Palo Alto set to raise its stakes in Ventura neighborhood redevelopment plan

With new contract, city looks to broaden analysis, extend timeline

Despite a spate of setbacks that have complicated its plans, Palo Alto is preparing to invest more time and money into an effort to forge a new community vision for a 60-acre area in the centrally located Ventura neighborhood.

The City Council is scheduled to approve on Monday an additional $368,758 contract with the consulting firm Perkins+Will, raising the firm's overall compensation to $1.14 million. Roughly two-thirds of that sum is covered by outside sources: a $638,000 federal grant that the city had received for the planning process and a $112,000 contribution from The Sobrato Organization, the developer that owns 340 Portage Ave., a commercial campus in the planning area anchored by Fry's Electronics.

The new contract both increases the city's investment in what's known as the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan and extends the timeline for the planning process by a year. Under the new terms, the process will be completed by December 2021 and will include more — and longer — meetings by the Working Group that is helping the city craft the new vision. It would also involve more council meetings and at least three different redevelopment options for the council to consider.

The new contract will be coming to the council at a time when the city's plans for redeveloping Ventura are as hazy as ever. For years, Palo Alto officials have described the site at 340 Portage Ave. as a premier opportunity for new housing. But while the city's Housing Element envisions up to 249 units at this site, the council had to curb its ambitions earlier this year when Sobrato announced that it has no plans to redevelop the Fry's site to create new housing.

At the same time, the city's recent historic analysis concluded that the Fry's building, a former cannery, is considered historic because of its association with early 20th century agriculture. The finding has prompted calls from some residents to preserve the 1918 building, even as others have continued to advocate for redeveloping the site to create housing.

The council was similarly split at its Aug. 19 meeting, when it directed staff by a 4-3 vote to bring back a contract amendment with Perkins+Will. Councilwoman Alison Cormack, who dissented, wondered whether, given the recent complications, the plan is still capable of delivering the types of benefits that Ventura residents have long called for, including new recreational amenities, affordable housing and improvements around Matadero Creek. Councilman Greg Tanaka also suggested that the city won't have much to show for its expenditures.

At the same time, the city is already moving ahead with some of the ideas that residents had brought to the planning process. Earlier this year, the council finalized its purchase of a 0.56-acre site on Birch Street, next to Boulware Park, to facilitate the park's expansion. And on Sept. 16, the council approved a $93,237 contract with the firm WRA Inc., to study possible improvements at Matadero Creek, including the removal of the existing concrete channel to enable the creek's "naturalization."

If the council approves the Perkins+Will contract, it will effectively double down on a process that had generated significant community enthusiasm before the recent series of setbacks. In March, residents packed into the Ventura Community Center to advocate for improving their neighborhood through the planning process. And up until the August meeting, the council had been unanimous in its support for the city's largest "area plan" exercise since the completion of the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) area plan, a two-phased plan that the city completed in 2003.

The new contract that the council will consider this Monday will also require the consultant to consider the "economic value" of the existing planning area, a financial analysis of redevelopment proposals and extended environmental-review services, including the creation of an environmental impact report, according to a Department of Planning and Development Services report.

The council is set to approve the contract on its "consent calendar," where numerous items get passed with a single vote.


Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.


Like this comment
Posted by geri k.
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 20, 2019 at 7:26 pm

Was the tained / toxic water "problem" along the Fry's property area ever fully cleaned up???

Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 21, 2019 at 10:21 pm

The planned park purchase is excellent news, but, I don't understand why significant money is being spent on planning for the Fry's property when Sobrato has no intention of developing the long-planned RM-30 housing there:

>> while the city's Housing Element envisions up to 249 units at this site, the council had to curb its ambitions earlier this year when Sobrato announced that it has no plans to redevelop the Fry's site to create new housing.

Like this comment
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Oct 24, 2019 at 7:55 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Concerning the Fry's site all indicators from the state, county, and city governments is that housing is the top priority. Also we have FB donating money towards the housing issues which are specific to teachers, local service workers, and safety workers - fire and police. One company says they will not participate in the resolution of these problems and sitting on a prime piece of property which would resolve a lot of check boxes regarding location to main traffic arteries and rail service as well as helping to meet the city requirements coming from the county and state.

It is time for eminent domain to be used and all of the legal hurdles are overcome by recent state requirements. Also note that this property based on age must have a very low property tax value. In other words it is free property to Sobrato. Eminent domain uses the tax value of a property to determine the pay back to the property owner. So Sobrato is not in the cat bird seat in this situation. They are great pals with the Pelosi's, Newsome's, and Browns so refusing to participate in the city and state meeting it's goals is problematic - are our "great leaders" in cahoots with Sobrato?

So this is a financial issue and a political issue. How blue is your city and state? Only when convenient? And you have to know that they are holding out for something - they cannot leave that property to sit there with no reason for being other than the property tax is almost non-existent.

Note that Brown used eminent domain in the valley to take land long held by families for the HSR. Was that really the point of the HSR - take valuable land and put in the ownership of the state? A lot of issues here - who is the negotiator for this city? We seem bereft of qualified people to wrestle the main issues in front of us when it comes to legal issues which every other city is using to their advantage.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Mountain Mike's Pizza arrives in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 9 comments | 3,137 views

Disposing of Disposables
By Sherry Listgarten | 21 comments | 2,010 views

Couples Counseling, Al Pacino Style
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,536 views

Anonymous Sources: Facebook and YouTube suppressing important questions and discussion
By Douglas Moran | 1 comment | 337 views