness it was so constrained.


Tamara Logan, LASD trustee, Los Altos Public Lands Committee

Tamara Logan, LASD trustee, Los Altos Public Lands Committee

Logan:

I started looking at splitting Covington with BCS starting 7 years ago. That was when BCS was 300 to 400 kids. …. Yes now we have the money. But we can’t cope with the traffic of 900 kids. Just because you have land, doesn’t mean you could get the kids in and out.   Somebody [in the public] said don’t use Rosita for ingress and egress. I couldn’t believe that. [?That’s so wrong?]

We don’t want to close District Schools and we don’t want to close BCS.

 


 LALAHPOLITICO: Nice to hear that Logan does not want to close BCS. Why is she the only one on the board who ever says this?


 

 

Logan: The City Traffic Engineer had some ideas…some a little [inaudible crazy?]. He did what he could with what he had.

 


 LALAHPOLITICO: Ouch. The District only got the District Architect’s site drawing to the City a week or so before the Jan. 27 Public Lands meeting. Our excellent City traffic engineer Cedric Novenario did a GREAT JOB given the very, very short time… due the always last-minute Los Altos School District. His traffic analysis was as good or better than the District architect’s drawings. Judge for yourself; his traffic flow ideas are described here. http://losaltospolitico.com/2016/02/lasd-shows-3-sketches-bcs-co-location-sites/


Logan:  …Mountain View precise plans…. Will add up to more children in the District

 


 LALAHPOLITICO: There is a disturbing amount of implicit class-based, income-based, ethnicity-based, fear-mongering by some Los Altos School District trustees about the “others.” I have heard some parents and residents speak at meetings wanting to segregate Mountain View residents or dwellers in large apartment complexes into their own little “neighborhood” school. First, it’s weird to think of NEC as low rent any more. Our English Language Learners {ELLs} are primarily from China, Europe, South America, and with well-educated parents in high-end careers. The district is likely to continue to divide the “others” attendance area into 3 or more pieces and spread it around Santa Rita, Almond and Covington to keep up API test scores. And Los Altos School District mommies, if you and hubby get divorced, you may find yourself living in one of those Los Altos School District area rentals in order to keep your kids with their Los Altos School District school friends. There should be more of those rentals. Even if you have to rent outside your old attendance area, the Los Altos School District administration will usually let your kids stay with their classmates in your old-“neighborhood” through 6th grade.


Logan:  So for Wed. nite. [next public lands committee]. We will bring in some more drawings with more ideas.

[…. Omitted niceties]

 


 LALAHPOLITICO: At the next Public Lands meeting, moderator Mr. Plano, got the members to reagree to their mission. They did not look at any site plans or discuss traffic. City Councilpersons, Pepper and Bruins agreed to ask the entire 5 person Council if it was ok to now include the entire 18 acre Civic Center site including Hillview. That is agendized for March 8, 2016 City Council meeting. All agreed the three sites could be discussed with a fresh set of paper and contraints about saving buildings removed. [Except the History House and Museum and orchard sections had to be preserved.]

Peruri: Scope of those drawings? I would like to see some concept school and civic center built together. Let’s not end this process, without doing that concept. Please…do this.

[Omitted inconsequential]

Luther: We should look at entire Civic Center Site, also at Egan and Covington, starting from scratch.

Logan: It is all around traffic. How could you change the traffic flow pattern and it could work. !!!!! I don’t need City help with telling me where to put buildings on our sites. We are open to tearing buildings down…


 LALAHPOLITICO: The City’s traffic engineer Cedric Novenario did a good job suggesting how to change traffic flow patterns at the January 27 Public Lands meeting. It’s as if Logan and Ivanovich were not there or not hearing him? Denial? Admittedly, Cedric’s was just a first pass…because Los Altos School District was late with submitting their site drawings part.


Logan: […Omitted niceties]

We have been looking at this [placing two schools on one campus] for many, many years.

 

Jeff Baier, LASD Superintendent

Jeff Baier, LASD Superintendent

Baier: Let me reiterate a point,  this is a direction of Randy [Kenyon’s] and mine. The board’s clear priority position is to acquire additional land.   We are working on concurrent projects… Talking to real estate agents, negotiating with land owners, talking to the City. The priority direction is to expand the land footprint. This is what we said prior to the N campaign. We already know we have a fallback position of over 100 acres we can utilize. We have ideas on that, should that should that have to happen . But priority is, where we are pushing the hardest right now is, on that first priority. [expand land footprint]

Luther: Because we want to maintain our fallback position [of over 100 acres] as a reserve as we continue to expand our enrollment towards a 11th site so we have a relief value.

Baier: We keep close tabs on new developments, on planning commissions, we know the LA, MV, PA, the cites are interested in high density housing… that will impact us long-term. We have a here-and-now problem [sic in 2016 of BCS]. We have an opportunity to look ahead. But we need to be good stewards of this district and look beyond 2016. We need to be looking far into the future.


 LALAHPOLITICO: Clearly there is fear-mongering perpetrated by the Los Altos School District administration and trustees. Are they not insinuating that “The residents in the high-rises in Mountain View are going to overrun our Los Altos sSchool District schools.” The District’s own demographer has established that there is a very low birth-rate and child presence in these developments. Los Altos School District is just making assertions that make people fearful.


Ivanovich: We need to continue dialog with the City. It is our only venue. Don’t snipe in the Town Crier. I think the poll / survey is a great idea. We ought to present some concrete alternatives in the poll/survey.

Luther: The poll will be agendized for our next board meeting [March 14, 2016].The poll will be agendized for our next board meeting [March 14, 2016].

 

Vladimir Ivanovich LASD Trustee

Vladimir Ivanovich LASD Trustee Los Altos Public Lands Commitee

Ivanovich: I agree that traffic is an issue. My hope is that City will realize it is an issue on their own. Some times people need to arrive at a direction themselves. They can’t be pushed in that direction.

Our frustration with not looking at a bigger picture is shared by other groups in town like the LACC.org. I think LACC.org has been frustrated by not looking at the downtown revitalization and the Hillview site all at the same time. There are at least two people who have made proposals, or rather ideas, that are very valuable : Bill Mateson who is an architect, and Peter Pau who is a developer. Inexplicitly the city has not picked up on them. I don’t know why they haven’t picked up on them.

A problem that we particularly face when we consider a school at the Civic Center/Hillview site is that we have to, it has to be considered in the larger context of a downtown plan as well. One of the mistakes of Measure A is that it didn’t do that. And if we did the same thing, put a school there in isolation and didn’t consider anything else, it wouldn’t go very far. I don’t know why the City hasn’t moved forward on considering a larger facilities plan.

 


 LALAHPOLITICO:

1.The City IS concerned about school traffic. It has offered to do any traffic modifications the District would require to add another school to any of its sites. Or to help with any school traffic issue. There is a standing City-School committee which meets quarterly, mostly to discuss traffic. This is how the sidewalks at Egan were improved this past year! To say the City does not “get” traffic is just absurd.

  1. Sure let’s look at “downtown revitalization” and the Civic Center/Hillview upgrades at the same time. Some people would say let’s look at “downtown charm preservation” and “Hillview Park and Orchard preservation” together at the same time.
  2. Seriously, Ivanovich thinks the ideas of Bill Mateson and Peter Pau are unknown to our City Council?! Perhaps they are just too far out on the bleeding-edge of urban design and public finance to be seriously considered by a small residential suburb?

Ivanovich: The last thing is I don’t think the City understands is that small “neighborhood schools” have value. So 900 kids at any school is going to be an issue. I don’t care if it is BCS or LASD. And having that many kids on adjacent campuses also violates the small neighborhood school (SNS) principle. And that is something we have to help them understand.


 LALAHPOLITICO:

Wow. Now the “Board Policy” of small neighborhood schools (SNS) (try to be under 500 kids in each school) is being interpreted and extended by Ivanovich to mean 1) BCS having 900 kids in a single school is against LASD SNS policy, even though 500 is not BCS policy and that issue has been litigated! and 2) having a 500 school and another 500? school [900?] in adjacent campuses is against SNS policy. Once again, the Board is adding so many constraints, there is no solution.


 

Tamara Logan, LASD trustee, Los Altos Public Lands Committee

Tamara Logan, LASD trustee, Los Altos Public Lands Committee

Logan: : The board needs the community to help them [the City] understand.


 LALAHPOLITICO:

Translation: Hey, LASD parents, pound the City with email, pile in at the Public Lands Committee and City Council meetings.


Ivanovich: Does the board have direction for the two Public Land committee members?

Baier: Yes I have notes.

Ivanovich [mic off] I have notes, but I don’t have direction.

2:53:06

END [ meeting moved to next agenda item]


 LALAHPOLITICO: Translation: Mr. Baier will coach Ivanovich on syncing his messaging with Logan’s.


 

 

 

 

About the author

lalahpolitico

Norma Schroder is an economics & market researcher by trade and ardent independent journalist, photographer and videographer by avocation. Enthralled by the growth of the tech industry over the decades, she only became fascinated with business of local politics only in the past couple of years.

Leave a Comment