|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
More than a year in the making, Mountain View Whisman has completed a set of initial designs to add more trees and outdoor green spaces to its school campuses.
At a Nov. 21 school board meeting, representatives from Carducci Associates, the landscape architecture firm the district hired for its “greening initiative,” presented illustrations of how it proposed to improve Mountain View’s elementary and middle schools.
The designs were described as early drafts that would be brought back to each school and the broader community for feedback. District staff proposed having the board approve the final plans in March. However, some board members raised questions about whether that would leave enough time for public input. Nine members of the public also spoke at the meeting, most with concerns about the proposals.
After hearing the discussion, Interim Superintendent Kevin Skelly ultimately recommended having staff take the feedback received at the board meeting, redouble their communication efforts and consider whether to change the timing of the project. Skelly noted that a longer process would cost more money.
Chief Business Officer Rebecca Westover told the Voice that district staff plan to seek direction from the school board on whether to expand feedback opportunities, which would require additional services from Carducci. She noted that staff would be asking the board once newly elected members have taken their seats.
Three board members were elected last month and are expected to be sworn in at a Dec. 19 meeting, where they will join Devon Conley and Bill Lambert on the five-member governing body.
Plans to ‘green’ local schools
The district hired Carducci Associates to create plans to improve school outdoor spaces, both to make a more inviting environment for students and to prepare for the impacts of climate change.
Board President Devon Conley noted that climate change will lead to more frequent and severe heat waves, and that schools in Mountain View have already had to keep students inside during some particularly hot days. Greening campuses will involve increasing permeable surfaces and tree canopies, she said.
“This is (about) outdoor learning spaces, but it’s also making it safe and sustainable for our children to be outside,” Conley said.
The greening effort would be paid for with proceeds from the Measure T bond that voters passed in 2020. The district has set aside just over $15 million for school greening, split up so that there’s about $1.2 million per elementary school, $1.8 million for Crittenden Middle School and $2.1 million for Graham Middle School. Carducci’s designs were created to work within the district’s budget, Carducci representative Karly Behncke told the board.
George Loew, another Carducci representative, explained that the project’s objectives include providing a greater diversity of flexible spaces on campuses, with a focus on natural materials and expanding shade canopies. The designs include elements like outdoor event spaces and landscaped pathways.
The current timeline calls for construction to be completed in the summer of 2026.
Community members raise concerns
Members of the public who spoke at the board meeting largely raised concerns about the greening initiative, both in terms of the specifics of the designs, as well as the process to pick Carducci.
Erica Rutledge pushed for more community outreach and said that, with this much money being spent, pursuing greening would come with tradeoffs.
“Greening is nice, but what do the kids really want? What will they appreciate? What will they benefit from?” Rutledge asked.
Nhung Liu questioned the plans for Stevenson Elementary School in particular, bringing up concerns about potential impacts on the school’s fields and playground.
“How did this plan even come into place?” Liu asked. “I don’t know what to think. I’m just speechless.” She also shared concerns about plans for Graham.
Nancy Achter questioned how the school district could defend spending millions of dollars on this project after fencing off its campuses in recent years. She added that there was confusion about how Carducci was picked and asked whether the district could reopen the bidding process.
The comments came in the context of a fraught school board meeting with substantial public outcry over former superintendent Ayindé Rudolph’s spending on a district credit card, which the district has said it will investigate.
In recent months, the district has been under scrutiny for various spending decisions, including on certain contracts for public relations work, executive leadership coaching and staff meditation. Many of these contracts have subsequently been cancelled.
In terms of Carducci’s contract, Westover noted that school construction is highly regulated and that out of all the purchases school districts make, the procedures for constructional and architectural contracts are particularly specific.
Board members weigh in
When it came time for board discussion, Lambert raised concerns about elements of the plans, particularly what he described as its encroachment on open space. Lambert pointed to pathways cutting across campuses as one of his concerns.
“Open space in Mountain View is precious,” Lambert said. “We cannot afford to lose any more – it is so expensive.”
Lambert also questioned whether there would be enough time for community input before March, as well as whether enough money had been set aside to effectively green campuses and pay for ongoing maintenance. In total, Lambert said that there were elements he was confused and concerned about, and that “the whole thing seems a little bit crazy to me.”
Trustee Laura Blakely pushed back on the idea that open space was being lost, and said that when her children were at Landels she thought adding a pathway would have been great. Loew, of Carducci, said that the proposals wouldn’t remove anything that’s considered open space, and that campuses now largely have “monolithic” outdoor areas made up of lawns, blacktops and play structures.
Blakely said that in general she liked the plans, but that it would be up to the individual school communities to give input. It’s clear that more feedback is needed, Blakely said.
“I’m looking forward to seeing what all our schools look like in 20 years,” Blakely said. “I’m hopeful that there will be large tree canopies, and the community and the kids enjoying the campuses.”
Trustee Laura Ramirez Berman echoed Lambert in questioning whether there was enough time before March to gather public input, but was also supportive of the broader greening effort.
“It’s really important that we get out there and we create some shade for our students, because they really are out in the sunshine for long stretches of time each and every single day,” Berman said.
Conley noted that while some community members have frustrations over the input process, others are frustrated the project isn’t already completed. She suggested reaching out to the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission to get help gathering more input, as well as potentially holding a school board study session on the topic.
How much money is being paid to consultants for this project? Why can’t the district simply plant some trees?
This increase in school numbers and millions of dollars for a Priority 3 project seems President Conley’s ‘signature project’. As a landscape architecture student at UC Berkeley (great school, and program) she may have felt let down by only one year on the City Parks and Recreation Commission.
– Why since some Priority 1&2 roof replacement are STILL LACKING has this been moved up and cost-increased? 100% before some roof replacements. It makes Really Bad public relations to IGNORE THE “Priorities” in the before Bond-Vote adopted plan for spending. https://www.mvwsd.org/district_business/facilities/master_facilities_plan_2019-2029
(Carduchi planning contract was ‘done straightforwardly’ I’d say). Low Cost Community INTRODUCTION and and input hardly needs 3 consultants paid for hours at each school!! Let Parks & Rec do it first! Let all the Site Principals INVITE THE NEIGHBORS. Ugh – the old Board has shown their insensitivity to this element – Monta Loma etc –
I personally went with President Conley on one of the first Carducci ‘input’ walk-arounds at Crittenden. It seemed clear to me, Conley was full in and hung-ho. She had plenty of detailed opinions.
BTW – all elected officials (and formers) like to leave legacy of some sort. A name on a school building or plaque, an auditorium or two, a grove of trees, walkways (hopefully rainwater permeable). At what point does the Community clearly tell an elected official to Just Please Sit Down and LISTEN to US? Show us ALL the Plans! (show us the total costs)
I’m GUNG-ho on the idea of More Trees at all sites. (dump adding the Bubb-like >$150,000 synthetic material shade fabric “Shade Structures”). * Even paying Google for surplus Mature Trees (discount?) and paying for Large Construction transport and cranes + excavators / come on / trees will Live for Decades and sequester tons and tons of CO2. Deciduous trees – leaf in early Spring and allow late Fall and Winter sunlight through bare branches.
The two Bubb Big LUNCH Trees were giant when we moved nearby 35 years ago. Even larger now! Provided decades of kid lunch Outside Shade shelter. They have sequestered ? tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide. They shade-cools the black asphalt pavement around it for hundreds (thousands?) of square feet.
https://www.google.com/maps/contrib/105732985616148876818/contribute/@37.3785041,-122.0825045,164m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m3!8m2!3m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIwMS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
GO AHEAD with “The Trees” part was another board comment I heard.
* Table 6-1: Recommended Projects Summary, MVWSD 2019
“Priority 1 Projects”. (10) sites “Shade Structure”
[suggestion make it ‘Mature Trees’ instead, invest just a Million]
Steve, you’re falling off your rocker here. Hard to follow.
There is now (first new Board’s action on this ( $30,000) of new money for the current contractors to ‘continue’ their form of outreach.
Meanwhile, The Parks and Recreation Commissioners seem to have no clue of contact from The MVWSD Their President of the Board (Conley) apparently forgot. “She suggested reaching out to the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission to get help gathering more input, as well as potentially holding a school board study session on the topic.”
The Minutes of the MVWSD on this meeting state that several directors liked Conley ‘idea’ and the Agenda of the Parks and Recreation Commission a few weeks later show – absolutely no evidence of any communication. I think Conley is again failing us – she doesn’t take City-School cooperation AT ALL seriously.