HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-20 City CouncilTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo.Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 2
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
JANUARY 20, 1998 CMR: 108:98
AMENDMENT TO THE TERMAN SPECIFIC PLAN AT 677-679
ARASTRADERO ROAD TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF PORTIONS
OF A WALL CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN THE TERMAN
COMMUNITY CENTER AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO
CONSIDER A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT(FILE NOS. 97-CP-2, 97-EIA-.33)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission and.staff recommend that the City Council approve:
The attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment.A to the Planning
Commission staff report), with a finding that the project will not result in any
significant environmental impacts, and
2.An amendment to the Terman Specific Plan as stated in the attached Resolution
(Attachment B to the Planning Commission staff report).
PROJECT,,DESCRIPTION
The Terrnan Specific Plan section II J.9.(a) reads as follows:
"A solid wall shall be erected along that portion of the Dewitt property line
adjacem to the entry roads by Wings 20, 30 and 40 so as to lessen the impact
of traffic along the portion of the entry road on the children attending the
(Rose Wood) nursery school. This wall will be constructed at the same time
as the wall described in paragraph K.(b), below."
The wall described above was constructed following the approval of the Terman Specific
Plan in 1982.
CMP~:108:98 Page 1 of 3
The applicant proposes to amend the Terman Specific Plan to require that the wall be
maintained along that portion of the former nursery school property adjacent to the entry
road by Wings 20, 30, and 40, with appropriate openings for driveways, walkways, and
emergency vehicles entrances/exits, as may be approved by the City from time to time. The
former nursery school site is now used by the Mid-Peninsula Jewish Community Day
School which is currently pursuing an application to expand its school at this location.
Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that section II J.9. (a) of the Terman
Specific Plan be removed rather than revised because the Ruth Woods Nursery School no
longer exists and the wall is not necessary for its intended purpose. The applicant concurs
with the staff recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
On December, 21, 1997, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
the staff recommendation to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to delete
section II J.9. (a) from the Terman Specific Plan, to allow for the removal of the existing wall
located along the western edge of Terman Drive between the Terman Commtmity Center and
the site of the former Ruth Woods Nursery School at679Arastadero Road. The removal of
the requirement for a wall in this location wotfld allow the applicant to pursue an application
for a use permit to operate an elementary school at 679 Arastadero Road with access from
Terman Drive rather than Arastadero Road. No significant issues were raised by the
Planning Commission; and no opposition to the project was expressed at the public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Planning ommission staff report from December 10, 1997
B. Plans (Council Members only)
COURTESY COPIES
Thomas and Hsu Lo
Jay Gould
Marion Hill
Davis and Miriam Fretthold
Hanwant and Raman Singh
Chin-Chung and Hsiu-Feng Wang
Chai P. and Ann Yu
Ed and Carol Mrizek
Ken and Stephany Peters
Milan and Vera Henzl
Norman Chu
Brooke Lazzara
Ellen Bob
Ronald Roth
Hugh Dewitt, Trustee
C!VIR:108:98 Page 2 of 3
PREPARED BY: Brian Dolan
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~ /~ ~_~_~ ~)
EMIL~?--~SON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:108:98 Page 3 of 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
To:
From:
Agenda Date:
Subject:
Planning Commission
Brian Dolan, Senior Planner Department:Planning
December 10, 1997
Amendment to the Terman Specific Plan at 677-679 Arastadero Road
to allow the removal of portions of a wall constructed between the
Terman Community Center and the subject Property and to consider
a Negative Declaration for the project (File No’s 97-CP-2, 97-EIA-33)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment #A) with a finding that .the project
will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and approve .an amendment to the
Terman Specific Plan as stated in the attached Resolution (Attachment #B).
BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION
The Terman Specific Plan sets forth City policy for the development of the Terman
Community Center located at 655 Arastadero Road. (See Attachment #C). The Terman
Specific Plan was adopted in 1982 and included a requirement that a wall be constructed
along Terman Drive between the Community center and the property.at 677-679 Arastadero.
This property was -occupied by three single family homes, and the Ruth Woods Nursery
School. The Specific Plan stated that the purpose of the wall was "to lessen the impact of
traffic on children attending the nursery school." The wall was constructed and still exists
in its original form as shown on the attached plans (Attachment D). In 1990, the Mid
Peninsula Community Jewish Day School began operations in two. classrooms at the Terman
Community Center and four classrooms at the Jewish Community Center also located at 655
Arastadero Road. The Mid Peninsula Jewish Community Day School currently operates two
elementary school classrooms in the building which formerly contained the Ruth Woods
S :tPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI677Aras Page 1
12-4-97
Nursery School which operates under a use permit approved in 1997 (97-UP-26). In
October of 1997, the Mid Peninsula Jewish Day School applied for an amendment to-this
use permit t0 construct a new elementary school at 677-679 Arastadero Road that would
allow the school to expand its enrollment to meet current demand. The development plan
for the expanded school includes removal of the existing structures on the site and provision
of access to the site from Terman Drive rather than Arastadero Road. The request to remove
portions of the ~vall (as shown on Attachment E) is based on the desire to access the
proposed elementary school from Terman Drive. The applicant’s description of requested
action is as follows:
Amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Terman Specific Plan to require in substance,
that "a wall be maintained along that portion of the.Mid Peninsula Jewish Community
Day School property adjacent to the entry road by Wings 20, 30 and 40 with appropriate
openings for driveways, walkways and emergency vehicle entrances as approved by the
City from time to time."
The Specific Plan must be amended prior to the approval of the use permit for the elementary
school project. The merits of the proposed elementary school project will be evaluated by
the City of Palo Alto in its consideration of application 97-UP-26. The attached resolution
recommends that Section J. Traffic 9.A. found on page 19 of the Terman Specific Plan be
removed rather than revised. Staff considers removal of this section of the plan to be a
cleaner method of achieving the applicants objectives than the applicants proposed revision.
Site Information
Information regarding the applicant, and relevant property owners, Assessor’s Parcel
numbers, Comprehensive Plan designations, zoning designations, land uses and parcel sizes
are summarized below.
Applicant
Owner
Assessor’s Parcel Number
Table 1. Project Information
Mid Peninsula Jewish Community Day
School
677-679 Arastadero: Hugh Dewitt,
Trustee ’
655 Arastadero: City of Palo Alt0
677-679 Arastadero: 167-05-20
655 Arastadero: 167-05-28,29,30,31
S:]PLANIPLAD1VIPCSRI677Aras Page 2
12;4-97
Comprehensive Plan Desig-nation
Zoning Designation
Existing Use
Surrounding Land Use
north:
south:
east:
west:
Parcel Size
677-679 Arastadero: Single Family
Residential
655 Arastadero: Public Park, Multiple
Family Residential, Major
InstitutiordSpecial Facilities
677-679 Arastadero: R- 1 (929)
655 Arastadero: Public Facilities (PF)
677-679 Arastadero: three Jingle family
homes, kindergarten
655 Arastadero: community center, park
single family residential
single family residential, cemetery
single family residential
single family residential
677-679 Arastadero: 1.5 acres
655 Arastadero: 21.57 acres
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed amendment to the Terman Specific Plan would amend one of the "Specifics
of the Terman Specific Plan" as described above inthe project description. The project is
not in conflict with any other policies or programs in the. Specific Plan or the
Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
Issues and Analysis
The analysis for this project relates to traffic safety.
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI677Aras Page 3
12-4-97
Traffic Safety.: The existing wall was required to be constructed between the Terman Community
Center and the property at 679 Arastadero Road to protect the children at the Ruth Woods Nursery
School from traffic generated by activities at the Terman Community Center. The Ruth Woods
Nurse~’ School no longer operates on the site and the barrier is no longer required to separate the
traffic on Terman Road from the adjacent property. The removal of portions of the wall would allow
access to the property off Terman Drive that is safer than the current access off Arastadero Road.
Public Pa~icipation
Notice of the Planning Commission meeting was provided by publication of the agenda in a local
newspaper of general circulation. Property owners and utility customers within a three hundred (300)
foot radius of the project site were sent written notice.
RESOURCE IMPACT
No resource impact to the City will result from this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Negative Declaration finding that the project would not result in any significant environmental
impacts was available for review from November 18, 1997 through December 10, 1997 and is
attached to this report (See attachment #A).
TIME LINE
A City Council public hearing and review has been tentatively scheduled for January 20, 1998. If
approved by Council, the applicant may proceed with the use permit application (97-UP-26) for the
school.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment A: Environmental Impact Assessment/Negative Declaration
Attachment B: Resolution
Attachment C: Location Map
Attachment D: Existing Conditions (Commission only)
Attachment E: Project Plans (Commission only)
COURTESY COPIES
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI677Aras Page 4
12-4-97
Thomas Lo
Jay Gould
Marion Hill
Davis and Miriam Fretthold
Hanwant and Raman Singh
Chin-Chung and Hsiu-Feng Wang
Chai P. and Ann Yu
Ed and Carol Mrizek
Ken and Stephany Peters
Milan and Vera Henzl
Norman Chu
Brooke Lazzara
Ellen Bob
Ronald Roth
Hugh Dewitt, Trustee
Prepared By:Brian Dolan, Senior Planner
Management Review: James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI677Aras Page 5
12-4-97
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE TERMAN SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, on May 3, 1982, the Council adopted Resolution No.
6025, approving and adopting the Terman Specific Plan pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 19.06 of Title 19 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held on December i0, 1997, has recommended that the City
Council amend the Terman Specific Plan as hereinafter set forth;
and
WHEREAS, the Council has held a duly noticed public hearing
on the matter on January 20, 1998, and has reviewed the contents of
the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other
relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony,
written and oral, presented on the matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
~.. The Council finds that the public interest,
health, safety and welfare require amendment to the Terman Specific
Plan as set forth in Section 2 hereof. Such amendment of the Plan
will permit the modification of an existing wall in order to allow
greater flexibility in pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the
Terman Specific Plan area.
~. The Council hereby amends the Terman Specific
Plan as follows: Section II.J of the Plan (pages 19-20) is revised
by deleting Paragraph 9(a) as follows:
lessen the i~act of t.x&f£1c alon~ tha5 portion
~LT!~. The Council finds that this project, with
implementation of the mitigation measures described in the Negative
Declaration, will not have a significant environmental effect.
II
II
II
II
II
II
971125 l-c 0080612
1
~C~.IQ~_~. This resolution shall be effective upon the
thirty-first (31st) day after its adoption. This delayed effective
date is intended and shall be construed to provide a sufficient
period of time between adoption of the resolution and its effective
date,to allow a complete and exclusive opportunity for the exercise
of the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of the City of Palo
Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. A referendum
petition filed after the effective date shall be rejected as
untimely.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
971125 la¢ 0080612
2
Attachment B
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4.Project Location:
5.Application Number(s):
6.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
7.General Plan Designation-
8.Zoning"
9.Description of the Project:
Amendment to the Terman Specific Plan
City of Palo Alto Planning Division
250 Hamilton Aven’ue, Fifth Floor
PaloAIto CA 94301
Brian Dolan, Senior Planner
(415) 329-2149
673-679 Arastadero Road
97-.CPA-2 & 97-EIA-32
Mid Peninsula- Jewish Community Day School
655 Arastadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Single Family Residential
R-1 (929)
The applicant has requested approval of an amendment to the Terman Specific Plan to
remove section II J. 9.(a) which states the following:
"A solid wall shall be erected along that portion of the Dewitt property line adjacent to
the entry roads by Wings 20, 30 and 40 so as to lessen the impact of traffic along the
p~rtion of the entry road on the children attending the nursery school. This wall will be
constructed at the same time as the wall described in paragraph K.(b), below."
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting" The project site is surrounded by residential
properties to the southwest on Ynigo Drive, Terman Park to the southeast, the
Terman Community Center to the northeast, and residential us.es to the northwest
across Arastadero Road.
11.Other public agencies whose, approval is required: None.
S:\EIA\673aras.EIA
Page 1
97-EIA-33
ENVIRONMENTAL F/~ ORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below .would be potentially affected by this project as
"indicated by the che~:klist on the following pages.
X
Land use and Planning
Population and
Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation and
Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
X Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service
Systems
X Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
S:\EIA\673aras.EIA
Page 2
97-EIA-33
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation"
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,X
and a NEGATIVE DECLAR, ATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Project Planne~
7
Director of Planning & Community Environment
I//I
Date
S:\EIA\673aras.EIA
Page 3
97-EIA-33
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
ai Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?1,2 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 1 X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?3 X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact 3 X
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 3 X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 3 X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 3 X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c)Displace. existing housing, especially affordable 3 X
housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?3 x I
b) Seismic ground shaking?3 x I
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?3 x I
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?3 x I
e) Landslides or mudflows?3
S:\EIA\673aras.EIA
Page 4
97-EIA-33
f)Erosion, changes in topogr’aphy or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
I) Unique geologic or physical features?
3
3
3
3
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 3 X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 3 X
such as flooding?
3 Xc) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other
typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and
debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals
from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from
landscape maintenance?
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 3 X
body or wetland?
e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 3 X
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
f)3 XChange in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of anaquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has
contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
3
3
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
j)Alteration of wetlands in any way?
5.AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
exiting or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
X
X
X
X
S:\EIA\673aras.EIA
Page 5
97-EIA-33
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or; temperature, or cause 3
any change in climate?
~) Create objectionable odors? ’3
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ,3
b)-Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 3
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 3
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity oh-site or off-site?3
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?3
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 3
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?3
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interference in:
a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
’ forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
c)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x I
X
X
X
S:\EIA\673aras.EIA
Page 6
97-EIA-33
a)A risk of accidental e.xplosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
3
3,4 X
1 !. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
X
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or
storm drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?
3
3
3
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\EIA\673aras.EIA
Page 7
97-EIA-33
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal:
3
3
3
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
3
3
3
3
x
X
X
-X
3 X
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)Increasethedemandforneighborhoodorregionall~arks 3
I ij
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affectexisting recreational opportunities?3
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
Of the environment,, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or an!real
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Doesthe project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does th~ project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
X
S:\EIA\673aras.EIA
Page, 8
97-EIA-33
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
S:\EIA\673aras.EIA
Page 9
97-EIA-33
,DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
6. Transportation /CirculatiOn
b. & c. Hazards to safety and adequate access
The proposed removal of the wall will provide the opportunity for the project site to be accessed from
theTerman Drive. This access would result in fewer curb cuts onArastadero Road and would result
in a safer access for the project site. As described in section 11.9. (a) of theTerman Specific Plan,
construction of the wall was originally required to "lessen the impact of traffic along that portion of
the entry road on the children attending the nursery school." This separation .is not considered
necessary by the operators of the proposed new school on the project site.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
10. Noise "
b. Exposure to noise
The original purpose of the wall was not to mitigate noise but rather to separate the nursery school
children from traffic on Terman Drive. The removal of the wall between the two properties would
allow minimal amounts of noise to more easily be heard between the two land uses. The existing uses
at the Terman Community Center and the proposed new use on the nursery school site are not
incompatible in their noise generation characteristics.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
13. Aesthetics
b. Demonstrable negative visual effect
The removal of the wall will allow visibility between the Terman Community Center and the project
site. This increase visibility will not subject either property to undesirable or visually incompatible
views.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
S:\EIA\673a~as.EIA
Page 10
97-EIA-33
INITI~AL STUDY SOURCE LIST:
1)City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1995
2)City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance
3)Planner’s knowledge of the project and area of proposed development
4)Terman Specific Plan
S:\EIA\673aras.EIA
Page 11
97-EIA-33
Attachment C
DR
Project Site
R-I
929~
HENRY M, GUNN
HIGH SCHOOL
PF
RE
RE
CEMETERY
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
#: 97-CP-2 97-EIA-33 Scale: 1"= 400’
North