HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-14 City Council (5)TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ~ 1
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 14, 2003 CMR: 460:03
655 ARASTRADERO ROAD, TERMAN PARK [03-CPA-05, 03-EIA-
12]: APPLICATION BY THE PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT TO AMEND THE TERMAN SPECIFIC PLAN TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TENNIS COURTS FROM FOUR TO
TWO AND ADOPTION OF A PARK IMPROVEMENT
ORDINANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BASKETBALL COURTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE TERMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL RE-
OPENING
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the
Council:
o
Adopt the resolution as a responsible agency considering the Terman Middle
School Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) and Addendum
(Attachment A).
Adopt the resolution amending the Terman Specific Plan to reduce the number of
required city tennis courts from four to two (Attachment B).
Adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance allowing the Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) to construct improvements on City dedicated parkland
(Attachment C).
Approve The Agreement For Temporary Use Of City Property To Construct Basketball
Court And Playing Field Improvements At Terman Park And For Cost Sharing Between
The City Of Palo Alto And Palo Alto Unified School District (Attachment D)
Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Joint Use of Terman Site
(Attachment E).
CMR: 460:03 Page 1 of 6
BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2003, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) reviewed the
proposed plans for siting four additional.basketball courts at Terman Park (CMR 418:03)
and listened to public testimony. The PARC recommended that the City Council accept
alternative Scheme 2A to add four basketball courts, minus the addition of two new
tennis courts near the Glenbrook Drive entryway. The staff report and minutes of the
PARC meeting are included in Attachment F.
At its meeting of.September 8, 2003, the Council reviewed the Parks and Recreation
Commission recommendation. The Council identified a preferred configuration that
resulted in two less tennis courts and directed staff to proceed with amending the Terman
Specific Plan, which specifies four tennis courts (see Attachment G). The proposed park
improvements are consistent with the City Council’s direction (see Attachment H for
proposed site plan). A full project description is included in the attached Planning and
Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment I).
DISCUSSION
Park Improvement Ordinance
The City Charter and Municipal Code require that a Park Improvement Ordinance be
approved and adopted prior to construction or substantial changes in park use on land
held by the City for park purposes. The Park Improvement Ordinance describes the
proposed physical improvements and changes in park use at the park site and is subject to
a referendum petition for 30 days following its second reading (Attachment C).
Amendment to the Joint Use Agreement
In August 2002, the City and the PAUSD came to agreement on the PAUSD ownership
of the Terman School and the City’s continued ownership of the adjacent park areas,
including the tennis courts, basketball court, athletic fields areas, and use of school
buildings when school is not in session. The Agreement for Joint Use of Terman Site
describes the maintenance and funding responsibilities and times of use for the City and
the PAUSD facilities at the Terman Site, including supervision, scheduling and
maintenance of the site. The proposed amendment to the Joint Use of Terman Site
Agreement will add the basketball courts to the facilities included in the Agreement
(Attachment E).
Construction/Cost-Sharing Agreement
The proposed construction/cost-sharing agreement between the City and the PAUSD
(Attachment D) sets forth the terms and conditions on which the PAUSD may
temporarily access the park site to stage and construct the basketball courts and other
improvements. It also provides that the City will reimburse the PAUSD for a portion (up
to $50,000) of the construction, engineering and design costs of the project
CMR: 460:03 Page 2 of 6
improvements. Upon completion of construction and acceptance of the project
improvements they become the property of the City.
BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW
On October 1, 2003, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) unanimously
recommended that the City Council approve a resolution for the Addendum to the
Terman Middle School Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approve an Ordinance to
amend the Terman Specific Plan to reduce the number of tennis courts from four to two
courts. The PTC’s motion included a request for the PAUSD and City to explore
opportunities for enhancement of the park site, including adding landscape features to
provide shade to the court users and reduce the "heat island" effect from paved surfaces,
and adding landscape zones to provide pervious areas for water runoff.
The Commissioners’ comments were supportive of the proposed site plan in
consideration of the PAUSD and City’s program needs, i.e., reducing noise impacts to
neighboring residents, and retaining the existing park amenities, including trees and open
space. There were four public speakers providing comments in support of the project.
There were no speakers in opposition. The staff report and minutes of the PTC meeting
are included in Attachments I. Written correspondence received prior to the meeting are
included in Attachment J.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Preliminary cost estimates from the PAUSD for the conversion of two tennis courts to
basketball courts, building two additional basketball courts, re-aligning the baseball field
and related drainage and irrigation projects were estimated at $87,000. These cost
estimates did not include any of the normal City fees for construction projects. The
planning application fees have been waived for the applicant (PAUSD). These fees
include an environmental impact assessment application fee of $750 and an architectural
review application fee of $190. The application fee for a Specific Plan Amendment is a
deposit fee of $5,000 with the applicant being billed or refunded 100% of processing
fees. The total billing fee for a specific plan amendment is determined following project
approval. Staff estimates the plan amendment fees in this instance given the amount of
staff work required, would probably have been at least $8,000. Grading fees would have
been $630, and the encroachment permit fee charged by Public Works would have been
$750. The PAUSD would be required to pay all construction-related fees, including
obtaining a grading permit, prior to commencing construction.
Based on the estimate provided by the PAUSD, staff responded to Council direction to
explore the feasibility of sharing the costs with PAUSD of court construction. The City’s
share of such costs is estimated at $43,500. The cost sharing agreement caps the City’s
share at $50,000. At present, there are no funds allocated for this new Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) item. Staff reviewed the Infrastructure Master Plan priorities
CMR: 460:03 Page 3 of 6
and is recommending that CIP PG00010, Park Facilities Improvements, be amended to
include this project. In order to accommodate the costs, improvements to the E1 Camino
Park Scorer’s booth will be deferred. The revised CIP (Attachment K) will reflect the
Terman project instead of the E1 Camino Park Scorer’s booth.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The existing funds for this project were derived by a_mending the approved 2003-05
Capital Improvement Plan. Current Council priorities have established that existing
infrastructure projects have priority over new infrastructure projects. Because the
proposed scope of this project includes elements that were not in the original
Infrastructure Management Plan (IMP), approval of this project would be a change in
current Council policy regarding the implementation of the IMP.
Any option that removes facilities specifically called for in the Terman Specific Plan
requires a specific plan amendment that is adopted by Ordinance by the City Council.
The Terman Specific Plan (Section II D 1) states, "The City will retain four tennis courts
on the Terman site." Implementation of the PAUSD plan will effectively convert two
tennis courts to basketball courts, thus requiring a change to the Terman Specific Plan to
reflect only two tennis courts. In order to amend a specific plan, the City Council must
fred that because of changed conditions it is in the public interest to amend the Terman
Specific Plan.
Staff believes that the proposed specific plan amendment and project complies with the
Comprehensive Plan’s policies and programs for park improvements. A discussion of the
proposed project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs is
included in the attached Planning and Transportation Commission staff report
TIMELINE
If approved by the City Council on October 14, the second reading would be on October
27. Because City Park Improvement Ordinances are subject to a referendum petition for
30 days following their second reading, construction could begin after November 27. The
PAUSD expects construction to be completed in less than one month.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Construction of the basketball courts is a project subject to environmental review through
the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An addendum to the EIR was
prepared in conformance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines and was certified
by the PAUSD Board of Education on September 15, 2003 (Attachment L). The PAUSD
is the "lead agency" and the City of Palo Alto is a "responsible agency" for the basketball
court improvements. As a responsible agency, the City must review the Terman School
CMR: 460:03 Page 4 of 6
EIR and the Addendum to make legally required fmdings under the California
Environmental Quality Act before approving the project.
The Resolution Considering the EIR and Addendum is Attachment A of this staff report.
(The resolution was modified after Planning and Transportation Commission review.-)
Staff believes that the Final EIR and Addendum have been completed in compliance with
the CEQA and that they are adequate for the City’s use in evaluating potential impacts of
the project The Addendum concludes that the proposed project would not result in any
new significant environmental effects that were not identified in the f’mal EIR or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects described in the EIR,
specifically noise and construction impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Resolution Considering the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR and
Addendum
Attachment B: Resolution Amending the Terman Specific Plan
Attachment C: Park Improvement Ordinance
Attachment D: Construction/Cost Sharing Agreement
Attachment E. Amendment to the Joint Use of Terman Site Agreement
Attachment F: Parks and Recreation Commission staff report and minutes of August 26,
2003
Attachment G: Terman Specific Plan
Attachment H: Site Plan for Proposed Basketball Courts and Site Improvements
Attachment I: Planning and Transportation Commission staff report (with attachments
A, B, I, and J) and minutes of October 1, 2003
Attachment J: Correspondence regarding PTC meeting on October 1, 2003
Attachment K: Revised Park Facilities Improvements CIP (PG00010)
Attachment L: Addendum and Terman Middle School Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) and the PAUSD Board of Education Resolution
approving the Addendum (Council members only to receive the FEIR)
COURTESY COPIES
Palo Alto Unified School District
PREPARED BY:Beth Young, Senior
Paul Dias, Director,
Planning and Community Environment
Services
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
of Planning and Community Environment
CMR: 460:03 Page 5 of 6
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:/I~A~~~TG~~ ~
Director of Community Services
EMIL5k HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 460:03 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CONSIDERING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADDENDUM
AND MAKING FINDINGS FOR THE PALO ALTO UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT 655 ARASTRADERO ROAD TERMAN PARK
BASKETBALL COURT PROJECT PURSUANT .TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of
Pa!o Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. The Palo Alto Unified School District ("District")
operates Terman Middle. School adjacent to the City owned Terman
Park. The District has proposed to remove two existing tennis
courts and construct four new basketball/netball courts in
Terman Park ("the Project").
B. The District is the lead agency for the Projectand
the City is a responsible agency for the Project.
C. The City Council wishes to consider adopting an
amendment to the Terman Park Specific Plan and a park
improvement ordinance to allow the District to construct the
Project.
D. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
(hereinafter "CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq., an
-Environmental Impact Report, ("EIR"), was prepared by the
District to evaluate anticipated environmental impacts resulting
from changes in land use as a result of the implementation of
the Terman Middle School Reopening. The Fina! EIR is on file
in the offices of the Palo Alto Unified School District, along
with the records, minutes and files constituting the
environmental review record of proceedings.
E. The draft EIR was offered by the District for public
review and comment beginning on September 17, 2001, and ending
on October 26, 2001, and the District received written and oral
communications during the public review period. The District
responded to these comments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines,
03 !008 sm 0100140 1
and the comments and responses have been included in the Final
EIR.
F. The District Board held a public hearing on the
Draft EIR on October 16, 2001. The Board found the draft EIR
provided an adequate project description, identified and
analyzed each potential significant environmental impact and
proposed feasible mitigation measures, described and evaluated a
range of reasonable alternatives to the Project and its proposed
location, including those specific alternatives required by
CEQA, and recommended preparation of Final EIR based upon the
draft EIR reviewed by them.
G. The District Board certified the Final EIR on March
12, 2002. As part of the accompanying resolution, the Board also
approved a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (~MMP") pursuant to
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.The MMP is
designed to ensure compliance with project changes and
mitigation imposed to avoid or substantially reduce the
environmental effects identified in the fina! EIR.
H. An Addendum to the final EIR evaluatingthe
potential environmental impacts of the Project was approved by
the District on September 15, 2003. The Addendum concludes that
implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any
new significant environmental effects that were not identified
in the final EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects described in the EIR, specifically
noise and construction impacts.
I. Alternatives to th~ proposed Project were addressed
by the Addendum prepared by the District. These alternatives
included constructing new courts on the Terman park site and
retaining al! four tennis courts, relocating two tennis courts
and constructing new basketball courts, and constructing new
basketball courts on the Terman Schoo! site. The proposed
Project was selected because it would not eliminate existing
park open space, and would not impact significant trees while
still achieving objectives of the Project.
SECTION 2. Consideration. As a "Responsible Agency"
the City Council hereby finds and declares that it has reviewed
and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and
Addendum, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at
public hearings on the proposed Project, and all other matters
deemed material and relevant before considering the Project for
approval. The City Council hereby finds the fol!owing:
031008 sm 0100140 2
A. That the Final EIR and Addendum prepared by the
District reflect the independent review and judgment of the
District as Lead Agency and are acceptable for use the City as
the responsible Agency for the Project.
B. There is no significant new information that would
support a conclusion that the EIR should be re-circulated
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5 or that a subsequent or supplemental
EIR should be prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163.
C. That the Addendum concludes that implementation of
the proposed Project would not result in any new significant
environmenta! effects that were not identified in the final EIR
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects described in the EIR, specifically noise and
construction impacts.
SECTION 3. Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated
To A Less Than Siqnificant Leve!. The City Council finds that
the EIR together with the Addendum as approved by the District
Board identified potentially significant environmental effects
of the Terman Middle School Reopening and the Project with
regard to land use, noise, including noise conditions during
construction, public facilities and recreation, and traffic.
Mitigation measures were identified which eliminate or
substantially reduced each of these impacts. The City Council
finds that, in response to each potential significant effect of
the Project identified in the EIR and the Addendum and listed in
this Section 3, al! feasible changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
the Project. Each of the mitigation measures summarized below
is more fully described in the EIR and Addendum.
A.Noise. The final EIR and Addendum identified
potentially significant impacts from construction noise, though
no major construction is proposed as part of the Project. To
mitigate these impacts, Best Management Practices that require
appropriate mufflers for large vehicles and prohibit radios used
outdoors by construction personnel would be used during
renovation. All renovation activity at the site would occur
within the hours prescribed by the City’s Noise Ordinance The
intermittent noise generated by the schoo! is for a limited
duration and represents a minor increase in noise levels and
031008 sm 0100140 3
therefore does not represent a significant impact.
Additiona!!y~ the incorporation of Best Management Practices in
the construction will limit any temporary noise to less than
significant levels.
SECTION 4. No Cumulative Impacts. For the reasons
stated in the EIR and Addendum, the Project was not found to
result in cumulatively considerable impacts when considered in
combination with past, current, and probable future projects.
SECTION 5. No Significant Impacts Which Cannot Be Fully
Mitigated. The City Council finds, as the final EIR and
Addendum concluded, that the Project would not result in any
significant unavoidable impacts.
SECTION 6. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The
City finds that the Fina! EIR and Addendum neither expressly
identifies, nor contains any substantial evidence identifying
significant environmental effects of the Project. The proposed
Project would not have any impacts on Land Use, Traffic,
Agricultura! Resources,. Energy, Mineral Resources, Recreation,
Population and Housing, Public Services, Air Quality and Noise.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
031008 sm 0100140 4
SECTION 7. Substantial evidence supporting each
every finding made herein is contained in the Final
including amendments, revisions and records of proceedings.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
Interim City Attorney City Manager
and
EIR
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Director of Administrative
Services
031008 sm 0100140 5
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING THE TERMAN SPECIFIC PLAN TO REDUCE
THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED CITY TENNIS COURTS
FROM FOUR TO TWO
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission,
after duly noticed public hearing on October i, 2003, has
recommended that the Terman Specific Plan be amended to reduce
the required number of City tennis courts at Terman Park from
four to two; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems the amendment of the
Terman Specific Plan to reduce the number of required tennis
courts from four to two in order to provide the space needed to
accommodate additiona! basketbal!/netball courts to be in the
public interest; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public
hearing on the matter on October 14, 2003, and has reviewed the
Terman Middle School Reopening Environmental Impact Report and
Addendum and all other relevant information prepared for the
project, 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:
SECTION !. The City Council finds that because of
changed conditions it is in the public interest to amend the
Terman Specific Plan.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Terman
Specific Plan (Section II. D. I.) as follows:
"The City will retain two tennis courts on the
Terman site. The courts will be maintained by the
city in a manner equivalent to the City tennis
courts elsewhere."
//
//
//
//
031008 sm 0100139
SECTION 3. The City Council, after reviewing the Terman
Middle School Reopening Environmental Impact Report and Addendum
prepared by the Palo Alto Unified School District, finds that
this project will have no significant effect on the environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: ~
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Interim City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning and
CommunitY Environment
Director of Administrative
Services
031008 sm 0100139 2
ATTACHMENT C
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A PLAN FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO TERMAN PARK
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION !. Findings and Declarations.
finds and declares as follows:
The City Council
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo
Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Pa!o Alto Municipa! Code
require that, before any substantial building, construction,
reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or
with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the
Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance
approve and adopt a plan therefore.
(b)Terman Park is dedicated to park purposes.
(c)Pursuant to the Palo Alto Unified School
District’s proposals the City intends to authorize construction
of certain capital improvements to Terman Park the "Plan" ,
including, specifically the following:
I)Resurfacing and conversion of two existing tennis
courts for use as basketball/netball courts.
2)Removal of berm and turf adjacent to existing
tennis courts and construction of two new
basketba!i/netball courts.
3)Reconfiguration and restriping of soccer field
adjacent to tennis courts and new basketball courts
from 295’x 207’ to 317’ x 178’.
4)Relocation of baseball diamond and installation of
new backstop and fencing and installation of new
pavement around the baseball diamond.
5)Redesign and installation of irrigation systems
displaced by new construction and installation of
drainage improvements.
030917 sm 0100125 1
(d) The Council desires to approve improvements as
more specifically described on the maps attached hereto as
Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves repair and-
improvements of the area that lies within Terman Park and hereby
adopts the maps attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as part of the
official plan for the construction of improvements at Terman
Park.
SECTION 3. The City Council
project will have no significant
environment.
hereby finds that this
adverse effect on the
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
Interim City Attorney City Manager
Director of Community
Services
Director of Administrative
Services
030917 sm 0100125 2
EXHIBIT "A"
O
ATTACHMENT; D
AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF CITY PROPERTY
TO CONSTRUCT BASKETBALL COURT AND
PLAYING FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT TERMAN PARK
~AND FOR COST SHARING
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AND
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
This Agreement For Temporary Use Of City Property To
Construct Basketball Court and Playing Field Improvements At
Terman Park and For Cost Sharing ("Agreement") is made this
day of , 2003, by and between the City Of
Palo Alto ("CITY"), a municipal corporation, and the Palo Alto
Unified School District ("DISTRICT").
Recitals
A.The CITY owns and operates Terman Park. The DISTRICT owns and
operates Terman Middle School adjacent to Terman Park. The
CITY and DISTRICT entered into a Joint Use Agreement, dated
August 13, 2002, ("Joint Use Agreement") to-set forth the
terms and conditions on which the CITY and DISTRICT may each
use the facilities of the other at Terman Park and Terman
Middle School.
B.The DISTRICT desires to construct basketball court and playing
field improvements at Terman Park ("Project.Improvements") and
has requested that CITY permit DISTRICT to temporarily use a
portion of Terman Park "City Property") to construct the
Project Improvements and for a construction staging area.
CITY is willing to permit such temporary construction and
staging use and has agreed to reimburse the DISTRICT fifty
percent (50%) of the construction, engineering and design
costs for the Project Improvements, provided that the CITY’s
share shall not exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000
C.The Project Improvements consist of resurfacing and
improvement to convert two existing tennis courts for use as
basketball/netball courts; construction of two new
basketball/netbal!courts; reconfiguration of one soccer
field; relocation of an existing basebal! diamond; and,
appurtenant improvements, including irrigation and drainage
improvements.
031007 sm 0100093
D.Upon completion of construction and acceptance of the Project
Improvements they shall become the property of CITY.
Concurrently with entering into this Agreement, the CITY and
the DISTRICT have entered into an amendment to the Joint Use
Agreement to provide for the use and maintenance of the
Project Improvements by the CITY and the DISTRICT.
E.The parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth
the terms and conditions on which the DISTRICT, its employees
and agents may temporarily access the City Property to stage
and construct the Project Improvements at Terman Park and on
which the CITY shall reimburse the DISTRICT for construction,
engineering and design costs of the Project Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
!.Grant of Use. CITY hereby grants DISTRICT, its employees and
agents, a temporary right to use the City Property to stage
the construction of and to construct the Project Improvements
(the "Temporary Use*’), subject to all licenses, easements,
encumbrances and claims of title affecting the City Property.
The Temporary Use shal! include staging and storage of
construction materials and equipment. The portions of the
City Property which may be used to stage and construct the
Project Improvements are more particularly described on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2.Duration of. Temporary Use. Subject to the limits stated
herein, the Temporary Use is a right to the use of the City
Property to construct the Project Improvements from November
27, 2003 through March i, 2004. At the discretion of the
CITY’s City Manager, the term of the Temporary Use may be
extended by written notice to the DISTRICT.
3. Design and Construction of the Project Improvements.
A.CITY Review of Plans. DISTRICT shall prepare, and the
CITY’s Director of Community Services and Director of
Public Works or their respective designees shal! review,
and take no exception to the Plans and Specifications for
all the Project Improvements. All construction shal! be
performed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications
as reviewed and approved by the CITY.
2
031007 sm 0100093
B.Modification to Plans. During the course of construction
DISTRICT may make material changes to the Plans and
Specifications only with the prior written approval of
CITY, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
C.Correction of Plans. Approval of this Agreement and review
of the Plans and Specifications does not release the
DISTRICT of the responsibility for the correction of
mistakes, errors, or omissions contained therein.
D.Permits and Approvals. DISTRICT shall, at its sole cost and
expense, obtain al! governmental reviews and approvals,
licenses and permits that are, or may be, required and
necessary before using the City Property in accordance with
the provisions of this Agreement. DISTRICT shal! comply
with all conditions, restrictions or contingencies imposed
upon, or attached to, such governmenta! approvals,
licenses, and permits.
E.Local, State and Federal Laws. DISTRICT at its sole cost
and expense (subject to reimbursement as described in
section I0 , shall construct all of the Project
Improvements to the satisfaction of the CITY.All
construction work shall be undertaken and performed in
accordance with the terms and conditionsof this Agreement,
the Plans and Specifications as reviewed by CITY, any
applicable permits, and all applicable codes, laws and
regulations, including, but not limited to, all applicable
public bidding laws and federal and state labor standards.
F.Bonds. Prior to commencement of construction of the
Project Improvements, the DISTRICT shal! cause its
Contractor to furnish to the City a good and sufficient
bond securing the faithful performance by the DISTRICT’s
Contractor of all the work and construction to be performed
pursuant to this Agreement. In addition, DISTRICT shall
cause its Contractor to furnish a good and sufficient bond
securing the payment by the Contractor of al! billings for
labor and materials incurred in the construction of all
improvements. Said bonds shal! be in an amount equal to
one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of the DISTRICT’s
construction contract with its Contractor. In lieu of
submitting separate bonds naming the City as ob!igee, the
bonds may name the DISTRICT and CITY as co-obligees. The
surety furnishing the bond shall be an Admitted Surety in
the State of California and the legal form of the bond
shall be satisfactory to the City Attorney.
3
031007 srn 0100093
G.Insurance. DISTRICT at its sole cost and expense and for
the full term of this Agreement or any renewa! thereof,
shall obtain and maintain insurance coverage in the types
and amounts reasonably required by the City’s Risk Manager~
prior to commencing any work under this Agreement. Those
amounts are as follows: I) worker’s compensation insurance,
2) comprehensive automobile liability insurance in the
amount of $I,000,000 per occurrence, 3) commercial general
liability insurance in the amount of $2,000,000, general
aggregate, $I,000,000 each occurrence, products/completed
operations $2,000,000 aggregate, personal and advertising
injury $I,000,000, and fire damage $I,000,000, and 4)
errors and omissions insurance on an occurrence basis with
limits of $!,000,000. The DISTRICT may satisfy the above
requirement by causing its Contractor to maintain insurance
of the types and in the amounts reasonably required by the
City’s Risk Manager and to name the City as an additiona!
insured on such insurance. All policies, endorsements,
certificates and/or binders shall be subject to approval by
the Risk Manager of the City of Palo Alto as to form and
content. Insurance requirements are subject to amendment
or waiver if approved in writing by the Risk Manager.
DISTRICT agrees to provide or to cause its Contractor to
provide CITY with a copy of said policies, certificates
and/or endorsements before DISTRICT’s use of the City
Property commences hereunder.
H.Hazardous Material. A Hazardous Material is any substance
or material identified as hazardous under any federa!,
state or loca! law or regulation, or any other substance or
materia! which may be considered hazardous or otherwise
subject to statutory or regulatory requirements governing
handling, disposal and/or clean-up, with the exception of
those materials properly used in the normal course of
construction, including but not limited to, paint, cleaning
materials, and fuel. If during the course of construction
of the Project Improvements, known or suspected Hazardous
Material is discovered, the DISTRICT shall report the
condition to CITY, and, if required by applicable law, to
the government agency with jurisdiction. In the event the
discovered materials are Hazardous Material that must be
disposed of at an appropriate facility, DISTRICT will
retain a contractor licensed to handle, characterize,
package, store, manifest and dispose of Hazardous Material,
and wil! arrange for said contrac~tor to handle,
characterize, package, store, manifest or dispose of the
031007 sra 0 !00093
Hazardous Material. Any Hazardous Materials discovered on
the CITY Property and disposed of by DISTRICT pursuant to
this Section H shall identify the CITY as the owner of the
Hazardous Materials in any manifest or packaging. Costs to
retain and use such a contractor shall be considered
Project Costs for purposes of City reimbursement as
described in and limited by section I0 of this Agreement.
I.Inspection. The CITY may conduct any and all inspections
it deems necessary to monitor and inspect the progress and
quality of construction of the Project Improvements and to
ensure that the work is performed in accordance with the
Plans and Specifications. DISTRICT agrees that CITY
representatives may consult with the DISTRICT’S contractors
and consultants regarding the progress and quality of
construction. DISTRICT’s contractors and consultants shall
fully cooperate with the CITY’s requests for information
regarding the progress and quality of construction of the
Project Improvements.
4.Security. DISTRICT.and its contractor shall be responsible
for the security of any items left by DISTRICT, its employees,
agents or contractors at the City Property during the
Temporary Use. CITY shall bear no responsibility of any kind
for any equipment and/or vehicles left unattended on the City
Property by DISTRICT, its employees, agents or contractors.
5.Access. Except as provided in the Joint Use Agreement and
pursuant to permits issued by the CITY to the DISTRICT for use
of Terman Park, access to the City Property by DISTRICT shall
be restricted to its contractor, suppliers, subcontractors,
employees and agents, and to only that equipment, material and
those vehicles specifically required for the purposesset
forth in this Agreement.
6. Condition and Use of Property.
A. Property ~As Is". DISTRICT expressly acknowledgesand
agrees that the City Property is being made availablefor
DISTRICT’s use "as is", that is, in its present condition,
and that CITY makes no warranties or representations
whatsoever regarding the condition of the City Property or
its suitability for such use.
B.Maintenance of Property. DISTRICT shall at all times
maintain the cons.tructio~-.and staging areas in a neat and
031007 sm 0100093
orderly fashion, minimize any dust and noise in conformance
with neighborhood and governmental standards, prevent any
hazardous and/or toxic substances (with the exception of
those materials properly used in the normal course of
construction, including, but not limited to, paint,~
cleaning materials, and fuel) from being placed, stored or
used on the City Property, shall remove any and al! garbage
and/or debris placed on the City Property prior to
termination of this Agreement, and otherwise return the
City Property to CITY as nearly as practicable to the same
condition it was in prior to DISTRICT’s use of the City
Property, with the exception.of the Project Improvements.
C.Schedule. Prior to exercise of the rights granted under
this Agreement, DISTRICT shall submit to CITY a schedule
indicating the order of construction of the Project
Improvements and the approximate time for construction of
each improvement.
D.Soccer Fields. DISTRICT shall ensure that the soccer field
adjacent to the Construction areas shal! not be used for
construction staging, and shall be available for soccer use
after 3:30 Monday through Friday and on the weekends during
the construction period. Construction of the Project
Improvements shal! not interfere with or disrupt the use of
the fields for soccer at the times the fields are not
reserved for DISTRICT use pursuant the Joint Use Agreement.
E.Compliance with Laws. DISTRICT shall comply with all
applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the
federal, state and !ocal governments with respect to its
use of the City Property.
F.Use Property Safely. DISTRICT shall at all times use and
maintain the construction areas in a safe manner. DISTRICT
shall take reasonable measures to protect persons using the
soccer fields and other park areas from safety hazards
associated with construction of the Project ~Improvements.
7.City Representative. Unless otherwise stated herein, City’s
Representative for any purposes related to this Agreement
shall be the Assistant City Manager, or such other person as
the Assistant City Manager may designate.
8.Repair Obligations. DISTRICT shal! be responsible for
repairing any damage to the City Property, or any other real
6
031007 sm 0100093
or personal property arising out of or in connection with
DISTRICT’s use of the City Property. Such repairs shall be
made to the satisfaction of the CITY. Any and al! repairs
shal! be made in a timely manner according to a schedule of
~repairs acceptable to the Director.In addition to the
foregoing repair obligation, DISTRICT shall resurface the
basketball court used for construction staging in the same
manner and quality as the surfacing of the new basketball
courts constructed as part of the Project Improvements.
9.City’s Riqht to Enter. CITY shall havethe right to enter the
¢ity Property at any time.
10.Cost Sharinq. CITY shall reimburse DISTRICT fifty percent
(50%) of the construction, engineeringand design costs of the
Project Improvements, or Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000),
whichever is less. Upon completion of the Project
Improvements and their acceptance by CITY, DISTRICT shal!
submit an invoice and supporting documentation to CITY’s City
Manager detailing the construction, engineering and architect
costs of the Project Improvements. City shall pay District
the CITY’s share of the Project costs within thirty (30) days
of receipt of the District’s invoice.
ll.Ownership of Project Improvements. Upon completion of the
Project Improvements and their acceptance by CITY, the
Improvements shal! become the property of CITY without any
further exchange of documents or agreement.
12.Assignment. DISTRICT shall not assign or transfer any
interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent
of CITY.
13.1ndemnification. DISTRICT shal! indemnify, defend and hold
the CITY, and its agents, officers, and employees, harmless
from and against any and all costs, loss, damages, claims,
liability and/or expenses, including defense costs, lega!
fees and attorneys’ fees, and claims for damages of any
nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily
injury, death, personal injury or property damage arising in
any manner from or in connection with the DISTRICT’s use of
and/or operations on the City Property pursuant to this
Agreement.
14.Notices. All notices and other communications required or
permitted to be given under this Agreement shal! be in
031007 sm 0100093
writing and may be delivered by hand, by facsimile
transmission with verification of receipt, or by United
States mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested,
addressed to the respective parties as follows:
Assistant City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Superintendent
Palo Alto Unified School District
25 Churchill Avenue
Pa!o Alto, CA 94306-1099
or to such other address as any party may designate by notice in
accordance with this Section.
A copy of any- notice of a legal nature, including, but not
limited to, any claims against CITY, its officers or emp!oyees
shall also be served in the manner specified above to the
fol!owing address:
City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Notice shall be deemed effective on the date delivered or, if
appropriate, on the date delivery is refused.
15.Nondiscrimination. DISTRICT shall not discriminate, in any
way, against or grant preferentia! treatment to any person on
the basis of race, sex, color, age, religion, creed, marital
status, disability, ethnicity, ancestry, or nationa! origin
in the occupancy, tenure or use of the City Property.
16.Governing Law.CITY and DISTRICT agree that the law
governing this AGREEMENT shall be that of the State of
California.
17.Venue. In the event that suit shall be brought by either
party hereunder,the parties agree that trial of such action
shall be exclusively vested in a state court in the County of
Santa Clara or, where appropriate, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jos@, California.
03 !007 sm 0100093
18.Distinction from Regulatory Approval. DISTRICT agrees and
acknowledges that this Agreement does not and shall not be
construed to indicate or imply that the CITY, acting as a
permitting authority, has hereby granted- DISTRICT any
approval or permits required by law for the use of the
Property contemplated in this Agreement.
19.Miscellaneous Provisions.
A.Headings. The headings of the sections and subsections of
this Agreement are inserted for convenience only. They do
not constitute a part of this Agreement and shall not be
used in its construction.
B.Waiver. The waiver by any party to this Agreement of a
breach of any provision of this Agreement shal! not be
deemed a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent
breach of that or any other provision of this Agreement.
C.Integration. Any and all exhibits that are referred to in
this Agreement are incorporated herein by reference and are
deemed a part of this Agreement. This Agreement, including
all Exhibits attached hereto, represents the entire
understanding of the parties as to those matters contained
herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of
any force or effect with respect to those matters covered
hereunder. This Agreement may only be amended by forma!
written Agreement executed by both parties.
D.Severability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision
of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person
or circumstance, shall to any extent be held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or
unenforceable, the remainder of the terms, covenants,
conditions or provisions of this Agreement, or the
application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall
remain in ful! force and effect and shall in no way be
affected, impaired or invalidated thereby.
E.Director’s Authority. Where this Agreement refers to CITY
and no officer of the CITY is named, the Director shall
have the authority to act on CITY’s behalf.
031007 sm 0100093
9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument
the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Wynne S. Furth
Interim City Attorney
APPROVED:
Assistant City Manager
By:
Mary Lowell
President, Board of Education
APPROVED:
By:
Mary Frances Callan
Superintendent
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
District Counsel
Attachments:
Exhibit "A": Maps of City Property
I0
031007 sm 0100093
EXHIBIT "A"
ATrACHMENT E
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE OF TERMAN SITE
This First Amendment to Agreement for Joint Use of
Terman Site, is entered into this day of
2003, by and between the City of Palo Alto, a municipal
corporation ("City") and the Palo Alto Unified School
District ("School District").
RECITALS
I. The City and the School District entered into the
Agreement for Joint Use of Terman Site dated August 13,
2002 (the "Joint Use Agreement") that provided procedures
for the joint use of the Terman Middle School and the
Terman Park by the City and the School District.
2. The School District and the City have now entered
into an agreement that allows the School District to remove
two existing tennis courts on the Terman Park site and
construct four courts to be used for basketball and other
net sports ("basketball courts") on the Terman Park Site.
3. The City and the School District desire to amend
their Joint Use Agreement to include provisions regarding
the joint use of the newly constructed courts.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the School District
mutually covenant and agree with each other as fol!ows:
!. Maintenance of Athletic Fields. Section E.!.c of
the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
"I. Turf Areas and Hardscape Facilities on
Terman Site.
(c) The City will continue its existing
maintenance program for tennis courts and
hardscape facilities in Terman Park. The
City will wash and air b!ow the surfaces of
the tennis and basketball courts, repair
and/or replace, as reasonable necessary the
tennis nets, screens, and basketball nets and
perform other maintenance work of a general
nature at the frequencies and times in
accordance with the maintenance standards
031008 sm 0100136
adopted by the City. The City will also
resurface and restripe the courts. Such
resurfacing and restriping will be scheduled
to match the City’s existing court
resurfacing program at an approximate five
year interval for such work, provided,
however, before restriping the courts other
than the tennis courts, the City shall
consult with the School District regarding
School District needs for restriping. The
School District shall pay one half of the
City’s actua! cost of maintaining and
resurfacing the tennis and basketball
courts."
2. School District Use of Terman Park. Attachment 2
of the Joint Use Agreement is hereby amended to add section
3 as follows:
II
II
II
II
II
II
!1
II
II
"3. Terman Basketball Courts
(a) Terman Middle School shall have first
call on the basketball courts between the
hours of 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on days when
Terman Middle School ks in regular session.
(b) School District shall pick up all litter
and leave the basketball courts in good
condition at the end of every day of use."
03100~ s~n 0100136 2
3. Effect of Amendment. Unless otherwise amended
herein, the provisions of the Joint Use Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect. In the event of any
conflict between this First Amendment and the Joint Use
:Agreeme~t, ~hiSi~First ,~mendment shal! contro!. All defined
terms not otherwise defined in this First Amendment shall
have the definitions set forth in the Joint Use Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
agreement on the date and year first above written.
ATTEST:CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Wynne S. Furth
Interim City Attorney
APPROVED:
Assistant City Manager
Paul Thiltgen
Director of Community Services
Mayor
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
By:
Mary Lowell
President, Board of Education
APPROVED:
By:
Mary Frances Callan
Superintendent
031008 sm 0100136 3
ATTACHMENT F
¯ TO:PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM:COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AUGUST 26, 2003
CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL OF PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT (PAUSD) REQUEST FOR SITING ADDITIONAL
BASKETBALL COURTS / TENNIS COURTS AT.TERMAN PARK
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission:
1. Recommend that the City Council approve the preferred plan (Attachment A)
for permanent basketball courts at Terman Park.
2.Recommend that the City Council approve a Park Improvement Ordinance to
allow construction of the improvements as shown in the preferred plan.
BACKGROUND
In August 2002, the City and PAUSD came to agreement on PAUSD ownership of the
Terman. School and the City’s continued-ownership of the adjacent park areas, including
the tennis courts and one basketball court and athletic field areas and use of school
buildings when school is not in session. The Joint Use of Terman Agreement
(Attachment E) states the responsibilities and use of the Terman Site by the PAUSD and
the City, including supervision, scheduling and maintenance of the site. Park permits will
be issued to PAUSD for use of the tennis courts, fields, and basketball courts during
school hours. In January 2003, at the request of PAUSD, City and PAUSD staff began to
meet to develop options to address the lack of hard surface playing areas on school
property and the need for such space for students. Following the June 2003 City/School
Liaison Committee meeting;,..a Council Colleagues Memo dated June 14, 2003 was sent
to the Council by Council Members Kishimoto and Burch, discussing the need for
cooperation between the City and the PAUSD relative to security at the new Terman
Middle School and the addition of more basketball courts.
On August 4, 2003, Council approved the interim use of tennis courts for basketball at
Terman. Council referred to the Parks .and Recreation Commission (PARC) for
recommendation the issue of long-term solutions/options for basketball and tennis
facilities at Terman Park (CMR 384:03). Council requested that the PARC report back in
September with the pros and cons, a preferred alternative and costs. This item has been
agendized for the September 8, 2003 Council meeting.
Page i of 8
Terman Park and School - Existing Conditions
The Terman Middle School gym has two indoor basketball courts. The adjacent play
fields, which are not part 0~ the Terman Middle School property, include one basketball
court. PAUSD has identified the following requirements for the site’s basketball courts:
¯Adequate facilities relative to enrollment (The California Department of
Education Standards require a minimum of 8 basketball coui’ts for a student
population as projected for Terman).
¯Equity among Middle School campuses
¯Security and safety via adequate supervision and clear boundaries
¯Hard courts grouped together for effective Physical Education instruction
The three available courts do not adequately meet PAUSD needs. PAUSD proposes to
develop four basketball courts in the current location of the two tennis courts. PAUSD
proposes to develop four additional outdoor basketball courts on city property. The new
basketball courts would be used by Terman students from 7:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. (i.e.,
during campus hours). As with the rest of the play fields, .the City’s Recreation Division
would manage the use of the basketball courts during non-school hours. After-school
basketbalI programs run from the beginning of November through the first week of April.
Practices are typically held from the end of the school day through 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday. The courts would be available to the community during non-school
hours, when not booked for Middle School or City events.
Alternatives to be considered included:
1. Converting two existing tennis courts to basketball courts, constructing two additional
basketball courts adjacent to the current ball field, and constructing two new tennis
courts in the turf area adjacent to the Glenbrook entry; or,
2.Constructing three and a half new basketball courts by the .Glenbrook entry; or,
3.Relocating the baseball diamond across the park and constructing four new basketball
courts in the previous baseball area; or,
4. Amending the Terman Specific Plan to allow fewer tennis courts.
Council also directed City and District staff to analyze the feasibility of installing
basketball courts on District owned lands on the northeast side of Terman School. Since
the Council meeting/referral, the District has come forward with an additional alternative
for permanent basketball courts located on City parklands. This district proposal would
put permanent basketball standards on all four of the tennis courts, making the tennis
courts multiple use, and requiring an amendment to the Terman Specific Plan.
City staff and District representatives have been in close discussion on the various
alternatives. District staff met with Greendale neighborhood association members on
August 13, 2003 to listen to neighborhood ideas and concerns.
Page 2 of 8
DISCUSSION
Long Term Permanent Solutions
The primary goal for both the City and PAUSD is to provide the required basketball
courts and retain four stand-alone tennis courts while preserving as much field/open
space as possible. Following is a summa .ry of pros and cons of 8 alternative plans,
including the 5 plans origin_ally presented to the City Council on June 14, 2003.
Alternatives:
1. Ci.ty Staff Preferred Alternative: (Attachment A - Scheme 2A) - Convert two tennis
courts to basketball and construct two additional basketball courts directly adjacent to
the converted courts; and construct two new tennis courts in a little used portion of the
park along the northern edge of the playing fields, near Glenbrook Drive.
PROS:
¯Complies With the Terman Specific Plan
¯Retains the soccer field configuration
¯Places four. new basketball courts directly adjacent to the existing court
¯Provides a more readily accessible area to facilitate teacher supervision
¯Keeps programming of students in a close .proximity and provides better
supervision from campus interior
Requires minimal realignment of the baseball field
Minimizes noise related issues in the neighborhood
Utilizes existing non-athletic field space
Creates two new tennis courts not impacted by school use
Soccer.field cortfiguration is maintained, although moved south slightly
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
Retains a portion of the turf area for casual use
M.ay reduce a number of trees for removal
schemes
Provides better supervision logistics for the
program
compared to other proposed
City middle school athletic
CONS:
¯Total cost estimated $240,000
¯Increases basketball court maintenance costs shared by the District and City
¯Construction costs may be higher than other alternatives
¯Requires additional soccer field drainage from reconfigured field ($ TBD)
¯Drainage issues will need to be resolved around new proposed tennis courts
¯Reduction of park green space
Construct four new
Scheme 3R &3S)
PROS"
basketball courts by Glenbrook entry point.(Attachment B -
Page 3 of 8
o
¯
¯
¯
¯
Complies with the Terman Specific Plan
Soccer field configuration is maintained, although moved south slightly
Adds four basketball courts
Baseball field is not unaffected
May be less costly compared to preferred alternative
CONS:
¯
¯
Total costs estimated $186,000
Increases basketball court maintenance costs
Separates existing basketball court from new courts
Splits supervision by teachers between different basketball court areas/difficult
to supervise from campus interior
May result in increased noise in the neighborhood area
Requires additional soccer field drainage from reconfigured field.($TBD)
Drainage issues to be resolved under basketball courts.
Scheme 3R is a late configuration from PAUSD. This was presented to City staff
earlier on in discussions and was rejected by City staff due to the close proximity of
the basketball standard to the Soccer field. Staff still feels that this configuration is
unacceptable.
Relocate the baseball diamond across the park near the creek and builds four new
basketball courts just south of the existing tennis courts. (Attachment C - Scheme 2B)
PROS:
¯Complies with the Terman Specific Plan
¯Enables 4 basketball courts
¯No new tennis court costs
¯Good supervisiomof students
CONS:
¯
¯
¯
O
¯
Total cost estimated $220,000
Close proximity of basketball courts may impact soccer use
Increased basketball maintenance costs
Soccer goal area may be in the dirt baseball infield (not acceptable)
Additional cost of building new baseball field, reconfiguring irrigation and
tuff.
Add permanent basketball standards to the existing four tennis courts making it a
multiple use facility.
PROS: .
Page 4 of 8
¯
¯
No or minimal cost to the City
Provides sufficient basketball and multi-use courts for students
Least expensive of the alternatives
CONS:
¯Does not comply with the Terman Specific Plan
¯Inconsistent multi-use for City tennis and basketball courts
¯Increased tennis/basketball court maintenance costs
¯May interfere with tennis tournament play
¯Increases deterioration of court surfaces and future capital.costs
¯May result in after hours conflict between public/school use due to extended
school pro~ams.
Build Parking structure with rooftop basketball courts. This is a suggested idea from a
Terman neighbor. The concept would be to build in the back of Terman on park land.
Staff briefly considered this alternative but there is insufficient room in the back of .
Terman for such a structure. Moving students up and down an elevated structure
presentsproblems.. The option is not in compliance with the Terman Specific Plan,
and the costs of such a structure would be prohibitive.
Adding a basketball court parallel to the tennis courts (between the existing courts and
the school amphitheater area) and adjacent to the existing basketball court. This is a
neighbor concept. The City Fire Department requires access by fire trucks at this
location and this is not feasible with basketball courts.
Converting all four Terman tennis courts to basketball courts thus eliminating tennis
courts at Terman/upgrade Gunn Courts for public use. This again stems from
community feed back. Gunn tennis courts are not available during school hours; the
City maintains Gunn courts in good condition. The Terman Specific Plan requires
tennis courts at Terman.
In addition, District to build basketball courts on the easterly side of the school district
property (Attachment D)
PROS:
¯Complies with the Terman Specific Plan
¯No impact to the park
¯No cost to the City
¯Provides necessary basketball and other hard surface area for students
¯On school, property, can be accomplished quickly
¯Does not change the intent of the Terman Specific Plan
¯Grouping basketball courts facilitates supervision, teaching court based sports
¯Courts not visible from the interior of campus
Page 5 of 8
CONS:
¯ Different versions inappropriately locate basketball courts at "front door" and
in some cases "front lawn" of the school.
¯Different versions invite problem of noise from basketball courts inciting
adjacent residential neighbors.
¯One version would conflict with Terman Middle School B Wing
¯One version conflicts with required existing accessible parking, electrical
transformer and two bike corrals.
¯Two of the versions conflict with accessible parking, removes several mature
coastal redwoods and locates basketball standard in the middle of the service
entry.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Preliminary cost estimates for construction are as follows: (100% cost derived from
District Architect)
1. Convert two tennis courts to basketball and construct two additional basketball
courts directly adjacent to the converted courts; and construct two new tennis
courts. $240,000
o
o
Construct three and a half new basketball courts by Glenbrook entry point.
$186,000
Relocate the baseball diamond across the park near the creek and builds four new
basketball courts just south of the existing tennis courts $220,000
4. Multiple Use Facility Minimal
5.Parking structure/rooftop basketball courts $1M+
On Going Maintenance Costs:
1.Tennis Court cleaning and resurfacing
2.Additional Basketball court cleaning & resurfacing
TBD
TBD
Maintenance of the fields and courts are provided by the Parks Division and will be
subject to the Joint Use Agreement for Terman Park, under which fifty per-cent allocable
costs will be shifted to PAUSD.
Staffwas directed to explore equally sharing in the costs of court construction. The Parks
andRecreation Commission could advise the Council on the issue of whether there is a
sufficient community benefit to share costs of the project.
A recommendation as part of the August 4 Council meeting suggested the costs be bome
out of the Community Services Department General Fund operating budget. The costs
Page 6 of 8
for the preferred alternative are estimated by the PAUSD architect at +/-$250,000, which
is far more than the Department can absorb. Any City potential funding would have to
come from one of the following areas:
b.General Fund reserves
c.State ~ant dollars currently allocated for athletic fields.
Deferral or elimingtion of ~ny one of the current year proposed CIP infrastructure or non-
infrastructure projects.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Consistency with Terman Specific Plan
Of the 7 alternatives considered, alternatives 4, 5, and 6 are not consistent with the
Terman Specific Plan, as they do not provide the required 4 tennis courts.
Alternative Meets Terman
Specific Plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Any option that removes facilities specifically called for in the Terman Specific Plan will
require a plan amendment that must be recommended by the Planning & Transportation
Commission and adopted by the City Council. Relocation of the tennis courts was
anticipated in the Specific Plan if necessary to enhance other athletic facilities. The plan
also considers noise impacts to adjacent neighbors if the tennis courts are relocated and
seeks to "not duly interfere with the continued enjoyment of their property by the nearby
residents" II (D) (2)...
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Ci_ty Arborist Report
A preliminary assessment of the project area subject to impacts by sports court areas.was
reviewed by the City’s Planning Arborist. The following conditions apply regarding the
proposed development and tree resources:
!. The project must be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goal N-3 and
Policy N-17.
2. The project must be consistent with the provisions of the PAMC Chapter 8.10 (Tree
Preservation and Management Regulations)
A Coast live oak was identified in the project area. The tree is in poor to fair health due to
several problems. It is the Arborist’s opinion that the tree would not survive relocating
Page 7 of 8
due to its poor health. In this case, the Code allows for the permitted removal and
requires mandatory mitigation to replace the tree, using the. Canopy Replacement
Formula Standard of the Palo Alto tree Technical Manual.
Park Improvement Ordinance
The City of Palo Alto Charter and Municipal Code requires that a Park Improvement
Ordinance be approved and adopted prior to construction on land .held by the City for
Park purposesi All of the construction-alternatives proposed by the District on City
parklands would require such an ordinance. Any permanent long-term solution located on
City Park lands will be subject to environmental, architectural and the Planning
Department’s review.
At its Au~mast 12, 2003 special meeting, the School District, as the Lead Agency for the
project, approved by resolution two addenda to the previously certified Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Terman Middle School Reopening. As a responsible agency,
the City will review the Terman Middle School EIR and addenda to make legally
required findings under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Staff is aware that the
existing coastal live oaks on the site were not considered in the addenda. As noted by the
City’s Planning Arborist, the project must be consistent with the provisions of PAMC
Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations) and therefore, additional
information and analysis is required in the addenda for the City’s review of the
alternatives prior to City Council final action.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Convert two tennis courts to basketball/construct two additional
basketball courts directly adjacent to the converted courts; and
construct two new tennis courts by Glenbrook entry.
Basketball courts/Glenbrook entry area (3 S &3R)
4 new BB Courts/relocate baseball diamond
4 new basketball courts on District property
Joint Use of Terman Agreement
Greendale neighborhood meeting notes
Cc: PAUSD
Page 8 of 8
ATTA¢ -IMENT A
Terman Middle SchoolPAUSD 07.23.03Scheme 2A
ATT/’ CHMENT B
Terman Middle School
PAUSD
07.23.03
Scheme 3b
ATTACHMENT C
Terman Middle SchoolPAUSD 07.23.03
Scheme 2B
¯ ATTACHMENT D
i
/i
AGREEI~ENT FOR
JOINT USE OF TERMgIN SITE
Attachment E
This AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE OF TERMAN SITE, entered
into this ~~day of ~~:~ , 200]~, by and between City
of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District, hereinafter
referred to as "City" and "School District",
RECITALS
i. The City and School District have entered into a
property exchange agreement in which the City obtains fee title
to approximately eight (8) acres of land at -the Cubberley
Community Center and the School District obtains fee title to an
equivalent area at the Terman Site. At the Terman Site, the
City will own a dedicated public park, Terman Park, which
includes-playing fields and tennis courts. The School District
will own the Terman Middle ~School] developed with school
buildings, including a gymnasium, a parking !ot, and a swimming
pool. A map showing the Terman Site, Terman Park, and the
Terman Middle Schoo! is attache~ as Exhibit k. As part of the
land .exchange agreement, the-City and the School District have
agreed to enter into this joint use agreement for the Terman
Site. The purpose of the agreement is to-qooperatively use the
Terman Site so that both educational and community services can
be-provided to those living in the City and the School District.
2. The City and the School District also have power
to assist each other under Education Code Sections 17051(a) and.,
35275 and Government Code Section 6500 et seq. of the State of
California, which authorize and empower public school districts
and municipalities to cooperate with each other and to that end
enter into agreements with each other for the purpose of
organizing, promoting and conducting such programs of community
recreation and education for children and adults of the state.
3. The Schoo! District has need of ~he Terman Park
playing fields for its middle school, and the City has ~eed of a
portion of the Terman Middle School buildings for its library
and related activities. Both City and School District wish to
have the City provide recreationai~ programs~ for middle school
children and others that will make use of both the Park and the
Middle Schoo!. Terman Park is a dedicated park and use of the
Park by the Schoo! District must be consistent with that
designation; Terman Middle School will be a public school
1206 syn 0090910
facility, and its use as a middle school will have priority over
all other uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and School District mutually
covenant and agree with each other as follows:
Principles
i. The City and School District shall cooperate in
the use of the Terman Site.
2. The City shall control use Of the Terman Park and
the School District shal! contro! use of the Terman Middle
School, in a mam_ner that is consistent with this Joint Use
Agreement.
B.Joint Use of the Terman Site.
i. The School District shall make Terman Middle
School facilities and equipment available to the City as
described in Attachment i. The School District shall also make
such facilities and equipment available upon application of the
City provided that their use for City purposes does not
interfere with the School District’s use of¯ such facilities and
equipment for Terman Middle School or constitute a violation of
provisions of the California Education or Government Codes. No
charges shall be made for such use other than-those specifically
described in this Agreement.
2. The City shall make Terman .Park facilities
available to the School District as described in Attachment 2..,
The City shall also make such fac$1ities and equipment available
upon application of the School District, provided that their use
for School District p~[poses does not .interfere with the use-of
the facilities or equipment by the City in connection with its
stated purposes or with City Charter provisionsand ordinances
regulating the use~of dedicated park land. No charges shall be
made for such use other than those specifically described in
this Agreement.
3. The City Manage~ and the Superintendent of
Schools do hereby delegate the responsibility for establishing
schedules for facilities and equipment use to the City Director
of Community Services and the School District Business Manager.
4. Each party using facilities or equipment owned by
the other pursuant to this agreement shall furnish qualified
personnel for the proper conduct and supervision of the use.
O11206 syn 0090910
5. The party using facilities or equipment of the
other under this agreement shall repair, or cause to be
repaired, or will reimburse the owner for the actual cost of
repairing damage done to the facilities or equipment during the
period of such use, excluding damage attributed to ordinary wear
and tear.
C. Scheduling and Supervision
i. Subject to the limitations in Section A above and
to the specific commitments set forth in Attachment I, in
scheduling the use of T~rman Middle School, Terman Middle Schoo!
events and programs shall have first priority and City
recreation programs and City CO-Sponsored programs shal! have
second priority. In cases of emergencies or errors in
scheduling, the Terman Middle School events and .programs shal!
have first priority for use. Every reasonable attempt will be
made to avoid such conflict. City activities shal! not be
scheduled on Terman Middle School facilities between the hours
of seven thirty a.m. and three-thirty p.m.on days when school
is in session without the permission of the school principal.
2. Subject to the limitations in Section A~above and
to the specific commitmentsset forth in Attachment 2 below, in
scheduling the use of Terman Park, City recreation programs and
City co-sponsored programs shall have first priority. Terman
Middle Schoo! events and programs shall have second priority.
in cases of emergencies or errors in scheduling, the City
programs and events shall have first priority for use. Every
reasonable attempt will be made to avoid such conflict. School
activities shall not be scheduled before seven thirty a.m. or
after~three-thirty p.m.
3. The City will have a responsible adult
representative present at al! times at any City event he!d on
the Terman Middle School. That representative may be a
volunteer or a paid City employee responsible to see that Schoo!
District rules and- regulations are observed and complied with
and that the facilities and grounds are returned to existing
condition upon completion of the acti:vity. The City wil! have a
City employee on Call at all himes that a City-sponsored or
scheduled activity is occurring in the Terman Middle. School in
order to respond and investigate any questions or improper
action at such activities and events. ~.
4. The School District will have a responsible adult
representative present at al! times at a School District
0| 1206 syn 00909]0
activity or event is held in Terman Park. That representative
may be a volunteer or a paid Schoo! District employee
responsible to see that City rules and regulations are observed
and complied with and that the facilities and grounds are
returned to existing~ condition upon completion of the activity.
The School District will have a School District emp!oyee on call
at all times that a School District-sponsored or scheduled
activity is occurring in Terman Park in order to respond and
investigate any-q~estions or improper action at such activities
and events.
5. The City and School District shall submit to each
other written use requests in advance. Requests for advance
scheduling shall be submitted annually according to the
following schedule:
July ist for the School Year~
February ist for the summer months
The Terman site Joint Use Committee shall approve a
master calendar for each of these periods within thirty (30)
days of the submitta! of. the requests for advance scheduling.
Each schedule will ~e arranged so as to avoid any conflict
between the School District’s and City’s uses of the faci!ities~
and equipment. The City. or the School District shall not
schedule other uses until first and second priorities are set as
prescribed herein.
D.Maintenance of Terman Site Facilities.
i. Basic Standard. Facilities jointly used shall be
adequately maintained to insure appropriate and safe use,
appearance and !ongevity.
2. Basic Responsibility. Except as may otherwise be .
specified herein, the responsibility for maintenance, repair and
renovation of facilities shall be the responsibility of the
owner of the real property on which the facility is situated.
E. Maintenance of Athletic Fields.
i.Turf Areas and Tennis Courts on Terman Site.
a. The City will continue its existing
maintenance program for turf areas of the Terman Site. These
areas are shown on Attachment 3. Pursuant to that Master
O11206 syn 0090910
Maintenance Agreement, the City wil! mow, trim, fertilize and
irrigate and perform other maintenance work of a general nature
at the fields at the frequencies and times in accordance .with
the field maintenance standards adopted ~y .the City. The School
District will pay one half of the City’s actual cost to maintain
the fields.
b. The City will also maintain the drainage and
irrigation systems of the- fields under the terms and conditions
described in the .Master Maintenance Agreement between the City
and the District. if these systems need-repair or replacement,
the City will consult with the School District on the scope of
work and estimated cost to perform it, and the School District
shall confirm its approval of the scope of work. The School
District shall pay one half of the City’s actual costs for such
approved repair or replacement work.
c. The City will continue its existing
maintenance program for tennis courts .in Terman Park. The City
will wash and air blow the surfaces of the courts, repair and/or
replace, as reasonably necessary, the tennis nets and screens,
and perform other m~intenance work of a .general nature at the
frequencies and ~imes in accordance with the maintenance
standards adopted by the City.. The City will also }esurface and
restripe the courts. Such resurfacing and restriping will be
scheduled to match the City’s existing tennis court resurfacing
program at an approximate five year interval for such work. The
Schoo! District shall pay one half of the City’s actual cost of
maintaining and resurfacing the courts.
d. Money owed by the School District to the°
City under this Agreement will first be credited against any
monthly lease payments due and payable by the City under its
lease agreement with.the District entitled "Lease and Covenant
Not to Develop," as amended from time to time. If the sums Owed
under this agreement exceed those payments, the City shal! bill
the Schoo! District and the School District shall pay the City
within forty-five days after receipt of its invoice.
2. Custodial Services. The School District shall
provide all Custodia! services for the Terman Middle Schoo!. If
the Terman Middle School is used by the City at a time when
custodial staff is not regularly on duty, or when a custodian is
required to open a facility, the City shal! pay the cost of the
custodial time to the Schoo!. Alternatively, the City may
arrange with the School District to open and close a facility
itself.
O11206 syn 0090910
F.Library Facilities.
City will continue its existing library at the Terman
Middle School until such time as the District gives it notice
that all or a portion of those facilities are needed for
district purposes. Upon six. months written notice that al~ or a
portion of the facilities are needed for district purposes, the
City shall vacate the identified portions of the premises.
G.Restrooms at Terman Middle School.
i. The restroom facilities located at-Terman Middle
School shall be available for public use while City programs are
scheduled at either Terman Middle School or Terman Park, and
while the Terman Library is open to the public. They shall also
be available to library staff during their working hours.
2. The School District shall perform custodial
maintenance of the restrooms on a ~dai!y basis when its
custodians are on duty. On days when ~its.custodians are not on
duty, the School district shall make arrangements in advance, as
part of the scheduling agreement~, to provide supplies to the
City on site so that is may restock the restrooms on those days.
H. Establishment of City and School Distric£ ~Joint Use
Committee.
The City Manager and the Superintendent shall each
designate two staff members to the Terman Joint Use Committee
which is hereby established. The Committee sha!l meet at least
three times a year, but may meet additional times each year as,
necessary to administer this agreement. .The Committee shall be
responsible for administering this joint use agreement.
I.Term of Agreement.
This agreement shall commence upon the date first
entered above and shall end upon termination of the Cubberley
Lease between the City and the School District unless otherwise
terminated by consent of the parties.
j.!nden~nification.
The City sha!l investigate, defend and indemnify the
School District from any and all claims, demands, actions or
damages arising out of the City’s use of Schoo! District
Facilities to which the School District may be subjected as a
direct consequence of this agreement except for those claims,
01 |206 syn 0090910
demands, actions or damages resulting solely from the negligence
of the School District, its officers, agents and employees.
The School District shall investigate, defend and
indemnify the City from any and all claims, demands, actions or
damages arising out of the School District’s use of City
Facilities to which the City- may be subjected as a direct
consequence of this agreement except for those claims, demands,
actions or damages resulting solely from the negligence of the
City, its officers, agents and emp!oyees.
K. Complete Understanding and Amendments.
This agreement and the attached exhibits set forth the
complete agreement and understanding of the parties;any
modification must be in writing executed by both parties.
L.Notices.
If at any time after the execution of this agreement,
it shal! become necessary or convenient for one of the parties
hereto to serve any notice, demand or communication upon the
other party, such notice, demand Qr communication shall be in
writing and shall be served personally o~ by depositing the same
in the United States mail, return receipt requested, first class
postage prepaid and (i) if intended for City shall be addressed
to:
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto ’
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94301
with a copy to:Director of Community Services
Department
P.O. Box 10250
Pa!o Alto, CA 94301
and (2) if intended for PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL SCHOOL DISTRICT
shall be addressed to:
Palo Alto Unified School District
25 Churchill Avenue
Pa!o Alto, CA 94306
O11206 syn 0090910
CITY USE
The JCC shall have prior~
and the gymnasium for its
to its permanent faciliti
is earlier.All exc
Attachment IA.
The City’s use of the T,
include:
i.Swimming Pool
a.School year-
instructiona.l
~b.Summer- Sever
programs, rec~
2.Gymnasium
a.School Year-
athletics, ~
Weeknights fo
night use for
bl SLummer- Seven
adult program
3.Library Wing
Use of that win
section F of
converted to C
some time in th~
or tO such other ~adclress as either paz
other in writing as a place for. the se
so mailed shall be deemed to have be.
same is deposited in the United States
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the
agreement on the date and year first
CITY OF PALO ALTO PT~
Fr ar~k Benest Jo]
City Manager P~,
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Mayor Ma:
Su]
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ari~! Pierre Calonne, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Paul Thiltgen, Parks and Recreation Di
O11206 syn 0090910 Ol1206 syn 0090910
t~rldays, 6:30 p.m, to 1030 p,m,,
.l’t~l’~a~]onal prvgram~ th~t ~re~ently.~at
¯ ~u~% th~ .aCe W~uld have firn ~aht o~ u~ of fl~ T~*~ Gy, a,
Mve u~ Of.lh~ "lk~ O~m Mondoy thmu~ Friday, ~mb~
thr~Sh 10130 pan, --
Gibbons,, Virginia
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ATTACHMENT F
Charlowell@aol.com
Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:13 PM
Council, City
Terman Neighborhood meeting
Dear City Council Colleagues:
Thank you for your attention t~ the Terman reopening issues, which are
crucial to us, but we know are only one of many land use issues that you are
facing.
Last night, the district Sad a neighborhood meeting at Terman, and I thought
I would pass along my notes to you. These are just my rough notes, and they
may not relate to City issues. About 30 residents attended the meeting, as well
as 5 Terman parents and two district staff. You will probably not be surprised
to learn that at least half of the meet.ing concerned traffic issues.
1 hope that you are enjoying yourbreak.
Mandy Lowell
NOTES:
BASKETBALL COURTS
Residents noted that the neighborhood association had taken a poll, and
residents preferred dual striping of tennis courts over building near
Glenbrook. Association may take another poll, now that issue has moved to the front
burner.
Resident commented that basketball courts near Glenbrook gate or at the back
of Pomona are "insane." Resident does not understand why the dual striping
solution has not been adopted.
Residents at the meeting p~eferred that two tenniscourts be dual striped
and new basketball courts be built at the other end of the tennis courts.
(This is apparently Plan D or 2A, but without new tennis courts being constructed
near Glenbrook.) Residents expressed concerns that four high-quality tennis
courts were not as important as avoiding building courts along Pomona, or near
Glenbrook gate. Maintaining tranquil space (or a buffer) near their homes is
more important to the neighborhood than topnotch tennis courts.
Some Pomona residents would like to purchase land enclosed by sound wall.
(Comment on statutory restrictions on purchasing school land.) Residents
noted lack of safety for students when ball bounces into a Pomona backyard with
poo!. District agreed that Pomona is not the best location, but it is land that
the district owns, and if the people or the City do not want to have the new
courts on parkland, the courts will likely go in that area.)
Mandy mentioned that someone had suggested building a multistory parking
garage, and placing basketball courts on top. Residents explained that the
suggestion had been rejected at an earlier neighborhood meeting.
Resident commented that she walks the path in the park, and has never
seen all four courts occupied. A tennis player said that she had waited for a
court, but that the times when several courts were used were afternoons or
weekends, not 7:30 to 3:30. Residents seemed to agree that, other than some mornings
APPROVED
MINUTES
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
August 26, 2003
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Ave.
Commissioners Present:Anne Cribbs, Bill Garvey, Ellie Gioumousis, Jennifer Hagan, Edie
Keating and Lynn Torin
Commissioners Absent: Judith Steiner
Others Present:Vic Ojakian, City Council Liaison
PAUSD Attendees: Nicholas Morisco, Architect; Larry Thomas,
Terman School Principal; Augie Lavagnino
Community Members: David Clark, Floyd Kessler, Michael
Maurier, Stan Louis, Tim Josling, Ken Szuta, Andy Drexler,
Richard Neeley, Zachariah Bering, Teri Blackburn, Martha
Bowden, Kate Hill, Betsy Allyn, Herb Borock, Joe Hirsch
Staff Present:Paul Thiltgen, Dan Williams, Paul Dias, Virginia Gibbons, Wynne
Furth (Acting City Attorney), Richard James, Chris Neier, Eric
Christensen, Dawn Calvert, Beth Young, John Lusardi and Dave
Dockter
CALL TO ORDER:Meeting called to order by Chairman Garvey at 6:45 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Betsy Allyn, 4186 Wellman, PA: spoke regarding signage
stating that people can’t use the park from 7:30-3:30 and that signs cannot be put up keeping the
public out of the park.
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS:None.
BUSINESS:
Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of July 31, 2003.
(Commissioners Cribbs, Gioumousis, Hagan, Torin) with
Garvey).
Minutes were approved
1 abstention (Chairman
°Terman Park - City Council referral of PAUSDfrerman long-term solution for
basketball and tennis facilities at Terman Park. Paul Thiltgen reinforced to the
Commission its role to provide a recommendation to Council and then gave the
APPROVED
Commission background information on Terman Park. Originally Palo Alto schools and
parks were designed together to jointly share space. In the early 1980’s PAUSD sold
Terman to the City. In 2001 the Joint Use Agreement transferred Terman land to
PAUSD in exchange for Cubberley High School. It was a different environment at that
time and the Joint Use Agreement was prepared with a community center in mind. There
was no issue of security or child safety like today.
Paul went on to explain that the major challenge encountered in this project was the
multitude of communities involved; the neighborhood community, people who have
ownership in the Terman Plan, the school district, the school community (parents/kids),
and park users. The question was how to compromise and still-meet the needs of kids.
Staff tried to come up with a solution that maintains the spirit of the Terman Plan. The
compromises won’t please everyone, but will meet some of the needs of everyone
involved.
Paul mentioned the number of groups involved in the planning, the wide variety of views
involved, and the compromises made by all parties in order to bring the plan before the
Commission. Paul went on to state that the School District is on a time schedule but that
this schedule does not apply to the Commission and decisions should not be based on the
School District’s time schedule.
Paul then presented the staff’s recommendation for Attachment A, which takes into
consideration the tree issues and proposes that the park !ose little turf, but maintains its
program areas.
Augie Lavagnino of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) stated that the
School District’s priorities are adequate facilities, adequate supervision of students, and
after school programs. He then asked architect, Larry Thomas, to present the School
District’s new option, o.a modification 6f Attachment C, which would make no impact on
the trees, less impact, on park space, and included dual use basketball and tennis courts.
Commissioner Gioumousis raised the issue of windscreens and questioned the status.
Mr. Lavagnino stated that they are looking at various screens and plan to keep screens in
place.
Oral Communications
David Clark, 4218 Pomona Ave.: reminded the Commission that there are 88
homes neighboring Terman Park and that their concerns are safety, tranquility,
plausibility of plans, retaining the neighborhood green space and requested that
the Commission be sensitive to the needsbf the neighborhood.
Floyd Kessler, 4272 Los Altos Ave.: stated that it has been 25 years since the
Terman Specific Plan was written and that he felt the tennis courts should be
restriped to accommodate basketball, and the baseball diamond be moved.
APPROVED
o
10.
11.
Michael Maurier, 646 Fairmede Ave.: supports position taken in Greenacres I
letter and its attachments. Propose that new courts be added only to the southwest
end of the tennis courts and oppose building basketball or tennis courts near the
Glenbrook entrance.
Stan Louis, 4206 Pomona Ave.: stated that the Terman Specific Plan reflects the
desire of the neighborhood and that Attachment B would result in increased noise.
He recommends Attachment C, or the new plan presented by PAUSD.
Tim Josling, 4250 Pomona Ave.: stated that he is against any land use in space
¯ located near the neighborhood.
Ken Szuta, 647 Fairmede Ave.: stated that he likes the new PAUSD proposal
and that Attachment C is the best plan due to less noise impact and no tree
removal.
Andy Drexler, 12580 La Cuesta: has a son at Terman as well as coaches, and
feels that the courts are needed as soon as possible. Half courts are not working
well and requested that the decision be made quickly.
Richard Neeley, 4256 Pomona Ave.: spokesperson for Greenacres I referred to
his presentation, which was sent to the Commissioners prior to the meeting and
was available to interested parties. Summary: "propose that basketball courts be
built according to Plan 1 or 2 (of presentation), with preference to Plan 1.
Greenacres I neighbors adamantly oppose any decision to build basketball or
tennis courts near the Glenbrook entrance or any decision of the Commission,
including inaction, that would result in courts being built along the property line
of Pomona residents." He stated that in the past residents have always been left
out of the planning process regarding Terman Park. Requested that it be noted
that the Terman Termites were not at the meeting and that the Termites may have
found another location to play tennis.
Teri Blackburn, 408 Grant Ave., #308: is PTA president and has a son at
Terman and is requesting enhancement to the park in the form of recreation.
Noted that there are 60 special needs students at Terman and is concerned for
their safety, particularly if cars will be using the parking lot. Drivers will not be
able to see handicapped students.
Zachariah Bering 408 Grant Ave., #308: agrees with mother, Tend Blackburn.
Martha Bowden, Saddle Ct., Los Altos Hills: has a 7th grade son at Terman and
feels there is urgency to making the changes at Terman. Remembers hearing that
a middle school was needed 8 years ago and the problem still has not been
resolved. Noted that there are 12 basketball teams and only two courts presently
available. She has no preference for which the courts are placed, just wants to get
it done.
Kate Hill, 884 Los Robles: has a 6th grade student and requests a quick
resolution.
Betsy Allyn, 4186 Wellman: stated that the Commission’s priority should be the
safeguard of the parks and that the safety of the school should be left up to the
school district. She referred to her disappointment in the July 22n’~ meeting when
APPROVED
14.
15.
the City Attorney was unable to attend, and stated her opinion that Chairman
Garvey should be removed from his position.
Herb Borock, PO Box 632: stated his concerns about the park charter, was
disappointed that there was no attorney presence at the July 22nd meeting,
complained that the minutes of the July 22, 2003 meeting are in draft form and
not available to the public, and that the park is for the users of the park, not
basketball courts.
Joe Hirsch, 4149 Ave.: mentioned that Stanford has 3.5
acres behind Gunn High School that is available for use and suggested that courts
could be built on this property. He requested that no changes be made to the trees
or parkland at Terman and that the parkland be preserved as permanent open
space.
A question and answer period ensued in which the Commission discussed the following
issues:
*Which Palo Alto parks presently have two basketball courts;
¯Giving up parkland;
¯Opposition to giving up trees;
¯New PAUSD proposal;
¯Ordinance changes;
¯Number of courts necessary to fill need;
¯Putting courts in another park;
¯Cons of PAUSD proposal;-
¯Bus turnaround and parking lot at Terman;
¯Creating new tennis courts in at Mitchell Park
It was determined that PAUSD’s new proposal is extremely similar to Attachment C and
therefore, a viable option. Paul Thiltgen proposed that staff would work with PAUSD to
iron out the differences between the two plans.
Commissioner Garvey made the following motion, which was seconded by Commissioner
Cribbs:
MOTION: Recommend that Council accept Attachment A, minus two courts. FOR: 5
(Commissioners Cribbs, Garvey, Hagan, Keating, Torin) AGAINST: 1 (Commissioner
Gioumousis) ABSENT: 1 (Commissioner Steiner)
Paul Thiltgen stated that staff is comfortable with Commissioner Garvey’s motion as it has
the least impact on parkland. Both plans will have to go back to the Planning Department
for review.
APPROVED
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Commissioner Torin made special note that Commissioner Steiner’s absence was due to a
recent surgery and that she is recovering well.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
ATTACHMENT G
A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE TERMAN SCHOOL SITE
Prepared for
The City of Palo Alto
By
The Terman Working Group
and
Naphtali H. Knox, AICP
Approved by the P1 arming Commission: February I0, 1982
Adopted by the City Council : _.May 3, 1982
MEMBERS OF THE TERMAN WORKING GROUP AS OF MAY 26, 1981
on behalf of the Jewish Community Center
Kate Feinstein
Fred Sonenberg
Lenore Wolgelenter
On behalf of the Palo. Alto Housing Corporation
LDu Goldsmith
Micki Zatz
On behalf of the Terman Neighborhood
.Joe Hirsch
Floyd Kessler
Don Koller
Bob Moss
Sam Sparck -
On behalf of the City of Palo Alto
Carleen Bedwell
Naphtali Knox
Ken Schreiber
Facilitator" Geoff Ball
Other citizens of the Peninsula area and residents
of Palo Alto.participated in the discussions.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.INTRODUCTION ......................
B.
D.
E.
Legal Authority "
Location and Setting .............
Purpose of the Specific ~lan ............
Brief Hi s.tory .......
Project Description im~j~r’eie~ents ~f’t~e’pia~-) .
II.SPECIFICS OF THE TERMAN PLAN ..............
A.Site Ow6ership or Control .............
B.City-Operated Community Center ..........
C.Athletic Fields ........-. .........
D.Tennis Courts . ~ ...............
E.Basketball Courts ......., .........
F..Swimming Pool , ..................
G.Gymnasium ......................
H.Jewish .Community-Center ..............
J.Traffic .......................
K.Parking." ..¯
L.Lighting
M.Housing .......................
N.Consistency ...................
Ill.ELEMENTS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATION TO PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ...................
A. Housing ...... ....~ ............
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Land area and location ............
Number and. kind of units ..........
Building envelope .............
Parking ....................
Buffers ...................
Zoning . . , -....-. .............
Relation to housing element .........
Employment . ....................
Number employed in past ...........
Number likely to be employed .........
Relation to employment element "
Transpo[tation ..................
I.Relevant objectives .............
2.Parking demand ................
1
1
3
4
I0
II
II
II
14
14
15
15-
16
17
19
2O
22
24
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
29
3O
30
30
3.Trips generated ...............
4.Traffic on Arastradero Road .........
5.Relation to transportation element .......
Schools and Parks ....... . .......
i.Statements in the Comprehensive ~lan .....
2.Relation to the schools and parks element . .
Urban Design . . , . , ...... ....-~ ....
Environmental Resources" ¯
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Open space
Conser v at i on ¯-
Resource management . .......
Noise
Air quality . ..........
Seismic safety and general safety .
G. Land Use ....................
1.Land use map ................
2.Relation to land ~se element . . ’. ] ......
IV.IMPLEMENTATION .....................
A.Eff6ctive. Date . ..................
Phasing Of City Programs.. ,~... .... ......
1.Library and Meeting Rooms ..... " .....
2.Community Center ...............
3.Gymnasium . . .,. ¯ ..............
4.Swiping . ,- .................
5.Outdoor Athletic Programs.. , ........
Land Use and Zoning ......, ..........
Acquisition or Control of the Site ........
E.JCC ........................
City/JCCLease ................
Use Permit ..................
F.Capital Improvement Responsibilities .......
32
35
35
40
40
40
42
44
44
45
46
48
48
49
49
50
52
52
53
53
53
53
53
53
54
55.
56
57
57
59
ii
EXHIBITS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Location maps ........................
Exhibit I, Land Use Plan .......... ~ .......
Exhibit 5, Projected Traffic . ...............
Exhibit 6, 1977-1980 Traffic F!ow, Arastradero;Road .....
Exhibit 7, 1976-77 Major Street Traffic Flow ........
iv, 2
12
33
36
37
APPENDIX
Exhibit 2, City Program Attendance and Staffing Estimates . .
Exhibit 3, JCC Program Attendance and Staffing Estimates . .
Exhibit 4, Outline of JCC/City Lease Agreement .......
Exhibit 8, Santa Clara County Transit Route No. 88 ......
Exhibit 9, Resolutions Adopting the Plan .........
61
64
67
69
7O
iii
I.INTRODUCTION -
A.LeBal Authority
A Specific Plan,.when adopted by city_legislative action
following public hearings, serves both a planning function and a
regulatory function.
The Specific Plan is a device usedto implement the City’.s
Comprehensive Plan. In the simplest sense, a Specific Plan is a more
detailed version of the Comprehensive Plan. The Specific Plan focuses
on a particular parcel~ in this case the Terman school ~ite on
Arastradero Road; it articulates the planning, considerations fbr reuse
of that parcel; and it imposes regulations or controls on the use of
the parcel. The Specific Plan also establishes standards or
development controls to provide the City and its citizenswith the
assurance that the completed project willbe as envisioned at the time
of approval.
The adopti.on of the Specific Plan by the City of Palo Alto
is authorized by City Ordinance No. 3326 adopting. California
Government Cede, Sections 65450 through 65507.
B.Location and S~tting
The Terman school site is located at 655-Arastradero Road.
The 21.57-acre siteis irregular in shape. It is bounded on the
northeast by single-family houses in the 4200 block of Pdmona Avenue
and at 666 and 663 Glenbrook Drive,.all in the City of Palo Alto; on
the east by Adobe Creek and four~single-family houses in the City of
Los Altos; on the south by the Hetch-Hetchy water right-of-way owned
by the City andCounty of San Francisco, and on the west by some eight
houses, a church and nursery school, and Arastradero Road itself. The
non-~chool-site properties which separate the Terma~ site from
Arastradero Road are located at 673 to 693 Arastradero Road, and 4210
through 4225 Ynigo Way.
Arastradero Road is an existing four-lane arterial which
carries average daily traffic volumes of 17,000 to 20:000 vehicles
northeasterly of Foothill Expressway. Southwesterly of Foothill
Expressway, Arastradero is a two-lane road divided by a landscaped
median. Daily traffic on the two-lane road averages half-the volume
on the other side of the expressway.
Gunn High School is locatedabout 2~000 feet southwest and
on the opposite side of Arastradero Road from theTerman entrance.
The Stanford Industrial Park, specifically "the Syntex triangle,"
begins approximatly 3,000 feet southwest of the Terman entrance. The
"triangle" is bounded by Arastradero Road, Hillview Avenue, and
Foothill Expressway. Also nearby is the U.S. Veterans’ Administration
\
/!
I/
"~/
/I
//
//
.//
II
NORTH
I"= 500’
Hospital. It can be reached from the Terman entrance road by
proceeding southwest one-half mile on Arastradero, then turning right
(northerly) on Miranda Avenue for approximately another half-mile~
Thus, the Terman site is located on a majo~ arterial and
close to several major traffic generators which include Gunn High
School, industries in the Stanford Industrial Park, and the U.S.V.A.
Hospital. In addition, Arastradero Ro~d serve~ as an important
arterial connection between Foothill Expressway and E~ Camino Real.
Much of the traffic on Arastradero Road results from that connecting
function; however, an equally significant portion of the traffic is a
function of Arastradero Road being~the only collector street for the
Greenacres I and theSuzanne Drive-McKellar Lane neighborhoods. It is
also the major collector for Barton Park traffic with destinations to
the southeast (i.e., to Los~Altos, Los Altos Hills, and beyond).
Traffic signals were installed in 198i at Arastradero Road
and Miranda Avenue to ease the traffic congestion and to-smooth
traffic flow both at the Miranda-Arastradero and the Foothill
Expressway-Arastradero intersections.
Purpose of the Specific Plan
It is the purpose of this Specific Plan:
1. To-implement, in part,the City’s’Comprehensive.Plan.
2. To retain and preserve public open space on~ and
.recreational use of,.the Terman site.
3. To retain and use the Termanschool buildings for the
general public good.
4. To operate City social, and community services on the
Terman site for the benefit of’Palo Alto citizens, especially those
WhO iive~in the south quadrant of the City (bounded by the Stanford
Industrial Park, Alma, and the corporate limits of Mountain Vi’ew, Los
A~tos, and L~s Altos Hills).
5. To provide for the construction of assisted housing on
a’ portion Of the site, such housing to be affordable by households of
low and moderate incbme.
6. To prevent, insofar as possible~ or to mitigate, any
advers~ impact on the surrounding residential areas as a result of the
closure and reuse of the Terman site.
The Specific Plan will be used ~o provide a reasonably
detailed set of parameters for. permitting the mixed use andreuse of
the Terman site. The Specific Plan, however, is not the only document
which will govern development of the site. Other do~ument~ and
controls will also ~pply. Th~se include .the more general
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Palo Alto and the more detailed
zoning of the site that would be implemented after adoption of this
Plan and after acquisition or control of the site.. .-
Other restrictions on the future u~e of the Terman
site, such as leases and use permits, also will govern. All are
discussed-later in this Specific .Plan.
D.Brief History
Palo Alto is the northernmost city .in Santa Clara County.
It has an area of 25 square miles. Approximately three square miles
are baylands, mostly in public ownership, and located easterly of
Bayshore Freeway (U.S. Highway 101). Approximately twelve square
miles are foothills, located south of Junipero Serra Freeway
(Interstate Highway 280).. " Significant portions of the foothills are
owned by the City of Palo Alto.or by the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open
Space District. On land that is not publicly-owned, foothills
properties may be developed for housing at a density of one dwelling
unit per ten acres.
Except for some low hills lying southwesterly of Foethill
Expressway, the remainder of Palo Alto, approximately ten square
mi~es, can be characterized as urban flatlands. It i~ on zhese lands
that the bulk of Palo Alto’s 54,000 people live.
In November, 1976, the City of Palo Alto adopted its first
Comprehensive Plan since a General P-lan was. adopted in 1963. The 1976
Comprehensive Plan, updated annually, has recognized the changing
demographic nature of Palo Alto, especially the aging of the
population, the decline in the number of school-age children, and. the
continuing drop i~ the number of persons per household (from 3.1 to
!960 to approximately 2.3 persons per household in 1980}o
These demographic changes, together with major changes in
school financing statewide, have resulted in the-closure of a number
Gf schools operated, by ~he Palo Alto Unified School District.
The Palo Alto Unified School ~istrict serves the City of
Pa~o Alzo, Stanford University, and a portion of Los Ai~es Hills. In
the 1975-76 school year, the District operated 20 elementary schools,
three middle schools, and three high schools. Because ~ne
Distric:.’s buildihgs were constructed to handle a much larger number
of students, the School District began closing "schools after the
1975-76 school year. Since that time, approximately one-third of all
schools at each level have been closed: one high school (Cubberley),
one middle school (Terman), and seven elementary~school.s: De Anza,
Ortega, Greendell, Ventura, Garland, Ross Road, and Fremon~ Hills
School (which is in the Town of Los Altos Hills) have been closed.
.The Terman Middle School remained in operation through, and
was closed after~ the 1977-?B schoolyear. In accordance with
requirement of the State’s Education Code, Supplemental Act, Chapter
36, the School Board appointed ~an "advisory committee for the
.disposition of identified surplus school, sites" to,. among o.zher
¯ zhings, "establish a priority list of use of surplus space that will
be acceptable to the community, cause to have circulated throughout
the. attendance area a priority !ist of surplus space and provide for
nedrings of community input to the committee on acceptable uses of
’space; and make a final determ.ination of limits of tolerance for use
or the. space."
The committee included eleven residents selected in
compliance with Education Code Se~t.ion 39384: Lynn Barber, Margery
Coi]ins, Howard Ding (Chair), David Leafy, oLelandLevy, Don
McClelland, Lynnie Melena, James Nichols, M, A. Qurai.shi, Frances
litterton, and Caroline Zlotnick. Seven committee meetings were held,
and public hea.rings were held on April 6 and May 22, 1978 to air the
committee’s findings. The majority of the committee agreed on the
following priorities for.the disposition of the Terman site, which
,~e~-e p~esented to the School Board on June 20, 1978:
i. Equal first priorities: (a) maintai.n all of the site
Public recreation and communit~ center use; (b) maintain a portion
~he site as above with the remainder for private education; private
recr~azion, or private community center use.
2. Second priority: maintain a portion of the site for
pub)it uses as above, with the remainder for multi-family housing.
3. Third priorities: (a) maintain a portion of the site
~:.~ public use as above: with the remainder for single-family housing;
is) use the entire site for private education, recreazio~, or
~)~Runity center purposes.
The Board accepted the committee’s report and on ~uly
..5, 197B, decided to lease the Terman buildings o~, an a~,ual basis for
t~~e uses recommended by the committee, under the provisions of the
~zate’s "Civic Center Act," and ~o notify the City of Palo Altothat
the Board would consider selling the Termansite to the City.
.In aletter of July 12, 1978, the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation (PAHC) informed the School .Board of their interest in
f~,’e:ing a consortium of publi~-spirited organizatioms to.determine the
fPasibility of formulating a prdposal for mixed-use development of the
Ten, an site.
In September 197B, citizens from the nearby area formed
the "Terman Coalition" in response to the school closure and concerns
about reuse of the ~ite.-.
In a meeti.ng on December 11, 197B, representatives of
the Jewish Co,unity Center of the South Peninsula (JCC), the PAHC,
and the Terman Coaliti.on informally discussed a PAHC/JCC proposal to
develop 4 acres along Adobe Creek for rent-assisted family housing,
and to transfer ownership and use of most of the existing school
buildings to-the JCC. At the time, p.]anning and design work had not
been commissioned. The PAHC and JCC invited Terman Coalition
participation in the design and funding of conceptual studies for the
site. The invitation was declined.
In March 1979, the PAHC informed the School Board that
the PAHC and JCC were jointly retaining Moyer Associates, Architects,
to prepare a proposedmaster plan and land use study of the Term~n
site, which would incorporate JCC activities, elderly and family
housing, and public recreational uses of the existing play fields and
open space. Also in March, the School Board retained SRI
International as property consultants toassist the District in
developing a long-range plan for disposition of surplus school sites.
In June=1979, City staff in a report to the City
Council reconTnended that five to seven acres of open space and
athletic field areas at Terman be preserved and that reasonable public
access to the pool and gymnasium facilities be retaine~ for
~ecreational use.. The staff report did not recommend acquisition of
cultural orcommunity center facilities fO~.the Terman site.
SRI International presented its first report to the
School Board in July of 1979. The Board authorized the District
staff, among other things., to proceedwith steps proposed by SRI.
preparatory to the sale or long term lease of the Terman site.
In~ugust 1979, the PAHC and the JCC offic~ally
presented to the~Cjty their joint proposal for the development of the
~erman site. The plan provided for:
(a) Construction of 200 dwelling units:
(i) Eighty units of subsidized housing to b~
built on four acre~ adjacent to Adob.e Creek at the rear of the Terman
site, and ~
(ii) 120 units of senior citizen housing to be
built on 1.6 acres in front q~.Terman along Arastfadero Road.
(b) Purchase by the JCC of the pool, gymnasium, and
~]~ of the other buildings at the Terman site, with the exception of
Wings 10-30 (which were not needed by the JCC and would be demolished
to provide space for the senior citizen housing).
(c) Purchase by the City of about seven acres for
athletic field and playing area.
The City Council directed staf~ to prepare a package
for the purchase of the Terman site, either as part of a PAHC/JCC
consortium or as the City acting alone. Stall.was to move on both
possibilities ~t the-same time. Under either .approach, it was
understood that the City would lease or Own and operate the playing
fields and athletic facilities.
On September 17, 1979, the JCC/PAHC plan was.presented
to Terman area residents at a meeting sponsored by theTerman
Coalition. The majority present were opposed to the JCC!PAHC.plan.
Perhaps the most basic point which emerged from that meeting was .the
desire of the Terman area residents that the entire Terman site be
retained in public ownership.
At-this and subsequent community meetings in October,
November, and December 1979, there surfaced a clear sense of anger and
frustration on the part of local residents for not having been-
included bY the JCC, PAHC, and the City staff in the developmen~ of "
the mixed-use plan. There was a clear, desire to have the City.
purchase the entire site and, if necessary, lease out portions of it
only to groups whose functions and actions would be compatible.with
the surrounding neighborhood. There was also a concern with housing
density and location as proposed, in the JCC/PAHC plan, and-a concern
that the total trBffic generated by the mixed-use plan would overwhelm
the neighborhood and the street system, The residents also felt the
Terman area of Palo Alto had not received social andcommunity
services in fair proportion to other areas of~the City; they were . .
concerned that private (JCC) ownership of recreation facilities would
n~t allow for sufficient public access to those facilities; and they
slated needs and degi~es for library services and for a City-operated
community center.
In November, 1979, the School District staff
recommended to the Board that the School District seek to have the
land use designations in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for the
De Anza, Garland, Ortega, Ross Road, T~rman, and Ventura school sites
changed from "School District Lands" to "Single-Family Res~dential."
The Board did not act on their staff’s reconTnendations.
The City staff, the JCC, and the PAHC-met with Terman
neigh~o[hood residents through the-fall of..~1979 and into January, 1980. "
7
Late in January, SR1 International issued its final
report to the School District on the disposition of surplus school
sites in which it concluded that:
and
(a) The primary method of disposition should be sale,
(b) Orde~ of site disposition should beVentura first,
the PageMill/Alexis site in Los Altos Hills next, followed by Terman
and.then the other five properties available. ~
Meanwhile, following its meetings with~the
neighborhood, the.City staff in February, 19B0, pr.esented to the City
Council a report, indirect response to Council action of August 6,
1979, which discussed the financing and status of recommended school
site acquisitions. The PAHC and JCC provided separate letters as
background information on Terman to supplement theCity staff report.
The report concluded that it would not be feasible for the City to
purchase the entire Terman site and, accordingly, strongly favored the
joint PAHC/JCC plan with City participation.
The City Council reviewed’the Terman MiddleSchool site
reuse at long meetings.in March and April, 1980. At it~ April 7
meeting, the City Council unanimously accepted the mixed-use concept
for zhe Terman site, including the provision of law- and
moderate-income housing units approximately equal in. number to the
number of single-family units that could be developed under R-1 zoning
on the entire property (approximately 108). The Council unanimously
directed the staff to develop.a package for mixed-use on the Terman
site in conjunction with neighborhood residents, the JCC,. and the
PAHC. Further,.the staff was directed to organize a neighborhood
meeting at which no-more than three residents of the neighborhood
would be elected to participate in the development of a package of
mixed-uses for the Terman site.
The City.staff worked wi~h the neighborhood
~epr~sentatives to widely publicize a meeting on April 29, 1980, at
which the neighborhood elected three delegates and.two alternates to
the "Terman Working Group." The City, JCC, and PAHC also appointed
representatives to the Group (see list preceding the Table of
Contents). The City staff hired a facilitator to work with the Terman
Working Group, with the-understanding that the presence and function
.of the facilitator would be at the pleasure of th~ Working Group.
On Tuesday, May 6, 1980, the Working Group began a
series of meetings that would continue until May 26, 1981.
In June 1980, the School Board approved a "resolution
ni intent to sell" the Terman site. This started a minimum 60-day
period during which public agencies would.havethe first opportunity
to purchase the site. -(The School Board subsequently extended the
"public agency purchase p.er.iod" to July 31, 1981.)
Al,so in June, the .City suggested that the Terman
Working Group retain the services of an architectto help with
.conceptual site planning. The City agreed to pay up to $10,000 for
architectural services to be provided by a professional selected by
the Working Group. The Group received letters of interest, invited
arcl~itects to present their credentials, .and held a special meeting on
Wednesday, June 18, to conduct interviews. That evening, GeorgeW.
("Tad") Cody was selected by the Working Group as its architect for
site planning.
By August 19, 1980, Architect George Cody had Prepared
17 alternative site plans for reusing Terman. After extensive
discussion of these ~plans resulted in the Terman Working Group
concluded that the mixed-use concept was feasible on the Terman site
if agreements could be ~eached. regarding services and programs to be
provided by the City and by the JCC in the Terman buildings.
With regard to housing, site plan 17 had shown 108
units of housing (76 family units and 32 one-bedroom units for
Seniors). Neighborhood representatives felt that 108 units would be
too much for the ~ite, and stated their preference for something on
the order of 75 to 90 units.
At that point in the process, the Terman Working Group
turned its attention to programs and servites, with particular
emphasis on services which would be provided separately or jointly by
the Ci~# and the JCC. Discussion.centered for many sessions on the
residents’ desire for a City-operated community.center (with City-run
library and programs) and allocation of use of two of the major
facilities on the Terman site, namely the swimming pool and the
gymnasium.
The neighborhood representatives then drafted a summary
of their position and submitted it to the Terman Working Group as a
draf~ proposal for implementation of the mixed-use concept on the
Terman site. This document enabled the Terman Working Group to focus
its attention during the next few months on many specific aspects of
the mixed-use plan, the role each party would undertake if the
mixed-use plan were implemented, and the effect the proposed plan
.would have on the Terman con~nunity. The Group reached tentative
agreement on all major aspects of the mixed-use plan.
The Te~man Working Group spent the next three months
formul.ating its tentative agreements in a report which could be
sa~mitted to the Terman neighborhood and ~he greateT Palo Alto
~ommunity.
9
After 42 meetings over the course of 53 weeks, the
Group presented its agreements to a meeting of the Terman neighborhood
on May 12, 1981. As a result of that meeting, the agreements were
further modified and were presented to the City Council on June 15,
1981, at which time the City Council unanimously adopted the"Terman
Working Group Plan" as Council policy, and directed staff, to prepare a
Specific Plan.
Those parts of the Group’s agreements that are
pertinent tO a specific plan are included in Section II of this
document. Other parts of the Group’s agreements are more relevant to
the City/JCC ~ease, or to a use permit that the City would eventually
grant to the JCC, or will be memorialized in other documents of public
record.
E.Project Description
This Specific Plan proposes a mixed-us~e development on
approximately 21.57 acres. \
The main elements of the Plan are:
Retention of all ..~.~..!.~tin~ school buildi..n~s except "Wing
2. Use and operation of all but W.in~s 10 to 30 b~ the
JC___~C. Under City of Palo Alto zoning, the JCC can operate a conT~Unity
center as a conditional use in a PF (Public Facilities) zone, which is
the existing zone on the site.
Membership in the JCC is open to thepublic. Some JCC
programs are limited to JCC members. The remaining JCC programs are
opento the public, usually on a fee or membership basis.
Specific detailed arrangements for. publicaccess to the
Terman and Gunn pools are described in Section II.F of this Specific
Plan. In addition, the Terman gym will be used selectively for
City-operated programs. A schedule of these programs and dates will
be provided in supplementary, documentsl
3. Allocation of 4.1 to 4.35 acres in the southwest corner
o,i.~he site_Ithe triangular corner closest to the.Hetch-Hetchy
right-of-way and to Arast¥~f~Road~-for80--to-92 uni~s-.-of assisted
housin9.
4. Operation of the remainder of the site (approximately
10.12 to 10.47 acres) ~or...~qblic recreational benefit by the cit~ of
Palo Alto.
5. Operation of Wings 20 and 30 by the City for library
and other conTnunity programs.
10
II.SPECIFICS OF THE TERMAN PLAN
This section incorporates the essence and the bulk of the Terman
Working Group Plan. Where and as noted in the text, some element~ of
the plan are reservedfor incorPoration in the City/JCC lease or in.
the JCC’s future use permit. All aspects of implementation are
included in Section IV of this Specific Plan.
Site Ownership or Control
I. The C~ty of Palo Alto will endeavor to purchase, lease,
or otherwise obtain public controlof the entire Terman site through
negotiation by City staff with the Palo Alto Unified School District.
2. A map of the Terman site showing the portion of the
site allocated by the Group’s efforts to public parks (about lO.12 to
I0.47 acres), the portion to be leased to the JCC (about 7.0 to 7.1
acres), and the portion allocated for PAHC housing(4.1 to 4.35 acres)
is found on page 12 as "Exhibit l, Land Use Plan."
B. Cit~-OperatedCommunit~ Center
30 Wings.
The City will operate a community center in the 2D and
2. Three-quarters of one of the two Wings will be operated
as a library, and the remaining portion of that Wing will be used for
a meeting/activity room. Expansion of the library, e.g., to all of
one Wing, will be considered if sufficient community use is
demonstrated and funding is available.
personnel
The library will be adequately staffed with trained
II
EXHIBIT I -LAND USE PLAN
12
4, The library will be open on a regularly scheduled basis
(including evenings) so that the Terman community and the residents of
Palo Alto Will be able to use ~he library on a regular and convenient
basis.
5. The collection will be as broad as.-possible and will
reflect the needs of the community. The library.will house about
IO,DO0 volumes (basically paperbacks with hardback best sellers), a
moderate number of current periodicals and newspapers, andsufficient
reference materials to make thelibrary.generally useful to the
community at large. City and JCC staff will rev.iew the JCC’s present
-library.collection, and the City may incorporate all or parts of it
into the Terman collection.
6. A circulation terminal (CRT) is exPected to be
available when the Terman library opens, as a tool for obtaining
access to City-wide library holdings. Delivery service used by other
City libraries will be available to and from the Terman library and
the other City libraries.
7. The Te~man library may not have a conventional card
catalog..Further catalog.developments for.City libraries will be
.considered for the Terman library on an equal basis with other City
libraries. City staff will develop and use multiple aids to
facilitate Terman library use by the. community.
8. Policies generally applicable to other City branch
libraries will also be applicable to the Terman library.
9..The City Jill offer City-rqn programs in the other of
the two Wings. The City will initiate its efforts by offering
programs which are expected to be w~dely accepted by the Terman
community. Programs will be offered for people of various ages with
.particular emphasis ~n programs for children aged 4to 13. The City
will undertake a special promotional effort just before the community
center begins operation, to informall residents of Palo Alto, but
p~rticularly those residents in the Terman area,.of the opening of the
community center and the programs which will be offered.
IO. If there is .insufficient space for the City-run
programs on the Terman site, then the City will construct additional
indoor space between Wings 20 and 30 (the City-operated community
center), such space being subBtBntially equivalent to the area of Wing
I0 if the latter has been demolished (see Section II J entitled
Traffic). The above depends upon demonstration of community use and
~vailable.funding.
13
II. City programs and services may also be developed in
cooperation .with the JCC and other community organizations; it being
understood, however (1) that such .cooperation will not reduce the
City’s commitment to operate a Terman library and offerCity-run
programs, and (2)fees charged for co-sponsored’programs will be
comparable to fees charged elsewhere in Palo Alto for comparable
programs offered and operated by the City.
C.Athletic Fields
I. The City wi.li provide and maintain athletic field area
sufficient to acco~odate two full-sized.(lO0 to 120 y.ards long x 65
to 75 yards wide) soccer fields and at least one softball diamond.
For safety reasons, the soccer fields will not overlap the dir.t
portion of an~ softball diamond.
2. It is understood that a porti-on of the present, athletic
field area will ultimately have to be relocated to permit housing to
be placed in the southwest corner of theTerman site (see Section II M
entitled Housi6g). The soccer fields and the softball diamond(s)
should be positioned so as not to unduly interfere with the continued
enjoyment of their property by the nearby residents(particularly the
Pomona Avenue and Glenbrook Drive residents) or to constitute a hazard
to the use of the JCC facilities.
3. The athletic fields on the Terman site will be.
available to the public on the same basis as other City controlled
athletic fields.
4. The athletic ~ie]ds on the.Terman site will also serve
as open space.-
Tennis Courts
I.- .:The~Ci.tywill-~retain f0~ t~nni~ courts on the Terman
site. The te~n~s~courts will be maintained by the City in a manner
equivalent to City tennis courts elsewhere.
’ 2. Relocation of the tennis courts to..a~other area on the
Terman site:is acceptable if~necessar~,t~_obta~n.,"a~m~’favorable
,p~s~,i.6n~ng~o~the .t~0 sd~e~ ~i~-~.~e~i~i0ft~al~.-diam0nd(s) and the
a~hletic.-fie]dl..pa~ngi~i~.~.i~el0:~£ed~¯ thei"~enn~~;~-co6:~ts~~hould be
posit~.oned--so as" not to unduly interfere with the continued enjoyment
of their property by the nearby residents.
3. The tennis courts on the Terman site will be available
to tKe public on the same basis as other City-controlledtennis courts.
14
E.Basketbal~ Courts
I. The City will provide and maintain one or two outdoor,
unlighted basketball courts. The court(s) will be available to the
public on the same basis as other City-controlled courts,
F.Swimming Pools
I. The. JCC will operate, the Terman pool.
2. All those who reside in the Greenacres I homeowners’
area at the time the JCC commences operation on the Terman site (and
who register during the registration period referred to below) will ~
have access to the Terman.pool under the following conditions:
{a) This acces~ will beprovided during the summer
swimming season (mid-June through.Labor Day) from l:O0 p.m. tQ 6:00
p.m. on Mondays through~Fridays, and from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays and Sundays.
(b) Non-JCC members having access to the Terman pool
will pay fees comparable to thosecharged by the City at Other
City-operated pools.
(c) The JCC will institute a one-time-only pool access
registration period for a limited time (e.g.,. three months) promptly
after the JCC begins .operation on the Terman site. Adequate notice
will be given at least twice during the registration period to all
Greenacres I residents.
3." The City will endeavor to enter ~nto a long-term .lease
withthe School District for the use and operation of the Gunn High
School swimming pool.
(a) As long as the Gunn pool is available {rom the
School District, the City will operate the Gunn poo] during the sunm~er
swimming season (mid-June through Labor Day) on a basis comparable to
its operation of the pools at the Jordan and/or Wilbur Middle Schools.
(b) The fees charged at the Gunn pool will be the same
as charged by the City at other City-operated pools.
(c) Assuming comparable levels of use:
(i) The hours of operation will be comparable to
those at the Jordan or Wilbur pools.
(ii) The City recreation department will offer a
full range of swimming programs as offered elsewhere throughout the
City by the recreation department.
(d) In the event it becomes necessary for the City to
consider closing its opera~ion of the Gunn pool vs. cl-osing the Jordan.
and/or Wilbur pools, consideration will be given to keeping the Gunn
pool open because of the potential impact on the JCC,
4. If. the Gunn pool.becomes unavailable to the City,.then
the JCC wil’1 continue to operate the Terman pool, but the public will
then have access to the Terman pool during the summer s~imming season
(mid-June through Labor Dayi on a basis comparable to. City operation
of the jordan a~d/or Wilbur pools at that time.
(a) If at least two pools (other than the Gunn or
Terman PoolS) are then operated by the City, use of the Terman pool by
the public will belimited to the residents of the Terman
.neighborhoods only. Reasonable pool privileges for gvests of the
Terman residents will be provided,
(b) The financial terms and conditions of public
acces~ to the Terman pool will be included in the lease to be
.negotiated between the JCC and the City.
..~.ymnasium
I. The JCC wil-I operate the Terman gymnasium.
2. City-run programs: The City will offer City-run
programs in the Terman gymnasium on a mutually agreed-upon evening
among-the four evenings Monday through Thursday, as well as on Friday
evenings and Saturday mornings.
(a) City-wide sports "league -la’" (basketball
volleyball,.etc.) will be offered by the.City at the Terman gymnasium.
3. City/JCC co-sponsored programs: City programs and
services may also be developed in conjunction with the JCC; it being
un#,erstood, however, .that such cooperation will not drastically reduce
or alter the City’s overall commitment to run programs-on its own in
~h. Terman gymnasium.
-(a) The fees charged to residents of Palo Alto for
Cit~,-sponsored (but JCC-run) programs at the Terman gymnasium will be
~L .~rable to the fees charged elsewhere throughout Palo Alto for
..~. = -ble programs offered and run by the City.
~. JCC programs: .Regularly scheduled athletic.programs
~.y the JCC at the Terman gymnasium will be open to the public
comparable to other City programs,
16
5. The City should endeavor to .offer or co-sponso~ with
the JCC after-school recreational-programs for school age children;
particularly in the late fall and winter months,
Jewish communi~.y Center
I. The JCC or an affiliate thereof will leaseits part of
the Terman site from the City. The City/JCC lease, and a. use permit
to be granted by the~City, will sPeci.fy the terms and conditions of
JCC-use and occupancy of its portion of the Terman. site.
(a) The JCC initially requested-that it be permitted
to purchase certain of the buildings {and adjacent grounds) on the
Terman site. Subsequently, it relinquished that position and
acquiesced in receiving a long-term lease of certain of the school
buildings and various grounds adjacent thereto. To enable the JCC to
amortize the lease-hold improvements it intends to make during the
term of its lease,the initial term of the lease will be not less than
fifteen (15) years, with a longer term depending on the value of the
lease-hold improvements made by the JCC to the Terman site during its
first five (5) years of Terman site operation according to the
following schedule.:
Lease-Hold Improvements
Made During First Five
(5) Years of JCC Lease
Initial Term
of Lease
Up to $I,000,000
$I,000,0Q0-$1,500,000
In excess of $1,500,000
15 Years
20 years
25 years
(b) The JCC lease will be renewable at the option of
the JCC if there has been substantial compliance by the JCC with all
conditions of the leas~.and the use permitconcerning the JCC’s use of
the Terman site.
(c) Before renewing the lease the City.w~ll hold a
public hearing to determine if there has been substantial c~mpl¯iance
with the lease and the use permit. However, to protect the JCC from
unfounded allegationsofonon-compl~ance, the only matters which .can be
reviewed by the City at the public herring will be allegations of
non-compliance which have been preceded by a formal complaint filed,
contemporaneously with the al~egedly non~complying~event, with the
City. The need for a publ.ic hearing and the requirement of filing a
formal zomplaint before any allegations can be considered at the
public hearing will be made known, in some appropriate manner, to the
Terman area residents for two (2) and four (#) years before
t~rmination of the initial JCC¯ lease.
17
(d) The term of the renewal lease (if the lease is
renewed) will be equal to the term of the initial ]ease as determined
pursuant to’the abqve schedule.
2. The hours of operation of the JCC facilities on the
Terman site .will be subject to a use permit granted by the City and in
the City/JCC lease.
3. The JCC will at all timescomplY with the Palo Alto
Noise Abatement Ordinance.
(a) The JCC will make every effort to prevent
annoyance to, or disturbance of, the residents in the Terman
neighborhoods. ’
(b) The JCC will not permit loud or amplified music
(~articularly of the types known as "disco" or "rock" music) or other
sound to be played or generated on the Terman .site if. such music or
sound would reasonably be anticipated to disturb the nearby residents.
(c) Details relating to JCC compliance with the City’s
Noise Abatement Ordinance will be contained in the use permit and in
the City/JCC lease.
(d) Means for controlling noise associated with
parking in the parking spaces adjacent to the Pomona Avenue housing
are set forth in Section II,K entitled Parking; Paragraphs 7 and 8.
4, The JCC will endeavor to obtain additional offrstreet
parking for special events (when on-site parking is likely, to be
inadequate) in order to minimize parking on neighborhood streets
adjacent to the Terman site.
5. Any modificaton-of existingTerman buildings or any new
on-site construction or demolition by the JCC will be subject to all
City review ~nd approval procedures (including notice to residents in
accordance with .adopted City procedures).
6. The JCC will obtain specific City approval and permits
as neces~ry for major events it intends to hold on-the public portions
of the Terman site. The JCC will be subject to all requirements
applicable to other applicants and will not be given preference
because it is occupying facilities on the Terman site.
7, The Jcc will complywith all City codes and ordinances
and with the requirements of the Chiefs of the Palo Alto Fire
Department and inspectional Services Division.
8, The City will include in any lease agreement with.the
JCC, or in the use permit issued to the JCC, restrictions or terms and
conditions which the City deems pecessary to ensure that theJCC will¯
IB
use the Terman site in a manner which does not. undoly, annoy or disturb
the residents in the Terman community,
9. Classes or programs offered by the JCC which are open
to the publicmay be at non-member, rates.
J,Traffic
I. l’nere will be no roadway completely encircling the
Terman buildings.
2. Access to the Terman .site will-be via a singie-
entry/exit located opposite Donald Drive at the existing traffic light.
3. Except for fire, paramedic, and police vehicle access
during emergencies, Glenbrook Drive wi.ll remain cl.osed to automobile
entry.at the boundary to.the Terman site.
4. Wing lO will be removed to Provide ~dditional .space for
the entry road to the housing area and the athl-etic fields. When the
entry road into the Terman site is relocated in accordance with
Paragraph II,J,2 above, every effort will be made to save. the tall
trees presently standing at the front of the Terman site.
5. A~m-~priate signs will direct the way to the various
facilities on the Terman site.
6. Bicyclelanes and-pedestrian paths will be placed along
the length of the entry road that leads to the athletic.field area.
7. There will be no change to the existing bike path on
the Hetch-Hetchy right-of-way.
8. One or two narrow passageways will be left or created
in the fence along the Hetch-Hetchy right-of-way ~o as to permit
pedestrian and bicycle access to ~he right-of,way.
9. Any widening of that portion of the entry road into the
Terman site (that leads to the athletic field area and the housing)
adjacent to Wings 20, 30, and 40 will bein a direction toward the
Wings (i.e., in a direction away from the Dewitt property and the Ruth
Woods Nursery School thereon).
(a) A solid wall will be erected along that portion of
the Dewitt property l.ine adjacent to the entry road by Wings 20, 30
i9
and 40 so as to lessen the impact of traffic along that portion of the
entry road on the children attend-ing the nursery school. This wall
-will be constructed at the same time as the wall described in
paragraph K?(b), below.
K.Parking
I, ~There will be approximately 160 parking spaces for the
JCC/City community center use.
2. With the exception of all housing parking and l.imlted
van and handicapped parking for the JCC, the remainder of the parking
. spaces on the Terman site will be on a first-come, first-serve basis.
3. An additional 60 parking spaces (~ome of which may be
along, the~~ntry’ road)~will be placed convenient to the at~hletic
facilities.
4. Site planning will attempt., to the extent possible, to
minimize placement of parki.ng spaces on present open space areas.
5. There Will be I-I/2 parking spaces .per family housing
unit and 3/4 parking space per elderly housing unit, to a maximum of
120 parking spaces within the housing area,
6. Housing parking spaces need not be covered.
7~’~-Parking spaces~.between the present residential housing
on Pomona Avenue and th~:pres~ent Terman buildings w~ll not extend
beyond the Arastradero end of the cafetorium,.
(a) This paragraph 7-will-be accomplished within one
(1) month of the JCC’s receipt of a certificate of useand’occupancy
pursuant, to its long-term lease of the Terman site.
{b) A solid~allwill be erected between such parking
spaces and the adjacent Pomona Avenue housing to protect the nearby
Pomona Avenue residents from noise and the headlights of cars parked
in such parking spaces at night. The wall will extend southeasterly
to meet a similar wall constructed as an extension of the most
easterly Wall of the present music building.
(c) The wall for such parking spaces will be not less
than 20’ from the nearest. Pomona Avenue housing property line. The
parking spaces will be not less than 40’ from the nearest Pomona
Avenue housing property line. The final plans for the wall and
parking will be subjectto all City review procedures,, including the
Archi=ectural Review Board.
{d) The JCC may propose alternative designs to
accomplishthe objectives.of Paragraphs 7{b) and 7(c) above provided~
20
such alternative designs (i) meet City standards and (ii) are not
disapproved by more than 25 percent of the households bf the houses
located on the Terman Middle School side of Pomona Avenue between
Arastradero Road and Glenbrook Drive.
B. If, after~completionof the wall and the parking area
according to Paragraphs 7(b) and 7(c) above, or the alternative design
therefor according to Pa~ragraph 7(d) above, it is.objectively
determined applying City standards that .noise and intrusion on the.
nearby Pomona Avenue residents have not been effectively muffled, then
an automobile barrier will be constructed which will restrict parking
and other traffic along the roadway between the Pomona Avenue
residences and the JCC when the barrier is in use.
(a) The barrier will be located across the roadway-at
a location between the building previously used as the Terman Middle
School library (presently proposed by the JCC to become its main
lobby) and the nearby Pomona Avenue residences,
(b) The JCC will ipu.t the barrier in place at or before
7:00 p.m. nightly in order to limit access to parking spaces along
such roadway to JCC staff only.
(c) The JCC need not put the barrier in place on those
evenings when it deems the non-housing parking spaces elsewhere on the
Terman site to be inadequate to meet the reasonably antic.ipated
parking needs for the JCC programs being offered that evening (due
consideration being given to the parking needs for the programs being
offered that same evening at the City-operated co, unity center).
9. Site planning wi.ll attempt .to discourage, to the extent
possible, park.ing along Pomona Avenue, Glenbrook Drive, Donald Drive,
and other nearby residential streets.
l O. There will be no parking spaces on the Hetch-Hetchy
ri ght-o f~-way..
II. All parking for the family/elderly housingwill be
within the 4.1 to 4.35 acres allocated to housing.
L.Lighting
I. Any new exterior lighti.ng will not undulyintrude on
nearby residential areas.
possible:
Newly added lighting will be, to the extent
(i) low level in height (relative to adjacent
structural elements on the site),
21
(ii)- of sufficient intensity for the intended
purpose,.but not more than is needed for such purpose, and
(iii) directed away from nearby residential areas.
2. New safety/security loighting wil-I be permitted, but
willcomply with.~aragraph 1 above.
3. No artificial lighting.(except low-level safety
securi±y lighting) will be installed for any athletic facilities
(excluding the pool).
(a) Any newly added pool lighting will also comply
with Paragraph 1 above.
4L Lighting along the main entry rQad to (but hot
including) the housing area and up to the athletic field parking area
will meet .Ibut not exceed) City standards for neighborhood streets.
M.Housing
I. 4~I to 4.35 acres, i.n the southwest corner of the
Terman site located closest to the HetchrHetchy right-of-way, Ynigo
Way, and Arastradero Road, will be ~llocated to "affordable" housing.
2. A maximum crf 80 family housing units (or their
equivalent.)to a maximum of 92 family and senior/handicapped housing
units, will be developed on the Terman site.
(a) .80 units is Based on all units being family units
of twoto four .bedrooms each,
(b) 92 units is based on 68 family units and 24
senior/handicapped units (less than 30% senior/handicapped units).
(c) A total number of housing units between 80 and 92
wi31 be~acceptable if, for each family unit reduced below 80, not more
than two senior/handicapped units are added.
(d) The senior/handicapped housing units, if any, will
be studio or one-bedroom units.
(e) A greater number of units will not be permitted
even though an-RM-3 zone (or other zone permitting a greater housing
density) is eventually applied to the housing area.
22
.(f)* An estimated 230 .to 240 persons will eventually
live in the housing, as shown in the table below:
Based On
92 Unit~
80 Family Units (68 FamilY’02413 Senior)
Adults 120 ........................" "
Pre-school children 30 25
Children K-12 90 75
Total ~23"--0-
Source: Palo Alto Housing Corporation, February 27, 1981.
(g)* There will. be certain restrictions:on who may live
in the housing. Occupancy preference will be given to individuals and
fami.lies who live or work (or havebeen promised a job) in Palo Alto.
This will be accomplished by affirmative marketing through Palo Alto
employers, so as to insure.a.broad pool of applicants, including all
minori’ties. The restrictions will apply at initial rent-up or sale,
as well as upon vacancy (turnover or.resale) of one or more units.
3. The following physical .factors will govern any housing
development, irrespective of any actual zoning later applied:
(a) The daylight plane will be as described in Palo
Alto’s RM-2 zone.
(b) Lot coverage will not exceed thirty-five percent
(35%), provided that if carports, are constructed, up to 5% additional
lot coverage will be allowed for that purpose only.
(c) Building height will not exceed thirty-five (35)
feet. An attempt willbe ma#e to limit the number of structures over
two stories high, particularly adjacent to existing off-site housing.
(See page 25,~Section III A, 3.)
(d) There will be a maximum of 120 parking spaces,
none of which are required to be covered. (See Section II K, entitled
Parking, page 20.)
4.The final housing plan will:.
(a) Take cognizance of the adjacent housing
(particularly on Ynigo Way and adjacent properties along Arastradero
Paragraphs 2(f) and 2(g) were not part of the Terman Working .Group
Plan.
Road) and provide features to-minimize the impact of the housing
development on these neighbors.
(i) No housing unit~ will be built within f~rty
(40~ feet of the southwesterly boundary of the Terman site from the
proposed entry road to the. farthest edge of the Ynigo Way properties
(see the Housing area on the map in Exhibit l).
{x) In.developing the final housing plan
~for the Terman site, the PAHC will endeavor to provide additional
distance (between the adjacent residential housing and the housing
units) over and above the forty (40) feet specified inthis paragraph
if.such additional distance can be achieved without adversely
affecting Other aspects of the final housing plan.
(y) The roadwayand harking spaces for the
housing can pass through, and be within, this housing-unit-restricted
area,
(ii) Sufficient landscaping will be instalied
between the housing units and the adjacent residential, nursery
school, and church properties to soften both the v~sual and potential
noise impact Of the housing on such-properties.
(b) Avoid erecting essentially a solid wailof hous.ing
abutting the Hetch~Hetchy right-of-way.
5. The final housing plan to be developed on the Terman
site will be subject to all City review and approval procedures
(including review before the Architectural Review Board, the City
Planning Commission, and the City Council-).
N.Consiste..nc~
In the event thereis any inconsistency between this Section
11 and any other sect’Son of this Specific Plan,thewording of this
Section 11 shall control, except that the effective date of this Plan
shall be as provided in Section IV.
24
III.ELEMENTS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATION TO PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The following discussion is arranged in the same order as are
various elements within Palo Alto’s adopted Comprehensive Plan,
19B0-1995:.
Housing
I.Land area and location
"Affordable"~housing, as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan, will be developed on 4.1 to 4.35 acres, in the corner of the
site closest to the Hetch-Hetchy right-of-way and Arastradero Road.
2.Number and kind of units
A maximum of 80 to 92 dwelling units will be ~uiltL
Such units may be rental, for sale, or a combination of both.
"Eighty" units is based on all units being for
families. "Ninety-two" is based on a maximum of 30% for elderly (a
City Council guideline), with two elderly units substituted for each
family unit. Hence 92 = 68 family + 24 elderly units. There is no
required breakdown as to number of one-, two-, three,, or four-bedroom
units. Under current federal guidelines~ at least five percent of the
units would have to be three-bedroom.or larger.. The remainder of the
family units would be two-bedroom, The senior units, if any, will be
one-bedroom or studio units.
If Community Development. Block Grant funds are used in
acquiring the-site, then at least 51 percent of. the units will be low
and moderate income housing as defined by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
An estimated 230 to 240 persons will live in the
housing (see-Section 11, M, 2(f) of this Plan, page 23).
3.Building envelope
Three aspects of the RM-2 zone will govern irrespective
of actual zoning later applied:
(a) 35-foot height limit.
(b) 35 percent lot coverage (provided that, if
carports are constructed, up to 5% additional lot coverage will be
allowed for that purpose only).
(c) Daylight plane as described in the RM-2 zone. (See
Section II M,3, page 23.)
25
.4,Parking
All parking for the housing will be within the confines
of the 4.1 to 4.35 acres,
5.Buffers
The new housing .will keep its distance from, and show
special respect for, the existing housing on Ynigo Way. See Exhibit
l, page 12; and see Paragraph l.I, M, 4 (a) on:.page 23.
6,Zoning
The housing need notbe dev.eloped under a.PC (Planned
Community) zone. Rather, it ~an be developed under an RM
(multi-family) zone (possibly RM~3), recognizing that certain more
restrictive aspects of the RM-2 zone, as spelled out in Paragraph If-I,
A, 3 above, will~ apply irrespective of the RM zone eventually applied
to the housing area.
7.Relation to housing element, of Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive .Plan sets three housing objectives:
first, tomaintain the Character and physical quality of existing
neighborhoods; second, to maintain a diversity of housing
opportunities in~Palo Alto; and third, to increase the housing supply,
especially for individuals and families who earn low and moderate
incomes and for those who work in Palo Alto. (Pa]o Alto Comprehensive
Plan,. February 2, 1981, page 5.)
There is already some diversity of housing types along
Arastradero Road. This mixed-use Plan will enhance that variety by
adding a number of "affordable" bnits as that term is defihed in Palo
Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, page 12.
Policy 7-of the housing element encourages "the
development of housing that low-, moderate-, and middle-income
households, e~pecially those with children, can afford.."
Policy 9 of the housing element specifically encourages
the City to "participate in low- and moderate- income-housing programs
financed by other levels of government.-" Housing Program 14 asks
continuation 6f "the Land Bank Program for purchasing parcels for
housing development for low- and moderate-income families and
seniors." Housing Program 20 notes that the City will "continue to
support the Palo Alto Housing Corporation in the provision of low-,
moderate-, and middle-income housing."
This Specific Plan carries out each of. the above
objectives, policies, and programs. Further the Specific Plan does
not. conflict with any objectives, policies, or programs in the housing
element.
26
An amendment ~o the housing element adopted by the City
Council in September IgSl schedules ~he land for the housing units at
the Terman site.to be purchased during calendar 1982, and projects
construction of the units in Ig84 (reference: CMR:424:l, Exhibit no.
2, page 3, program 14, landbank).
B. ,,Emplo.~meDt .
I.NumBer employed in-past
A number Of persons bare been employed on the Terman
site since the construction and initial Occupancy of the school.
At its maximum enrollment in19~7-68, the Palo Alto
Unified School District employed 94 persons on the site. In its final
year as a Middle School, 1977-78, 60 persons were employed at-°Terman.
Of .those 60, 4D were certified, 18 were classified, and 2 were hourly
workers.
2.Number likely to be employed
(a) Housing
A manager and a maintenance person are likeiy to
be employed on the housing portion of the site, and may also live on
the site. As with any group of housing units, movers, contract
maintenance persons, gardeners, and repair persons are l~kely to c~e
onte the site at any time, but in very small numbers.
All other persons who work on the site are likely
to be employed.by either the City of Palo Alto or the JCC.
(b) City
The City programs are at their peak enrollment in
April-May and October-November (see Exhibit 2, in the appendix)~
However, since the JCC’s peak months will be June, July, and August
(see Paragraph "c" below), the July employment projections are the
most relevant in calculating overall employment on the site.
In July, the maximum number of employees-and
volunteer staff used in organized City programs will be 2 full-time
library staff and II to 13 part-time staff as follows: library = 2 to
4; softball and gym = 2; recreation/instruction Classes = l; tennis =
l; arts and sciences =~l; and Little League volunteer coaches = 4.
Overall, the Terman programs will add 2
person-years in full-time regular employees and 1.25 person-years in
temporary employees to the City staff, all in the library. No City
staff need be added in Recreation or in Arts and Sciences for Terman
programs.
27
[c) OCt
The JCC programs are at their peak in the months
of June, July, and August. The JCC estimates that 2,488 site visits
will be made during July, and the same number in August (see Exhibit
3); These numbers are not readily comparable t-o the estimate of. staff
site visits supplied by the City, primarily because (unlike the City)
the JCC will have its main administrative offices on-site. The
figures below sun~narize the JCC’s employment information from
Exhibit 3, page 3.
No, of JCC Employees at
.Work on an Average Day
i’In ~#’ril In July
19BO-Sl staff at Ortega, plus Zohar
Dance and summer camp at Terman
FUEL TIME
PART TIME
TOTAL "
34 60
14 12
7-1
Projected at Terman, "Probable"
FULL TIME 38
PART TIME 19
TOTAL ~
64
Projected at Terman, "Maximum"
FULL TIME 49 84
PART TIME 23 21
TOTAL - -
Thus, JCC now employs 48 to 72 persons, depending
on the time of year. At maximum, JCC employment at Terman would grow
to 72 (April) to I05 (July). The maximum community-wide employment
increase for JCC is thus 24 in April and 33 in Jul’y~ ’
(d) The total number of employees on the Terman site
during the peak.program period (July) is expected to be 99 to 122, as
follows:
.Probable Maximum
Housing (PAHC)
Ci ty
JCC
TOTAL
2 2
13 15
84 I05
28
3.Relation to .employment element of Comprehensive Plan
The introduction to the employment elemen~ (Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, February 2, 19Bl, page 18) voices the community’s
concern that employment growth in the last 20 years has far
outdistanced the amountof new housing. This has created a
jobs-housing imbalance and ha~ resulted in workers having to travel
increasing distances from .their homes to places of empl.oyment in Palo
Alto.
Thus, one major objective.of the employment element is
that, along with commercial and industrial construction, housing also
will be provided.
Another objective of the ~mployment element is to
"reduce employment potential."’ Although the projections provided by
the City and the JCC indicate that employment on the site will
increase over what it was during the use of the site for public school
purposes, it should be recognized that the highest employm6nt
potential would occur were the Terman school buildings to be leased.by
the School District to a higher level of government for office use, as
the Cubberley buildings were leased to the U.S. Geological.Survey.
The net increase in jobs is minimal because those persons are already
working in Palo Alto either for the City or for the JCC.
Another objective of the employment element is .to
"maintain low employment densities where feasible." It is clear from
Section Ill,B,2. of this Specific Plan that the employment densities on
the Terman site are quite low. During its use as a school, employment
on tlie site ranged from 2.8 to-4.3 employees per acre. Under the uses
authorized by the Specific Plan, overall employee density will range
from 4.5 to 5.5 persons per acre during the peak month (July). This
compares with employee densities of 16 persons, per. acre at Syntex and
50 persons per acre at Hewlett-Packard’s new world headquarters
building..
Other employment objectives (pages 18 and 19 of the
Comprehensive Plan) do not deal directly with the kind and small
amount of employment that w~ll be generated by reuse of the Terma6
site. However, on page 21 of the Comprehens.ive Plan, Policy 2
"encourages the construction of more housing, primari.ly on or near
industrial and commercial sites...so that more people who work in Palo
Alto can live here."
To the extent thatthe Terman site will provide housing-
for people employed in Palo Alto, and further, to the extent that some
of those employees may work.at nearby companies in the Stanford
Industrial Parkor at the United States Vet6rans Administration
Hospital, the Terman Specific Plan meets the intent of employment
Policy 2.
In general, the Specific Plan carries out the
objectives, polici.es, and programs of the employment element.
C.Transportati on
1. Relevant. ~bjectives
Transportation objectives (page 24, Compr.ehensive Plan)
include disc.ouraging the flow of traffic in neighborhoods~, protecting
residential neighborhoods from through traffic and especially.commuter
traffic, and serving the transit-dePendent .population. To determine
how effectively the Terman Specific Plan meets the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, this section ~looks at both the proposed physical
layout of the site and at the number of "peak period" (4-6 p.m.)
automobile trips expected to be generated by use of the site.
2.Parking demand
The Palo Alto..Unified School District provided
approximately 130 parking~ spaces on the Terman site. Since the most
recent number of School District employees on the site was. 60, and the~
maximum was 94, it is clear that the parking spaces were provided to
serve others in addition to School District employees. These "others"
included volunteers working at the school., visiting administrators or
visiting certified employees; citizens Gom~ng to special programs or
activitie~ held at the school, day or evening; and users of the
swimming pool, gymnasium, tennis courts, and. other athletic fields and
facilities.
It isdifficult to accurately project the number of
automobiles that will be parked on the site by Users of a cumulative
variety~f activities on an average day during the projected peak
enrollment month (July).
The City and the JCC have projected total.program
aztendance and staff site visits, by month. It may bepossible after
empirical experience to relate the number of persons .attending JCC-
.and City-sponsored programs on an average day during the maximum
enrollment periods to the maximum number of parking spaces needed.
The City’s Departmen± of Social and Community Services
believes that trips to or from the site, either by the program
participants or by staff, are likely to be spread throughout the day,
approximately as follows:
30
Division/ProBram
Art and science
classes
Library ~ervices
Baseball
Time of Visit "
3-5 p.m.
All day, depending on closing time
Weekends,. some afternoo.ns; April,
May, June
Gym leagues Evenings,.October to March
Recreation/instructional
classes
Youth soccer
3-5 p.m. and evenings
Weekends, some afternoons;
September through December
Softball Same as baseball, except April
through September
Tennis Mornings after 9~ a~ternoons before
5, (and Summer afternoons to 8 p.m.)
Further, depending on the time of day, the nature of
the program activity, and the characteristics of the program
clientele, the proportion of staff and participants who come by
automobile vs. those who come on foot or by bicycle will vary.
The case is made above that parking demand is extremely
difficult to project. Nevertheless, when alternative site plans were
being drafted for the Terman site in July .and August of 1980, the City
staffwas able to estimate, based on its experience at other sites,
that between 16 and 30 parkiqg spaces would be needed for person.s
using theathletic fields, and another 24 spaces should be provided as
sports-overflow parking. Eventually, it wasestimated that 60 parking
spaces were needed for sports (see Section II,K,3). .Estimates were
also made of the number of parking-spaces that should be provided, not
only for the employees, but also for the users of the JCC and city
facilities.
Thus, in Section II K of the Specific Plan, "Parking"
(page 20), it is determined that there will be approximately 160
parking spaces for JCC/City community center use; that an additional
60 parking spaces (some of Which may be along the entry road) will~be
placed convenient to the athletic facilities; and that all housing
parking will be located within that portion of the site devoted to
housing.-
31
Trips g~nerated
The City staff has generated peak period traffic
estimates (for traffic entering and leaving the site 4-6 p.m.) based
on CaITrans data and ~he assumptions below:
(a). During 9 months of the year, 95% of all full-time
JCC and City employees w~ll arrive one person per car and will arrive
and depart the site between 4-6 p.m. Because a large number of the
summer employees are of high school and college age, and because the
weather is .clear, the percentage ofemployees coming by car drops to
60% during the summer peak employment period.
(b)- On~-fourth of the part-time employees and
volunteer staff associated with JCC, community, and recreational
progr~ams will either arrive or depart during the evening peak period.
(c) The housing development will be built as family
housing (80 units total),
It should be recognized that during any peak period
(for example, evening-peak hour) some cars will be leaving the. site
(for example, JCC administrative employees), while other cars will be
entering the site (persons coming homefrom work).
The following table of trip generationestimates is
explained in the footnotes and paragraphs following the table.
The conclusion, then, is that the total number of cars,
both entering and leaving the.site during the evening peak will be 295
(see Exhibit 5, page 33).. This number represents about 8.8% of the
1977 evening peak on Arastradero Road (3,340 vehicles--see E×hibit 6,
page 36). The 1990 peak is assumed to be 25% higher based on the
Comprehensive Plad’s projected"25% increase in 24-hour traffic. Thus,
3,340 x 1.25 = 4,175. And 295 - 4,175 = 7.1 (the percent.that Terman
traffic will be of the projected 1990 peak period)..
Note that the above Percentages (7.~ to 8.B%) are the
projected percent that total Terman traffic will be, of total evening
peak period traffic. These percentages-do not represent a projected
percentage increase in peak hour trafficS" For example, assume that,
at present, 40 vehicle trips are made into and~out of the Terman site
during the 4 p.m. ~o 6 p.m. peak. Subtract these existing trips from
the future traffic projection: 295 - 40 = 255. This 255 represents
the increase oveF current levels..255/3,340 = 0.076; and 255/4,175 :
O.D61. Thusthe projected increase in Terman traffic represents 7.6%
of the current-peak, and 6.1% of the 1990 peak in. this example.
Projected Traffic Exhibit 5
Even_in9 Peak period, 4-6 p.m. Average.....Da~, Peak Month-(July)
Use
Recreational, athletic--all uses including
pool and gym: -~
;40 trips/acre x 11.5 acres.(from CalTrans
District II, p. 31-P)
,IJCC non-recreational, a~ivities,, except
isenior adult services
Trips Gene.rated
Daily 4-6 .m. (1)I P
Staff visits July
Attendance visits July
Total visits July
1,844
7,400
9,244
Total visits daily = 9,244 ÷25 = 370(4)
’SCS Arts & SciencesProgram (6).
Staff visits July 16
Attendance visits July° 130
Total visits July 146
Total visits daily.= 146 <-22 = 7(4)
SCS Library
Staff visits July
Patron visits July
159
625
Total visits July 784
Total visits daily = 784~-22= 36(4)
Housing (5)
80 units x 5.7/d.u.
(CalTrans 04, Report 10, Table 2)
460
740 (3)
14
72
70
(15%) "
111
(i5 )
456
|
uses -- Total I 1,750 295
2
(33%)(2)
25
(i.08
trip/d.u. )
86
33
Footnotes to Exhibit.’5
C2)
Peak period trip generation data, when not directly available
from specific studies, can~be approximated as a percentage of
daily trips: 15% o~ daily trips is a conservative estimate of
trips generatedbetween 4-6 p.m.
Since the library will only be open 6 hours per day, it is
assumed that I/3 of the total daily trips will occur between 4
and 6 p.m.
(3)Each visit is assumed to be made-by.one vehicle which enters and
exits, thus generating two trips. The total will be decr.eased by
shared rides and by use of. other modes, but it will be increased
by other trips to and .from the site not related to the once
in-once out trips of the immediate user--’-~sle.g., service trips,
lunch trips, drop-offs and pick-ups, etc.)..For-lack of other
information, it is assumed that these increase and decrease
factors are the same order of magnitude and will approximately
cancel each other.
(4)
(6)
JCC estimated that a.typical weekday’s~visits would be most
accurately calculated as monthly visits divided by 25; and SCS,
monthly visits divided by 22.
The appropriate daily rate for condominiums would be 6.7 trips/
d.u., and 5.7 trips/d.u, for general apartments. The lower
figure has been used since this~.is subsidized housing which has a
lower vehicle ownership rate than normal. .Peak hour trip
generation is 0.7 trip/d.u., with City staff data indicating 1.08
trips/d.u, between 4-6 p.m. (19% of Average Daily Traffic).
According to the JCC, all their non-recreational activities will
end or begin sometime between 4 and 5 p.m. except, the "senior
adult services." The Ci.ty’s arts and science program ends at
5 p.m. and the~~ibrary is expected to be open between 4 and
6 p.m. This information was used in estimating staff and
participant trips to non-recreational activities
From the above information and the table, it is estimated that,
of the 138 peak period trips attributable to the JCC and SCS
no__on-recreational.uses, about 110 of these are generated by the
attendees (users).
Source: City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division, January 6~ !982.
34
Traffic on Arastradero Road
Peak hour and all-day ¯traffic counts were taken at two.
locations on Arastradero Road. One count was made while Terman was in
its last year of operation as a school. Two counts were made after
Terman was closed. The table below shows the results of the counts.
¯ All figures represent vehicle trips flowing in both direction~.
Page 27 of the Comprehensive Plan, shows projected
traffic volumesfor 1990. Based on an assumption that 2% of all trips
will be made on transit, the projection for Arastradero Road west of
El Camino Real is for¯21,DOD vehicles per day (a 25% increase over the
current average daily traffic).
The above figures suggest that a four-lane street like
Arastradero Road is operating at an acceptable level.of service except
near Foothill Expressway, By itself, the road can handle considerably
more traffic, but at some increased risk to the bicyclists and
pedest.rians (many of whom are students) who use or cross Arastradero
Road.
Increased traffic on Arastradero Road will eventually
result in a reduced level of traffic service. This is because major
constraints will still exist at the intersections of Arastradero/
Foothill Expressway and Arastradero/El Camino Real. Put another way,
any increases in traffic along Arastradero Road (including those
increases resulting from the re-use 6f the Terman site) will have
their most pronounced effect at the two major high-volume
intersections at opposite directions from the Terman site:
Aras~radero/Foothill and Arastradero/El Camino. At this time, City
staff does not have the necessary.data to determine.what the.
quantitative impactg-on these intersections will be.
5.Relation to transportation elemen~ of Compr~hensivePlan
Policy 4 (page 31 of the Co~prehens’ive. Plan) calls for
"reducing through-traffic on residential streets."
In this respect, ~t should be noted that the Terman
Speciffc Plan does not permit Glenbrook Drive to be used as an access
to the site. Keeping the "dead end" on Glenbrook Drive will, more
than any other factor, keep Terman-generated t#affic on.Arastradero
Road and prevent thattraffic from tr6ver~ing the Greenacres I
neighborhood northeast of the site.
section is that reuse of a sch6~l site be compatible with the
neighborhood and with the obj.ectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan." .-
Policy 2 states, "Give priority to affordable housing,
parks, community facilities, and existing community uses in
considering the future of closed school sites."
This Specific Plan is a mixed-use plan that addresses
each of the three areas cited in Policy 2. Housing (80to 92 units
for 230 to 240 persons) will be provided on 4.1 to 4.35 acres of the
21.57 acre site.. Approximately 8 acres will be kept open as pa~k-li~e
recreational fields, Another 2 to 2.5 acres-will be devoted to public
roadway, parking, and the maintaining of at least two school Wings for
library and other social .and conTnunity Services to be provided by the
City.
Theproposed reuse of the site al~o accommodates Policy
3 which states: "Provide park facilitieswithin walking, distance for
residents living within the urban portion of Palo Alto..."
In addition to the above, the mixed-use plan provides
for a JCC-operated community center, open to the public on a
membership or fee~basis, on approximately 7.0 to..7.1 acres of land,
and using all of the Terman buildings except Wings i0, 20 and 30.
The text of the Comprehensive Plan schools and parks element
says that "the most practical and acceptable potential use for closed
school sites include housing, parks~ and community facilities...Some
school sites, especially those far from a City park and those with
speci~l facilities, provide key open space and recreation landfor the
neighborhood and the City. They mlso serve as an important social
identity function for the neighborhoods. Parts of the~..Terman...site
have high open space and recreational priority."
"Closed school sites also provide an opportunity to
meet some of the critical need for housing. Use of school sites for
housing is not expected to overcrowd the remaining schools.,. On many
sites, it may be possible to provide housing and open space and
community facilties."
The Comprehensive Plan also notes that "...school
playf!elds provide the...only district park sites for much of the area
west of the Souther.n Pacific tracks."
On page 40 of the Comprehensive Plan, the schools and
parks element states in Policy. 4: -"Provide park sites of different
sizes and types to respond to the needs of a diverse population,.
including park-like natural areas, linear trails, and creekside
systems." The Terman sirehas the Hetch-Hetchy bike/pedestrian trail
41
alongside,, and, wher~ it borders the city of Los Altos, the site
slopes donto Adobe Creek, whose banks Bre heavily wooded in .that
aPea.
Program 6 suggests: "Acquire-and d~velop district park
facilities on one or more sites west of Alma as appropriate." Some Of
the facilities proposed for the Terman area in this Specific Plan are
ofa district park nature. The Gunn swin~ning pool is one such use;
the Terman library.might well be considered another such facility,
just ~s th~ Mitchell library has come to be considered a part of
Mitchell Park. However, during meetings of the Terman Working Group,
neighborhood representatives and residents of the areamade it clear
that they do not want other facilities typical of district parks, such-
as picnic tables and stoves.
"Policy 5: Make parks safer for users and.less prone
to vandalism and other problems," This policy and the three following
programs have. been applied in the planning that has been accomplished
thus far for the Terman site:
"Program 9: Provide for adequate visibility from
surrounding areas in design and landscaping of parks."
activities."
"Program i0: Encourage privately sponsored community
Program ii: .Encourage foot and bike traffic in parks
during those hours when parks are open."
The Specific Plan carries out each of.the above
objectives, policies,-and programs of the schools and parks element of
the Palo-Alto Comprehensive Plan. Further, the Specific Plan does not
conflict with any objectives, policieS, or programs in the schools and
parks element.
Urban Design
For-the Terman Specific Plan, the following statements in
the Comprehensive Plan urban design element (page 42) are perhaps the
most important:
"Urban design is concerned with how th~ city looks and
feels, with the sensory relationsh#p between people and their
environment, their ~eeling of time and place,and their sense of
well-being."
"Changes in the scale of the community that might occur
through introduction of massive land uses.,.should be carefully
evaluated."
42
"Retain the uniqueness and diversity of Palo Alto’s
neighborhoods."
"Program i: Discourage massive si-ngleuses through
limitations on height and density to protect surrounding uses and
community values."
The Terman Specific Plan has been developed with sensitivity
to the relationship b~tween people and their environment both within
the site, and adjacent to or near the site.
By developing a mixed-use Specific Plan which retains all
but one of the school Wings and alJ but four acres of the open spac~
and playing fieIda, "the uniqueness and diversity" of the Greenacres
and II and Foothill Green neighborhoods are retained. Specifically,
the opportunity, to allow the former school to continue to serve as a
neighborhood focal ~point and as a meeting place is retained; indeed,
it is enhanced by the provision of a library.
Program one’s "limitations on height and density to protect
surroundfng uses and Community values" are what this ~Specific Plan is
all about. Section II M of this Plan (page 22) describes the physical
limitations that are placed on the building envelope within which the
80 to 92 housing units are to be constructed..Section I of the
SpecificPlan describes the history of the meetings and discussions
which eventually reduced the housing from "UP to ~00" units, to-i08
units, and finally to "80 to 92.units."
The urban design-element-also states: "At some locations,
abrupt changes .of scale cause one land use to overwhelm another." The
Speci÷ic Plan in Section II M~ paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, puts a number
of physical limits on the housing that will be built on the 4.1 to
4.35 acres (Paragraph 3(c), page 23: "An attempt ~ill be made to
limit the number of structures over two stories high,.particularly
adjacent to existing off-site housing.’~) Further, the final housing
plan is to take cognizance of adjacent 0ff-site housing, particularly
on Ynigo Way, and will exclud~ any housing within 40 feet of the
southwesternly boundary of the Terman site, from the entry road to the
farthest edge of the Ynigo Way properties. The Specific Plan also
suggests that the Palo Alto Housing Corporatimn endeavor to provide
additional distance over and above the 40 feet specified. Landscaping
is to be provided to buffer the housing from adjacent residential,
nursery school, and church properties.
In all of the above ways, the Terman Specific Plan carries
out the objectives, policies and prDgFams of the urban design
element. Further, the Specific Plan does not conflict with .any
objectives: policies, or programs in the urban design element of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
43
F. Envi ronmental Resources
The environmental resources section of the Comprehensive
Plan includes the open space, conservation, resource management, and
noise elements. ..
i.Open space.
The City’s Open space -el~ment was adopi~ed April 5,
1972. It is a half-inch thi.ck booklet, separate from the rest of.the
Comprehensive Plan. The open space element-was last revised April 23,
1973. .~
This section examines the open space element for
purposes, goals, policies, and programs which may be relevant to he
Terman site and to this Specific Plan for the #euse Qf the Terman site.
The purpose of Palo Alto’s open space element is "to
enunciate which lands in the ommunity...will be kept as open space,
to identify appropriate open space needs and uses...,, and to preserve
the desired open space lands."
The open space element defines ’;open space land" as
"any.parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved
and devoted to an open space use and which is designated on a local
open space plan as any of the following:"...
"...(3) Recreation land..."
"An ’open space use’ means use 0f the land for "
"(1) Public recreation..."
The open space element adopts several criteria "for evaluating a
project’s ability to meet the community’s -open s#ace needs." Among
these criteria is:
"(b) Population served. The project will readily serve
a substantial number of low and moderate income
residents... "
Thin. "open. space p!.~.api(map) of the City of Palo Alto," adopted April
23, 1973, clearly shows the Terman site as open space and labels it as
"school district lands."
"School district lands" are defined .in the open space
element as "th~.l~ndsc~ped sites of the public schools
within.-...the City of Palo Alto, and their recreational
facilities."
44
Maps in th~ body of the open space element describe the
Terman site as having-a ’.’.cultural (urban) character"; uti-lized for
"recreation" (and "wildlife-habitat" along .the creek); and "needed to
maint-ain flood control." The open space element’s appendix, page
B-12, shows a total of 9.5 acres of the Terman site so utilized..Two
of the ~open space goals" (page 16 of the open space element) are
directly relevant to the ?erman. site:
"7.- A parks and recreation system in Pa]o Alto which
provides ar.eas, facilities, andimprovements
conveniently located and properly designed to serve the
recreation need~ of all residents of.the communit~o"
"B. Enhancement of urban areas of Palo Alto through
integration of residential, co~ercial, and indu~trlal
neighborhoods into the open space ~ystem."
The open space~ (above) are followed by policies,
among which is:
"5. Provide open space lands for a variety of outdoor
recreation opportunities, and make improvements,
construct facilities, and maintain programs which will
encourage, where appropriate, a maximum of resident
participation." (page iB)
Finally, on page 23, under "open ~pace action
programs," we find:
"3. It is the intent of the City to con~ider purchasm
of land for ~mal] public parks, wherever possible and
appropriate, in conjunction .witb..~ub~idize~ housinQ,"
The Terman Specific Plan carries out th~ above .purposev, goal~,
policies, and programs of the open space element, Further, the
Specific Plan doe~ not conflict with any ~bJectiv~, policies, or
programs in th~ ~pen space el~mmnt,
2.Conservation
and enhance u O e t human
needs...Enhancement of the aesth~tlc environment mu~t b~ con~Ist@nt
with human recreational need~ and the pre~ervatlon ~f ~lld life
habitat."
The conservation ~lement 9oe~ on to ~tate that n~tural
resources to be preserved Includm th~ Water~hed ~ Adobe Creek,
The Terman Specific Plan preserves the natural
appearance Of Adobe Creekand its banks where Adobe Cr6ek passes the
site. The Specific Plan enhances the environment of the athletic
fields in general. The athletic fields are to be shifted in a
counter-clockwise .direction around the school buildings such that
sparsely developed areas closest 2o Glenbrook Drive will be planted
and maintained, and some Faved areas between the’school buildings and
the He~ch-Hetchy right of way will be returned to turf. This
counter-clockwise shift of the athletic fields is made primarily to
accommodate the addition of’housing on the site. However,in the
course of shifting the athletic .fields, both their usability and their
appearance will be enhanced. This enhancement is "consistent ~ith
human recreational needs~" and-the existing habitat along the creek
will be preserved.
Programs 2 and 3 of the Environmental Resources section
of the Comprehesnive Plan also will beaccomplished in the reuse of
the Terman site:
"Program 2: Require replanting where vegetation has
been removed."
."Program 3: Regulate land uses near watercourses to
reduce siltation and provide open, natural areas."
"The Santa Clara Valley Water District has established
a 50-foot building setb.ack from the banks of all watercourses under
its jurisdiction."
3.Resource management
Policies 6 and 7 call for conserving and making the
most efficient use of electricity, natural gas, and water, and
encouraging alternative energy technolgies.
The latest, water conserving, irrigation techniques
will be installed, not only on the athletic fields, but around the
existing school buildings and the new housing, to the extent that the
existing landscape is modified.
The housing will conform to State energy codes that
reduce high ceilings and large glass surfaces. However, the design
can and should .go beyond the State requirements (e.g., arrange the
housing units so. that the amount of exterior wall is reduced). If
economically practical, passive design and active solar systems will
be used to reduce reliance on natural gas for heating.
The JCC should modify the Terman swimming pool .as the
City modified its Rinconada pool, to provide for solar heating.
46
4. ,Noise
"Th~ objective of this section of the Comprehensive
Plan. and PaSo. Alto’s continuing noise control program is to reduce
noise which affects humans adversely.~’
Noise can be measured in. decibels, and a table on page
60 of the. Palo Alto Comprehensiv~ Plan answers the question: "how
loud is loud?l’
The noYse element examines major noise sources (motor
vehicle noise, railroad noise, and aircraft n~ise)~ but it recognizes
that "the problem of .controlling noise is difficult because it affects
each individual in a different way. People do-not hear sounds alike
or react to them in the same way. Each person’s reaction to noise
depends on characteristics of the noise itself--the-loudness,
duration, and frequency content,for example..The,effect of noise on
people is also determined by the listener and the situation."
It is understandable, then, that during theTerman
Working Group discussions the residents of Pomona Avenue were most
concerned about invasive and persistent noise, even though that noise
might not be.excessive in terms of decibels. The kinds of noise that
concerned the neighbors were disturbances they had experienced; they
were therefore determined that these noise disturbances not occur
again in the future. Primarily, noise concerns revolved about the
JCC’s use of the Terman school buildings. (See Paragraph II,H,3 On
page 18 of this Plan,) here were concerns that dances would be held
in the cafetorium, with loud music shattering the late night air. The
neighbors were concerned that users of the facility would leave
late-night meetings, continue their discussions in the parking lot
(just behind the residents’ bedrooms), start the motors of their cars,
etc.
These concern~ are also addressed in Section 11K of
the Specific Plan (page 2D)~ Parking spaces arenot to extend beyond
the Arastradero end of the cafetorium in the area between the present
housing on Pomona Avenue and the presentTerman buildings. Where
there is.parking,.a solid wall (or an alternative-design satisfactory
to the nearby residents) will be placed between the parking lot and
the adjacent Pomona Avenue housing to protect residents from noise of
cars parking at night. Details arefound in Section II,K,7 and 8.
The specifics which have been written into the Terman
plan respond to Comprehensive Plan environmental resources Program 35
I."analyze noise impact of new projects") and Program 37 ("construct
no~se barriers wherethe impact of noise can be significantly
reduced"). Prophetically, the noise element, states: "The noise
environment may be an important factor.in the successful accon~,odation
47
of changing uses for land and buildings. When planning a project...,
some easing of the effect (of noise) on people can be achieved through
proper design and construction methods to reflect or absorb the noise
before it reachesthem. New development, Particularly of higher
density, will increase the amount of noise, but ~roper design can help
lessen the effect.. Areas where residential and non-residential use~
are mixed or close together are a special concern. Desig~ of new
projects should reduce nbise wherever possible, especially ~oise from
parking, refuse storage, l:oading areas~ and outside equipment such as
ventilation, heating, and air conditioning-apparatus."-
"Noise can be scattered, absorbed, and reduced to some
degree by all types of-leafy plants. A planted strip of trees and
bushes 50 to 1DO feet-wide is necessary.to reduce the noise level
significantly. There are two other ways-in which plants can be useful
in reducing the effect of no~se, First,a visual screen of plants
between a noise source and a sensitive area is not only aesthetically
pleasing, but also reduces the noise level perceived by those who
cannot see the noise source.. Second, bushy plants located around...
large impervious obstacles improve their effectiveness as noise
~arriers and lower the amount of noise reflected from hard surfaces."-
5,Air quality.
The effect of automotive traffic .added.by the reuse of
the Terman site upon air quality in the inTnediately surrounding area
is too sm~ll to be measured or to be considered in this Specific
Plan. It can be said, however, to the extent that the design and use
of the site encourages people to come by bicycle or On foot,
automobile-generated air pollution will be reduced. It has alread~
been pointed out that the site is easily accessible by bus and to
pedestrians and bicyclists,
6.Seismic safety and general safety
It is.i~ossible to quickly review the geologic hazards
that can be expecte~~n Palo Alto and assess how the.Te~man site is
affected.
Ground shaking from an earthquake is likely.to cause
widespread damage to life and property. The Comprehensive Plan
assesses the degree of ground shaking by mapping the city in four
different categories: strong shaking~ivery strong, violent, and very
violent. The Terman site, along:with most of Palo Alto, is considered
to be subject to "very strong".shaking, the next to lowest of the four
categories,
Land slides and liquefaction are two other kinds.of
ground failure that can occur in an earthquake. The Terman site is
not subject to landslide. Liquefaction results when ground shaking
48
causes water-saturated ground to behave as if it were a liquid. The
potential for liquefaction increases in lands closest to the Bay. As
with groundshaking, the city is divided into four categories of
liquefaction potential: none, generally low, moderately low,and
generally moderate. Liquefaction po%ential at the Terman site is
"generally low", the next to lowest of the fourcategories.
Where water has been withdrawn from under the ground by
use of wells, land has subsided. Historically,. subsidence in the area
of the Terman site. has been nil (i/2 of one foot between 1934 and
1967).
Sometimes a high water table adversely affects land
usability. As would be. expected, lands close to the Bay have the
highest water table.. At the Terman site,, the water table is greater
than 20 feet (i.e., one must drill more than 20 f~et to find
underground water), and water-table problems rel-ated to use of the
land (such as-rotting of plant roots, damage to buildings) will be
minimal.
Flooding is another potential hazard. The.banks
immediately adjacent to Adobe Creekare subject to flooding in the
lO0-year flood.
The Comprehensive Plan maps all of these hazards in a
single composite of risk zones, and divides the city into low risk,
moderate risk, and high risk areas. The bulk of Palo Afro’s flat
lands fall into-the "moderate risk" category, ~sdoes the Terman site.
The ComprehensivePlan calls for a "hazard reduction
program". Program 47 of the environmental resources section calls-
upon the city to "cQntract with a structural engineer to inspect and
evaluate ill high-occupancy buildings..." (page 70). A map on the
same page identifies the Terman site as a school, which classifies it
as a high occupancy building which should be the subject of a
structural inspection. Whether the buildings are used as a school or
used for JCC and City.program~, the buildings will attain
approximately the same level of occupancy. Theref~re~ at such time as
the City undertakes environmental resources Program 47, the Terman
buildings should be inspected. In addition, before any major physical
improvements aremade to the existing.buildings, it would behoove the
JCC to make its own structural inspection.
Land Use
1.Land use map
Exhibit 1,on page 12, an integral part of-this
Sp.ecific Plan, is a land use map of the 2!.57 acre Terman School Site,
49
The map shows threedistinct areas:
acres,
a) The largest is "public parks", ID.!2 to I0,47
b) The next largest land use is "major.
institutions/special facilities!’, 7.D to 7.1 acres;
c) The smallest land use i.s "multiple-family
residential" 4 l to 4.35 acres.
A range o£ acreages is necessary because-neither
the athletic fields nor the housing units have been laid out, an~ it
may be necessary to adjust the boundariesbetween these twouses.
Perhaps the most.precise boundary can be drawn around the proposed
major institution/special facilities use because the JCC will use-
existing buildings and the existing pool. However, even this line
cannot be delineated with any accuracy at~this time.
The table below shows the allocation and range-of
acreages among the various uses.
Acres
.... Smallest Largest
Acreage for Acreage for
~a..nd use HousinB Housin~
Public parks I0.47 lO.12
Multiple-family residential 4.1 4.35
Major institution/special
facilities 7.0 7.1
TOTAL 21 .57 21.57
Plan
-Relation to land use element of the Comprehensive
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan of February
1981 includes a plan map. The map is titled "Palo Alto Land Use
Plan," and it was adopted on February 2, 1981 a~d on March 16, 1981.
Th~ land use element states: "No subdivision or
rezoning will be approved unless it is in harmony, with the adopted
plan...The zoning map should conform to the plan map."
"The plan map shows all the current public schoo!
sites and gives them a School District Lands designation,..The land
50
use designation of some sites may have to be changed to accommodate
future uses,..The Plan should be amended when the City decides to
acquire and develop specific sites."
As noted in Sections 1 A and I C of this document
(pages 1 and 3), the Specific Plan is a more detai]ed version of the
Comprehensive Plan; it serves both a planning and regulatory (zoning)
function; and it is an intermediate step between the more general
Comprehensive Plan and the more detailed zoning of the site that is to
be implemented after adoption of this Specific Plan and after
acquisition or control of the site.
To establish thatthis Specific ~lan is consistent
with the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan, it needs to be
noted that the City is acquiring the site under alease/purchase
agreement which will deliver "fee title" to the City in 20 years.
(See Section IV D,.page 55,) As long as ownership of the’site is
retained in fee by the School District, the Terman site may continue
to be shown on theComprehensive Plan as "School District Lands."
Further, the land uses proposed under this Specific Plan are
consistent with the uses allowed in the Comprehensive Plan for reuse
of school sites. Accordingly,.redesignation of the land use in the
Comprehensive Plani~ not needed immediately upon adoption of this
Specific Plan, .Neyertheless, with this Specific Plan having thus met
the test of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, this Specific
Plan reco~ends partitioDing the Terman .site into the three CategOries
shown on the land use map in.this Specific Plan.
(After 6 land use designation is changed, t~e next
step is a zone change. It should be noted that the City’s zoning map
will only need to be changed to show the housing portion of the site
as RM-3, "moderate density multiple family residence district." The
remainder of the site is now zoned and can remain P-F, public
facilities. The P-F zone is the appropriate zone designation for both
the JCC "major institution/special facilities" and the city parklands.
State law now permits Comprehensive Plan and zoning map changes to
proceed concurrently at one set of hearings, where the purpose of the
change is to provide affordable housing.)
The following, then, need to occur:
land use map.
a) Thi-s Specific Plan is adopted, including its
b) " The City acquires control of the 21.57 acres.
c) The land use designation of the 21.57 acres
is changed on the comprehensive Plan land use map from "school
district lands" to "major institution!special facilities", "public
parks," and "multiple family--residential".
51
d)__ The ~1 to 4.35 acres designated as "multiple
family residential" on the land .use map is changed on the zoning map
from P-F (public facilities) to RM-3 (moderate dens.ity multip.le-family
resi denti al ). "
Steps c) and d) above can occur at the same time.
IV.IMPLEMENTATION
A.Effective Date
1. This Specifi~ Plan .will not become effective unless and
until the City acquires control of the entire Terman site pursuant to
the lease agreement dated January 5, 1982, between the Palo Alto
.Unified School District, as Lessor, and the City of Palo Alto, as
Lessee.
2. The Spedific Plan will be implemented by City
acquisition or control of the site, by adoption of this Specific Plan,
by a change in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning for the housing
area, and by City funding of eapitai improvements and programs for the
.site. It is intended that the funding of capital improvements and
programs will dovetail.with existing City processes, e.g., the annual
budget and the 5-year Capital[Impdovements Program.
3. In the above context, thepublic portions of this plan
(e.g., establishment of the ~erman library, the offering of a series
of balanced programs by the City in the publically controlled Wings,
and operation of a public swinging pool at Gunn) will be implemented
as follows:
(a) As soon as the JCC moves onto the site and/or
begins .using the Terman pool in accordance with an executed sublease
from the City, the City will make the Gunn pool available to the
public and will conduct swimming programs the~e for the primary
benefit of residents of the neighborhood, ~n accordance with Section
II, Paragraphs F 3 and F 4 of this Specific Plan (see page 15 and 16).
(b) The City Manager will reconTnend funds in the
proposed 1982-83 City budget for start-up of the library operations,
and a balanced mix of other programs. (See Section IV B,page 53.)
4. The JCC and the PAHC have agreed that-the elements of
this document which are their respective responsibilities wil! be
52
implemented in an expeditious manner, consistent with governmental
¯ approvals required."
Phasing of City. Programs
It is the. intent of this section to establish the sequence
(but not the precise time frame) for the start-up of various City
programs, Adoption of this sequence will assist City staff in
projecting thecapital and operating needs for the various capital
improvements and.programs.
1.Library and Meeting Room (Wing 20)
Starting the library w’ill take approximately one year.
The one-year "start-up" phase includes designing the space (layout);
constructing interior and exterior improvements; and acquiring,
processing, and installing the equipm.ent, the furnishings, and the
book collection. Operating money would.be, funded so that. the library
could commence operation upon completion of the capital project and
installation of furnishings and equipment.
2.Community Center (Wing 30)
A recommendation for the continued funding of~existing
programs is anticipated. There would be, at some future date, a
capital project to remodel Wing 30, after which a balanced set of
additional programs.(e.g., classes, rehearsal.s) will be made available
to the public. ~
3.Gymnasium
The City will sponsor programs on one week-night
(.Monday through Thursday), on Friday evening, and on Saturday
morning. At theearliest, these gym programs will not begin until
after the sun’her of 1982. The planning of these programs by the City
will be.coordinated with JCC use of the gym.
4.Swimming
City recreational and instructional swim programs Will
continue to be available each summer, without lapse.
5.Outdoor Athletic Programs
Existing programs and activities will continue on the
existing tennis courts, softball and soccer fields, and outdoor
basketball courts. Arrangements for access to existing toilet
facilities will be contained in the Citw/JCC lease.
53
Planning for relocation and improvement of outdoor
athletic facilities wi-ll be coordinated with the planning, design, and
construction of "the housing so that the fields can be relocated prior
to any housing construction..Some disruption of outdoor athletic
activities is expected when the relocation and improvement of the
fields and courts actually occurs.
C. " Land Use and Zoning.
Section III G explains the steps and sequence for Specific
Plan adoption, land use designation changes, and zoning changes; but
~t does not detail how this Plan is to be ~dopted.. That is the
purpose of this section.
A Specific Plan is adopted in exactly the same way a general
plan is adopted, pursuant to nQtice and public hearings befpre both
the Planning Commission and the City Council, In addition, this
Specific Plan has been reviewed by the Terman. Working Group for
conformity to the plan adopted by the Working Group and subseqqently
adopted as.Counciq policy by the City Council on June 15, 198!,
The City staff will prepa#e an environment~l assessment.
This Plan.will be distributed to the Palo Alto Planning
Con~nission, along, with the environmental assessment.
The Planning Commission must .hold at least one public
hearing on the Plan. The City must provide at least 10 calendar days
notice by publishing the date and purpose of the hearing atleast once
in a newspaper of general, circulation. The present intent is to set
aside two meeting dates on which the Planning Co~ission can consider
the Specific Plan.
After holding and concluding the public hearing, the
Planning Commission may, by majority vote of all members, recommend
the Specific Plan to the City Council for adoption. The City Council
must follow the same procedures as the Planning Con~nission in holding
at least one public hearing and in providing public notice of that
hearing in a newspaper of ~general. circulation at least 10 calendar
days in advance of the meeting date. ~If the City Council wishes to
make any change or additioh So the Specific Plan-after the Plan has
been approved by the Planning Commission, the Council must refer the
proposed changes or additions to the Planning Commission for a
report. Failure of the Planning Commission to .report back to the City
Council within 40 days is deemed approval of the change or addition
proposed by the Council.
Both bodies, the Planning Commission and the City Council,
must make a.finding with regard.to environmental impact,
54
The City Council may adopt the Specific Plan by ordinance or
resolut.ion. If adopted by resolution, the Specific Plan is effective
i~Tnediately upon adopti6n of the resolution. If passed by ordinance,
the Council will bold a. second reading of the ordinance two weeks
after its initial passage, and the Specific Plan will be in effect 3D
days after the second read.ing, or approximately 45~ days after the
fir.st r.eading and passage of the ordinance.
D. .Acquisition or Control of the Site
The City.and the Palo ~Ito Unified Schoo.l District have
negotiated the price and terms for City acquisition or control of the
site. These negotiations began in mid-June 1981 and concluded in
mid-November. The agreement approved by the School District and the
City Council, in brief, is as follows:
1..Lease/Purchase Price: $9,000,00D.
2.Initial Payment: $1,000,000.
3.Annual Base Rent: 19 annual payments @ $421,000.
Annual Additional Rent: based on the School District’srate ofreturn on its ~nvested funds applied to the balance of base
rent payments due.
5. At the end of the 19 annual base rent and additional
rent p~yments, fee title will transfer to the City.
6. Sources of Revenue: It is likely that the City, at an
early date, will exercise its opti~ to purchase the 4.1 to 4.35 acres
designated for housing. There are sufficient housing funds on hand to
cover the purchase price attributable to the housing component:
(a) Community Development Block Grant Funds in the
amount of $675,000 are available from the federal government toward
the acquisition cost of the housing portion of the Terman site. In
accordance with theNational Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
the acquisition of the housing site has been reviewed as to impact on
the environment and has been found to have no significant adverse
environmental impact. The finding to that effect was published in the
Peninsula Times Tribune, September 29, !981.
(b) Additional funds for the housing portion of the
site are available from the City’s Special Housing fund, its
Environmental Mitigation Account, and its Capital !mprovem~nt Program
(Land Bank reservation).
7. Other Revenue Sources: The JCCwill sublease its
buildings and grounds from the City at a rent of approximately
55
$137,000 per year, ~ncreased each year by 65% of the change in the
Consumer Price Index. The remaining purchase price must be made up
from general or special City funds.
8.. Recision: The Ci.ty may-rescind the agreement before
June 30, 1982, in which case the School District would return to the
City 95% of the$1,000~O00 initial payment.
9. Maintenance: Upon the effective date of the lease
agreement, the City. will assume ~esponsib~lity fo[ maintenance of the
turfed and landscaped areas. The School District will maihtain the
buildings, tontinu~ to manage the existing leases, and collect
lease/rent until the City decides it can. proceed, .or until June 30,
1982.
All of the above actions with respect to City acquisition or
controJ of the site can occur independently of actions required to
hold public, hearings and ad~pt~the Specific Plan. As stated at the
outset of this Section IV, this Specific Plan will not take effect
after its adoption unless the folldwing events also occur:
District.
(1) The C~ty acquires control of the site from the
(2) The area for affordable housing is rezoned toRM-3.
(3) The City funds programs and Capital improvements
for the site.
It should be noted that City acquisition or control of the
site via-lease/purchase rather than outright (fee) purchase does not
negate this Specific Plan. For example, the City could still proceed
to sublease the existing Terman school buildings to the JCC, and the
City could, if it wishes, dedicate theopen space and athletic fields
as parkland. Such dedication of leased land would not be unusual. El
Camino Park is owned by Stanford University and is leased from
Stanford hy.the City. The City consLructed Lhe tmprov(~m~=L’, ,~,,d
continues. Lo operate its programs there on "d~dicaL~d p~rkIand."
E "JCC
Section IV C above examined the regulatory (land use and
Zoning) aspects, and the steps necessary for the.city.to adopt this
Specific P.lan and subsequent changes in the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning. Section IV D above briefly addressed acquisition or control
of the site and the time table fDr consummation or recision of the
agreement with the Sc.hool District. Whilethe acquisition and
SpeciZic Plan actions are separate, and while the Specific Plan may be
adopted before acquisition or contro! of the site is complete, Section
IV A noted that %his Specific Plan will not go .into effect until the
56
City acquires or controls the site. Once the site has been acquired
or controlled, the Comprehensive Plan andzoning map ca~ be changed,
the capital improvements and City programs can be budgeted, and the
lease between the City and the JCC can be signed.
This section su~a#izes the relationship between the City
and.the JCC, assumiDg that the City controls the site and the JCC has
a long-term lease or sublease to operate its programs on its portion.
of the site.
I.City/JCC Lease
An outline of the proposed lease terms between the City
and the JCC is attached as Exhibit 4 in the Appendix. This outline
was presented to the City Council in CMR: 321:1 on June 12, 1981, and
thus was available to the Council prior to and.at the time that the
Council voted on June 15, 1981, to .adopt the Terman Working Group Plan.
Exhibit 4 reflects the agreements of the working Group,
including public access to.JCC facilities and programs, rates
comparable to City programs, JCC/City co-sponsorship of certain
programs, restricted hours of operation, noise abatement, and other
simil~r measures.
The economics of the lease, as represented in E#hibit
are consistent with existing school site Kentals, taking into
accou~~t the above controls upon, and benefits to.be derived from, the
JCC.
The lease agreement between the City and the JCC is
expected to be signed in mid-1982.
2-.Use permi t
The C.ity of Palo Alto’s zoning ordinance allows a
privately operated c~~nunity center on land designated "major
institution/special facilities" in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned
P-F (public facilities), upon the granting of a conditional use permit.
As stated in Section II,H;2 (page 18), the hours of
operation of the JCC facilities on the #erman site will be subject to
a use permit granted by the City. ~
In order for a use permit to be granted, the JCC must
apply to the City for a conditional use permit. The City’s Zoning
Administrator must set the date of a hearing on whether to.grant or
not.gran% the use permit, and must provide.notice in advance of the
hearing to all persons living and/or owning property within 300 feet
of the site. The zoning administrator holds the hea~ing and receives
input from those present at the hearing. Within 10 days after the
57
-hearing, the zoning administrator must make his finding as to whether
to grant the use permit, grant it .with conditions, or deny the
permit. In making his decision, the zoning administrator m’ust take
into account the request of the applicant, the facts stated in the
application, and statements made at the public hearing. Following the
zonfng administrator’s.decision on the use permit, the applicant or
any interested citizen may appeal the decision of thezoning-
administrator to the Planning Commission, whereupon ther~ will be a
review and decision by the Planning Commission. In turn, ~he
Commission’s decision is automatically subject to review and approval
by the City Council. Both the Planning Commission and the City
Council must hold public hearings for review of the use permit
decision and to take public testimony in the matter.
Because of the above-described procedure requi~ed by
law, the granting of a use permit cannot.be guaranteed. Furthermore,
although many of the conditions which would be placed upon the use
permit are known as a result of thethorough discussions held by the
Terman Working Group, it is possible that some of these conditions may
be changed or deleted as a result of the public hearings, and/or other
conditions may be added..
It is the-intent of this Specific Plan that the
following sections of the "Agreements o~ the Terman Working Group"
dated May 26, 1981, which were adopted as Council policy by the City
Council on June 15, 1981, be excluded from this Plan and be considered
as co1~ditions of a use permit. They will also be included in the
¯ lease or sublease between the City and the-JCC as follows:
Page 12, Paragraphs 2 (d) and (e) regarding operation
of the swimming pool and access by the public..
Page 16, Paragraphs (A) through (D) regarding JCC hours
of operation,
Page 17, Paragraph 3 (c) regarding JCC compliance with
the City’s noise abatement ordinance.
Page 18, Paragraphs 6 .and 7 regarding subleasing will
be in the City-JCC lease. Paragraph lO refers to revocation of the
use permit and should be in both .the use permit and .the lease.
Paragraph 12, which refers to the potential fo~ operations on the
Terman site to annoy or disturb residents of the neighborhood will be
included in both the use permit and the lease.. Paragraph 12 is also
included in this Specific Plan on page 18 in Section I!,H,8.
Page .18, Paragraph 9, refers to transferability of the
usa permit. The City Attorney advises that the "use permit runs with
~he land," and the City can no.__}_t specify that the use permit is
non-transferable.
58
F.Capital Improvement Responsibilities
It is intended that the City, the OCC, and the PAHC will
bear or share responsibility for funding various capital
improvements. The specifics of the financial arrangements will be
detai~ed and adopted in the City/JCC lease, in the City/PAHC land
contract,.and in the City’s annual budgets and 5-year Capital
Improvements Programs.
59
APPENDIX
60
EXHIBIT 2
Page I of 3
SDC]AL & COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCTDBER 22, 19BI
PROGRAM STAFFING ESTIMATES (NUMBER OF VISITS) -TERMAN SPECIFIC PLAN
D]VISIONIPROGRAM JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
ARTS & SCIENCES:
CLASSES 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 ]6 16 192
LIBRARY:
PUBLIC
:SERVICES 165 165 165 165 165 159 159 159 165 165 165 159 1956
RECREATIDN:
BASEBALL’,
GYM USE"26 26
INSTRUCTIONAL
CLASSES 17 22 10
YOUTH SOCCER"O D O
SOFTBALL 0 0 0
TENNIS
112 . 112 112 O O 0 D 0 O.336
0 O 0 0 O 0 26 26 26 156
~30 39 32 64 46 10 3B 2B 13 349
0 0 0 0 0 12~120 120 120
i0 20 20 20 20 20 0 D 0
38 74 3B 51 25 25 37 25 D 313
MONTHLY TOTAL: 2.24 Z29 217 3BI 426 377 31D 266 356 4D~ 3BD 334
"Includes program staff not associated with the City of Palo Alto (Little League coaches,
A.Y.S.O. staff).
"Leagues only.
3,9D2
61
EXHIBIT 2
Page 2 of 3
SOCIAL & COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PROGRAM ATTENDANCE EST~MATES/TERMA~ SPECIFIC PLAII
AUGUST 12, 1981
DIVISIONfPROGRAM JAN FEB MAR APR
"ARTS & SCIENCES:
CLASSES
LIB~ARY:.
CIRCULATION/
~ OF PATRONS
MAY JUN JUL" AU~SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 ]560
625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 7500
RECkEATION:
BASEBALL"
GYM USE’*
INSTRUCTIONAL
CLASSES
YDUTH SOCCER"
SOFTBALL
TE~IS
0 0 0 600 600 600 0 O D O 0 0 1800
792 792 198 0 0 0 0 0 D 594 792 594 3762
234 312 234
0 0 O.
0 0 0
O 0 O
512 512 489 932 427 138 564 528 105 4987
D 0 0 0 0 2190 2190 2190 2190 8760
7DO ]4DO 1400 1400 1400 ?DO D 0 0 700U
448 840 312 568 344 200 248 200 0 3160
MONTHLY TOTAL: 1781 1859 1187 3015 4107 3556 3655 Z926 3983 4351 4465 3644 38,875
*IncluOes spectators
"Leagues only
62
EXHIBIT 2
Page ]~ o’F 3
SOCI’AL & C~UNITY SERVICES DEPARTIV~..NT
PROCq~AM ATTENDANCE ESTiMATES/TEI~M~N SPECIFIC PL-AN "
AUGUST 12, 19B1
ANNUAL A’r’FEKDANOZ ESTIMATE : 3B,529
50[}0
4
4400
4 200
40F~O
3800
3500
3400
3200
3OO0
2B00
2500
2400
221}0
1600
1400
1200
1
800
600
.’:."lr~
0
1859
L I B RARY
USE
;
JAN FEB
4465
4351
3655
Ar-S
L I BRARY
USE
TENNIS
. LIBRARY
USE
YOUTH SOCCER
SOFTBALL
BASEBALL
RECREATION INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES
MAP, APR. MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT t,Ov DEC
63
EXHIBIT 3
Page 1 of 3
SOUTH PENIHSULA JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER K’O’,!FtdSER 2, I~;~1
PROGRt, b; STAFFING ESTIMATES (NUMBER OFVISITS)- TERMAN SPECIFIr .r’LA;~
DEPARTMEP~T/PROGRAM JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG ~..P OCT :~OV Iq=,..
ADULT SERVICES 64 .64 64 64 " 64 64 64 64 ’ 64 64 64 64
¯ . ,lucRe.+ .. FAMILY 200 200 200 200 200 720 ?20 720 200 200 200 20:’~5ERr ~ CES
.-’-.F :: ,:_AT I O,
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
240 240 2~0 240 2AO 2#0 240 240 24~ 240 240 2zr
B4Q ~40 8~0 840 840 8#0 B#O 8~0 840 ~,40
42 O "-
F:_C~: a" IO:-, +. r:A,;g£ 2C~3 200 200 204 20= 108 202 202 204 204 2.3-’-
i+-IO:,TI’:LY TOTAL 179.5 1796 ’!,,795 "IS.O’.h "1842 2382¯ 2~-BS 248..R "I.S&, fiB4-4 ;+2r.2 I,-".,.-.
¯ 1N::.LU,-’E_~.,IO’.;-JC_’2 SERV ICE STAFF BUCu. AS JEWISH ~,,!E~FARE FEDERAT I 3. A,D JE’v:l £E
VOC/’:T I9’.’~AL SERVICE STAFF
P6,FPA.-’:,E’I’ BY SPJCC STAFF
64
EXIIIBI ] 3
Page 2 of 3
SOLITI4 PEN I NSULA JEWI$H COI,~IUN I TY CENTER
P;:OGRAi’,! ATTE;~DANCE EST I P-tA’fES/TERJ,1AN SPECI F.I C PLAN "
:~OVE!4-3ER 2, 198";.
MAR APR MAY dUN JUL AUG £EP OCT NOV DEC
#400 4400 4400 4-400 4400 1509 2"100 2"I,00 1500 4400 ~-400
1300 :300 f1300 q~O ~300 2~9 250.9 2~Oq 16.DO 1GO0
fi20O ".200 f1200 q200 ~200 ~200 ~03 ~ 120~ 1290
500 500 700 700 700 ~O ~"O0 fi~Of, 500 5~() ~.7~. 5.’,q
5~0 5970 5970 5970 5970 3570 3~70 3570 597q+ 5970 5q?O 5~’7q
:,y ......I:r.1. I~SA3-~~.02~J."025 ;’325 ;r,3q .....9_AS 6%~. 654 ..’- =.’,-.- ;02L "<~:,..+... :02-~ 594.
:’Z::;--A;I~-"r--,-_ 2512 2592 1 ....¯.- ...A,....-_22-2 22:-2’ 22~"-~:.~, .....~13.,
:;LA: .....
’;&R " 7270
A:~P.~ 73 "0
:,;AY 23590,.r 2~
/vJC 2&$20q:’D -:’~ ""
OCT
i :0’," ".’742.’_’2’
""5-..-, A’- Ir~-IIS~: ’’:’1-,.F,r......... I.~_5 ..... ...."*-..~ - -.--.., ¯¯
~’ ~,’..-’,L 35-:::1
;’. :n’:;.- ~y ......STAFF
TERMAN, AVERAGE DAY, MAXIMUM
PROJECTED STAFF J~F M A M J
FULL TIME ~49 49 49 49 50 84
’~ART TIME 23 23 23 23 25 18
tOTAL 7-’~"7"-’~"7"f~2 7-’~7-’~"102~
TERMAN, AVERAGE DAY PROBABLE’
PROJECTED STAFF
FULL TIME 38 38 38
PART TIME 19 19 19
TOTAL 5-7 5"-%5"~
CURRENT STAFF, AVERAGE DAY,OR TE ~A; Z.qH.A.R ~- .A.N.D _s_U_M..ME~R D_A_Y__C_A_M_P-
J A S 0 N D
84
105
IIIII I IMI .WI .M
PARI [IM[14 [4 14
84
105
5O 5O 49 49
38 38 64 6~64 38 38 38 38
19 21 18 20 20 19 19 19 18
5-’7 5-"~8-’-~84 8--~5--7 5-7 5"7 5-~
66
OUTLINE OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT
Jewish Co~raunit~ Center - Terman School Site
I.Leased Area - 7.1+ acres shown crossed-hatched and labeled Major
InstILutlon/Speci~l Facilities on A~pendix A of the May 26, 1981 Final
Report - Agreements of theTerman Working Group .(Termah Working Group Plan)
I]. Term - The term of the "Lease shall be set in accordance with the following
. sc-’~’~’~d ul e:
Extent of Leasehold "Improvements
Within ist Fiv~ Years of Lease Lease Term
.Up to $1,DOO,DDD
$1,OOO,OOO to $1,5DO,DDO
in excess 6f $1,50D,DOD 25 years
The JCC shall have the option of extending the Lease for an ~quivalent..peri~d
of time subject to the tetras ~nd conditions of the Terman Working Group Plan
on pages 15 and 16. Commencement of the Lease shall be-as soon as
practicable after acquisition of title to the Tertian Site, of whi.ch the
leased area is a part.~ The City will endeavor to negoti.ate with the Pal o
Al~o. Unified School District for the acquisition of the entire Terman Site as
set forth on page 6 of the Terman Working Group PlanL The City’s staff has
advised the JCC that staff e~pects that the.City’s obligation to close any
agremlent r~ached with the PAUSD for acquisition of the Terman ~ite will be
conditional on the .passage of a proposed Utility User’s Tax. This tax ~ould
be used to fund ~he acquisition of surplus school sites in Palo Al~o as well
as zo fund other City services.
Ill.Consideration - Consideration for rental of.the premi@es shall take the
following forms:
Ao Non-Monetar7 Consideration. Under the proposed Lease, the JCC will
proviOe significant public benefits in accordance with the Terman Working
Group Plan. These benefits include public access to the pool, gym, and
other programs as set forth in ,the Terman Working Group Plan. In
addition, the~.JCC will co-sponsor programs wdth the City and will provide
public access to restro~ facilities near the public park and atheletic
field areas.;-~The JCC and City will meet quarterIx to schedule specific
progra~ and services consistent with the May ~6, 1981Terman Working
G~oup Plan for their respective portions of the Terman S~te.
Mon~tar~ Rent. The JCC will further pay to the City,-rent, in accordance
with the f61’|owing schedule.:
Year I -$I~7,3D0
Year 2 -$146,911
Year 3 -$157,195
Year 4 -~
Year 5 -$179,972
Year 6 and subsequent - the rental for these years shall be
increased by 65 percent of the increase in the .San.
Francisco/Oak]and Area Consumer Price Index - All UrbanConsumers over the previous lease ~ear.
EXHIBIT 4
Pag~ 2 of 2
The annual "rent shall be paid in twelve, equal, monthly installments.
IV.Use
A.
Restrictions -
General - Under the proposed Lease, the JqC will. be bouod by the, reruns
and conditions set forth in pages 15-16 and 2D to Z2 of the May 26, IgB~
Ter~uan Working Group Plan, governing JCC use hours of operation, noise
mitigation etc.;
Swimming Pool - Under the proposed Eease, ~he JCC will be bound by the
terms a~d conditions set forth in pages 12 and 13 of the May 26, 1981
Terman Working Group Plan;
C.Gymnasium - Under the proposed Lease, the JCC’will be bound by the terms
and conditions set forth in page 14 of the May 26, 19BI Terman Working
Group Plan.
Capital Imprqvements -
A. City Responsibil~ - Recognizing the other considerations provided by
the JCC’and recognizing the nature of the physical improv~ents, City
will, under the proposed Lease, provide the following capit61 improve-
ments:
i.Primary access road - will serve the housing, City Covraunity Center
and recreation, poPtions of the site, "as w~ll as the JCC.
~ L’the required parking will be on a first-come first-served
basis avail able to all users of the entire Terman site and is
therefore a general benefit. The JCC shall be responsible for the
~ay to day maintenance of the parking area fronting on Arastradero
Road.
Landscape. Berm, or alternate as p~ovided in pages-20 and 21 of the
May 26, 19at Terman .W~rking Group Plan. Since the berm is required
to mitigate impacts from the parking lot, this is also a-general
benefit. The JCC shall maintain the landscape berm, or alternate.
Demolition of Win~ ~O -’demolitio~ is required to implement the
entire plan.and is therefore a general benefit.
~. JCC Responsibility - Under the proposed Lease, the JCE will be
r~sponsible- for all other capital improv~ents to the leased area.
Vl.Genural Conditions - Remaining conditions shall generally’follow City
s~andard format and shall include standard conditions for insurance, lessee
maintenancm and repair, alterations and improvements, subleasing etc. and
~hall be consistent with the May 26, 1981Terman Working Group Plan.
]l is understood and agreed that the terms and provisions outlinud above must, in
specific for~, be refined via appropriate, precise lease language subsequent to
ratification of this out.line by the city Council of the City of Palo Al~o and the
boards of ~he South Peninsula Jewish Co~m~.unity Center and the Jewish Welfare
F~deratlon.
JM~Imu 6111181
;’: Subsequent to ~he Ci-ty Council’s direction to staff to ne9oti.ate ecquisition
,of The site based on the above outline~a combination of ~he City’s financial
cond{zion and State Constitutionai requirements led to a lease!purchase agree-
ment between [he City and the PAUSD. Under the agreement, fee title does not
pa.~s to ~he City.for 20 years. See pages 55 and 5G, Sect.ion IV D, and page 57,
paraqraph I-V, E, I. (March 22, I~82)
68
Exhibit
S.C.C.T.D.
H,~NOVER
EL
59
Resolutions Adaptin9 che Specific Plan Exhibit
RESOLUTION NO. 264
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF"
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION
OF THE TERMAN SPECIFIC PLAN BY THE PAL~ ALTO CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, th.e City of Polo Alto is acquiring coDtrol of the
Terman Middle School Site through a lease-purchase agreement with
the Polo Alto Unified School District; and
WHEREAS., representatives of the community, the Polo Alto
Housing Corporation, the South Peninsula Jewish Community Center,
and City staff have worked together as members of the Terman
Working Group for over a year to identify uses for the Terman
Middle School" site; and
WHEREAS, the proposed uses of the Terman Middle School site
represent a combination of land uses that can b~st be regulated by
the use of a spe6ific plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Polo Alto has added Chapter 19.06
(Specific Plans) to the Polo Alto Municipal Code establishing
procedures for the City tc adopt specific plans; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing, has been noticed and held by the
Planning Commission’in accordance with those procedures.; and
WHEREAS, the Polo Alto Planning Commission has reviewed the
contents of the Terman Specific Plan and Environmental. lmpact
Assessment 82-EIA-8 prepared for the Terman Specific Plan;
NoW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Polo
Alto doea RESOLVE as follows:
i. That the Terman Specific Plan is consistent with the Polo
Alto Comprehensive Plan; and
2. That the adoption of the Terman Specific Plan i~ in the
public interest because ofthe development of affordable housing,
preservatio~ of community open space, continuation and expansion
of community recreation and educationa! facilities, and-protection
of adjacent residential areas from noise and other potential
impacts from the use of the site; and
3. That the Polo Alto Planning Commission finds that. the
Terman Specific Plan’will have no significant adverse
znvironmtntal impact; and
4. That the Polo Alto Planning Commission recommen~ to the
City Council of the City of Polo Alto that the Terman Specific
Plan b~ adopted.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: February ~D, 1982
AYES:Chrls1:ensen, Cullen, HcCov~n-Hawkes, Nichols,
Northway, Sutori us, Wheeler
NOES :None
ABSTENTIONS : None
ABSENT :None
APPROVED AS TO FORM.~
slKargaret A. Slomn
’~’~’sis’tant City Attorney
AP PROVED :
s/Jean McCown-Hawkes
Chairman
Polo Alto Planning Commission
s/Kenneth R. Schreiber
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
slB ruce F~eel and
Secretary
Polo Alto Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 6025
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ~----~ITY OF PALO ALTO
.. .ADOPTING TRE TERMAN ,RPF.CTF~C" PI,AN
WHEREAS, ~be City of Palo Alto is acqulrin~ control of the Terman
Middle School Site through a lease-purchase agreement with the
Alto Dnified School District; and
WHEREAS, represent.atives ’o’f. the community, the P~lo Alto Housing
Corporation, the South Peninsula Jewish Community Center, and City
staff have worked toga’that asmembers of the Terman Working Group over
a year to identify uses for the Terman Middle School.site; and
WHEREAS, the proposed uses of the Terman Middle School site repre-
sent a combination of land uses that ~an best be regulated by the use
of a. specific plan; and
WHEREAS, the Cfty of Palo Alto has adopted Ordinance 3326 adding
Chapter 79.06 {Specific Plans) to the Palo Alto Municipal Code estab-
lishing procedures for ~he City to adopt specific plans; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was noticed and held by the Planning"
Commission on February ]D, 1982 in accordance with those proCedores;
and
WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Planning Commissibn has reviewed the con-
t~nts of the Terman Specific Plan and Environmenta! Impact Assessment
8~-EIA-8 prepared for the Terman Specific Plan and submitted its report
to the City Council with a resolution recommending that the City Coun-
cil adopt the Terman Specific Plan as amended by the Planninq Commis-
sion; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Terman Specific Plan
as amended by the Planning Commission and Environmental Impact Assess-
ment 82-EIA-8 at a public hearing on March 22, 1982 and made certain
proposed changes and additions thereto; and
WHEREAS, the- proposed changes and additions were referred to the
Plannin~ Commission for a report and a "copy of that report has been
f~]ed with the C~uncil.
NOw, THEREFORE, the Council o~ the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVK
as follows:
SECTION ~. That the Terman Specific Plan is consisten~ with the
Pa],% Alto Comprehensive Plan; and
S..~CTION 2. That the adoption of the Terman Specific Plan ~ ,~.
the public interest because of the devel~pment of affordable houslnu,
~...5er’.,ation of community open space, continuation an~ expansion of
zommun~ty recreation and educational facilities, and protection ~’
~djacent residential areas from noise and other potential ~mpacts fr~
the us~ of the site; and
SECTION 3. That the Council of the City of Pale
Terman Specific Plan will have no signif~can~ advgrse ~nvlronm,,n~.~
mv.~ct ; and
SECTION 4. That th~ City Council of the City of
Terma~ Speci£i.c Plan as amended by the Planning Commission
Council .
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: SaY 3, 1982
AYES :
NOES :
An-~,TF.NT ]ONS :
Bechtel, Eyer]y, Fazzino, Klein, Levy, Witherspoon
None
None
Co’bb. F|e~cher, Renze|
71
ATTEST :APPROVED :
¯ JAm, J. ~anner
City Clerk
s/Fred S. Eyer]y
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
,,~Mar|ene H. Prende$~ast
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED:
~/A1fred J. Mitchell
City Controller
s/Kennuth R. Schreiber
~i"rector of ’Planning an~
Community Environment
72
ATTACHMENT H
o o
1 ATTACHMENT I
PLANNING DMSION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Beth Young
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
October 1, 2003
SUBJECT:655 Arastradero Road, Terman Park Specific Plan [03-CPA-05,
03-EIA-12, 03-ARB-92]: Planning and Transportation Commission
review and recommendation of an application by the Palo Alto
Unified School District to amend the Terrnan Specific Plan to reduce
the number of tennis courts from four to two, which will allow for
construction of four basketball courts and related site improvements
at Terman Park.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Plamfing and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
recommend to the City Council approval of an application by the Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) to amend the Terman Specific Plan to reduce the number of
tennis courts from four to two, which will allow for construction of four basketball courts
and related site improvements at Terman Park, as follows:
1.Adoption of a resolution approving the Addendum to the Terman Middle Schoo!
Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) (Attachment A).
2.Adoption of a resolution amending the Terman Specific Plan to reduce the number
ofzennis courts from four to two (Attachment B).
PROJECT SU-M1VLARY
On September 8, 2003, the City Council reviewed the Parks and Recreation Commission
recommendations for siting additional basketball courts at Terman Park. The City
Council identified a preferred configuration that resulted in two less tennis courts and
therefore, directed staffto proceed with amending the Terman Specific Plan, which.
specifies four tennis courts (see Attachment C for the Terman Specific Plan and .-
Resolution of Adoption). The proposed project is requested by the Palo Alto Unified
City of Palo Alto Page .1
School District (PAUSD) to meet the physical education class needs for the recently
reopened Terman Middle School. The preferred alternative that was identified by the City
Council includes removing two of the four existing tennis courts and constructing four
basketball courts (see Attachment D for site plan). Related site improvements include
reconfiguration of one of the soccer fields and shifting the existing baseball diamond.
BACKGROUND
On September 8, 2003, the City Council reviewed the Parks and Recreation Commission
recommendations for siting additional basketball courts at Terman Park and directed staff
to proceed with amending the Terman Specific Plan. In August 2002, the City and the
PAUSD came to an agreement on the PAUSD use of the Terman School and the City’s
continued operation of the adjacent athletic field areas and use of school buildings when
school is not in use. On August 4, 2003, Council approved interim improvements at
Terman Park to facilitate the school re-opening.
Prior to the Terman Middle School re-opening August 2003. The standard athletic
program for the PAUSD requires additional basketball courts. After a series of public
meetings of both the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) and the City Council,
the preferred alternative chosen was to remove two tennis courts and construct four
basketball courts (CMR 418:03, Attachment E).
The Terman Specific Plan does not reflect the PAUSD’s reoccupation of the site with the
Terman Middle School. The PAUSD is exempt from the City’s land use regulations,
including the Specific Plan, when it locates and constructs schools. The PAUSD’s
reoccupation of the middle school site did not require an amendment the Terman Specific
Plan, as it was located on School District property.
BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
At its August 26, 2003 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the
proposed plans with a preferred recommendation for siting additional basketball courts
(CMR 418:03). The PARC considered several alternatives for siting the basketball courts
that retained the existing tennis courts.
A number of Palo Alto residents, the PAUSD staff and school board members, Terman
students, and members of the public spoke in favor of the need for additional basketball
courts in support of the latest PAUSD dual use proposal, and of the need to preserve the
open space area adjacent to the Glenbrook Drive entry. A community member also
offered testimony regarding the land swap with Stanford for property located behind
Gunn High School. The PARC discussed the various alternatives. The desire not to use
the open space area near Glenbrook Drive for additional tennis courts was common
among all Commissioners. The Commission determined that the new PAUSD proposal
for dual use courts was very similar to their preferred alternative, but would result in
City of Palo Alto Page 2
relocation of the baseball diamond. The PARC recommended that the City Council
accept the alternative Scheme 2A to add four basketball courts, minus the addition of two
new tennis courts (see Attachment G).
The proposed project was selected by the Parks and Recreation Commission and City
Council because it would not eliminate existing park open space and was seen as having
potentially less noise impacts while still achieving objectives of the project. Further
discussion of the pros and cons of each alternative reviewed by the PARC and City
Council are attached to this staff report (Attachment G, PARC staff report). Minutes from
the August 26 PARC meeting are Attachment H to this staff report.
Site Information
Terman Park is a 7.7-acre neighborhood park. The existing park amenities include four
tennis courts, one basketball court, 2 soccer fields, and one baseball field. Walking and
biking path border the backside of the park. Access to the park is from Terman Drive off
Arastradero Road. Pedestrian and bicycle access are from Glenbrook Drive and along the
bike-pedestrian path that connects to Los Alto and runs along Adobe Creek.
The Terman park site is bounded by the uses and land use designations summarized in
the table below and shown on the Site Location and Zoning Map (Attachment I).
Location Existing Uses Comprehensive Plan Zoning
North
South
East
West
Subject
Site
Single-family residential and
connection to Glenbrook Dr.
Bike/pedestrian path, Alta
Mesa Cemetery
Adobe Creek, Single family
residential
Terman Middle School,
affordable housing complex
City dedicated parkland
Single Family
Residential
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Los Altos
School District Lands
& Multiple Family
Residential
Public Parks
Medium Density Multiple-
Family Residential (RM-30)
Residential Estate (RE)
Los Altos
Public Facilities ~F) &
Medium Density Multi-
Family Residential (RM-30)
Public Facilities (PF)
Physical Improvements to the Site
The proposed improvements to the park site are as follows:
¯ Construction of four unlighted basketball courts.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
¯Installation of fencing around the new basketball courts to match the existing
fence around tennis courts, except the new fenced area will not have include wind
screening.
¯Redesign and installation of irrigation systems displaced.by new construction and
installation of drainage improvements.
¯Relocation of baseball diamond and installation of new backstop and fencing and
installation of new concrete or asphalt around baseball diamond.
¯Reconfiguring and re-striping soccer field lines to 317’ by 178’ to match existing
field on site.
In the future, the City and the PAUSD may want to consider a tennis/pickle-ball court
striping overcoat on the new basketball court area to allow for multi-functional courts.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Terman Specific Plan
The Terman Specific Plan was adopted by City Council on January 24, 1983. As outlined
in State law (Government Code Section 65450 et seq) a specific plan is a regulatory tool
that local governments may use to guide development in a localized area. Specific plans
are intended to implement the general plan. Specific plans are more detailed development
plans than the comprehensive plan. Specific plans often include more detailed goals,
objective, policies and programs for the area in which they apply.
Any option that removes facilities specifically called for in the Terman Specific Plan
would require a plan amendment that must be recommended by the Planning and
Transportation Commission and adopted by the City Council (see Attachment C for the
Terman Specific Plan and Resolution #6025). The Terman Specific Plan (Section II.D. 1.)
states, "The City will retain four tennis courts on the Terman site." Implementation of the
PAUSD proposed basketball courts would effectively convert two tennis courts to
basketball courts, thus requiring a change to the Terman Specific Plan to reflect only two
tennis courts.
The specific change in the text of the Specific Plan would be as follows:
"The City will retain fo-m~ two tennis courts on the Terman site. The courts
will be maintained by the city in a manner equivalent to the City tennis
courts elsewhere ’"
--Section II.D. 1. (Page 14 of the Terman Specific Plan)
The two other provisions pertaining to tennis courts would remain unchanged. They
include Section II.D.2. which pertains to the relocation of the tennis courts to another
area of the park site, and Section II.D.3. which states "the tennis courts on the Terman
City of Palo Alto Page 4
site will be available to the public on the same basis as other City-controlled tennis
courts." It is common practice in Palo Alto (and a Comprehensive Plan policy) for joint
use agreements to exist between public schools and the City for shared use of facilities.
The Terman Specific Plan also describes basketball use in the Plan under Section E. 1.
which states, "The City will provide and maintain one or two outdoor, unlighted
basketball courts. The court(s) will be available to the public on the same basis as other
City-controlled courts." Providing four unlighted courts is consistent with the Terman
Specific Plan as the plan identifies the area as a park and courts are a traditional park use.
The requirements for a certain number of amenities in the Specific Plan are established
by minimum requirements and do not limit the City’s ability to add facilities otherwise
consistent with a park use.
The PAUSD must comply with the state’s CEQA Guidelines. As the "lead agency" under
CEQA for the reoccupation of the site, the PAUSD prepared an EIR and Addendum to
address the Terman Middle School reopening and construction of the basketball courts.
Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District Regulations
The zoning ordinance’s Public Facilities (PF) district, Chapter 18.32, provides standards
and requirements for permitted uses. The proposed use complies with the permitted uses
in the PF public facilities district are: (a) All facilities owned or leased, and operated or
used, by the city, the county of Santa Clara, the state of California, the government of the
United States, the Palo Alto unified school district, or any other governmental agency;
and (b) Park uses and uses incidental to park operation. The proposed project would be
in conformance with all applicable PF zoning district standards, including site coverage
(maximum 30% of the site) and setbacks for yards (no less than 10’ for interior setbacks).
Several other significant issues that were raised at the PARC and City Council meetings
are summarized below:
Noise Impacts
The neighbors of the park site on Pomona Avenue and Glenbrook Drive expressed
concern about the noise impacts from basketball court use if the courts were located near
the Glenbrook pedestrian entryway or backing up to the homes on Pomona. The selected
alternative places the basketball courts in a more central location on the site, away from
residences. The Addendum to the EIR addressed noise impacts and concluded that the
project would not result in an adverse impact. One letter was received from a member of
the public in regards to noise problems as addressed in the Addendum to the Terman
Middle School Reopening Environmental Impact Report (see Attachment J).
Tree Impacts
The City’s Planning Arborist has visited the site and reviewed the project for its impact to
the existing trees, including the two protected Coast Live Oaks and several Redwoods in
City of Palo Alto Page 5
the northern portion of the site, towards the Glenbrook Drive connection, as well as
several significant trees, but not protected species, adjacent to the baseball diamond. The
proposed alternative is designed to not impact the two coast live oaks located near the
Glenbrook entryway or the redwood trees that line pedestrian path along the northwestern
border of the park, closest to Glenbrook Drive. No trees will be removed.
Shared Use of the School and Park Facilities .
The PAUSD proposes that the basketball courts will be used by the Terman Middle
School for physical education classes from Monday through Friday during the academic
year, except on school holidays. The hours of use will be from 7:30 a.m~ to 3:30 p.m.
The courts would be available for public use when not in use by the school or City
recreational programs. The Terman Park driveway and parking spaces, accessed from
Terman Drive and directly adjacent to the pool area, are chained off during the school
day by the PAUSD. This allows for safe passage of students to and from the park during
physical education classes and break times. It also allows the area to be used as the bus
loading and unloading area and the beginning and end of each day. The existing Joint Use
Agreement between the City and the School District requires amendment for the use of
the basketball courts
Handicap Accessibility
Any new construction and improvements on the park site will be designed to implement
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. These improvements include
handicap accessible hardware and kickplate for tennis court and basketball court areas
and wheel chair accessible areas around the baseball backstop and soccer field. These
improvements will provide equal access for students and park users using with physical
disabilities, including the use of a wheelchair.
Salvaging and Reuse of Existing Park Materials
Community Services Department has directed the PAUSD architect and contractors to
consider salvaging concrete paving and tennis posts and benches by the City Recreation
Department.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Specific Plan Amendment
The process for a specific plan amendment, necessary to reduce the number of tennis
courts in the Terman Specific Plan, is referenced in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
19.06, "Specific Plan" which is the adoption of Government Code Sections 65450 et seq.
of the state of California, titled "Authority For and Scope of Specific Plans, Procedure for
Adoption of Specific Plans and Regulations, and Administration of Specific Plans and
Regulations."
City of Palo Alto Page 6
The process for amending a specific plan amendment is the same process as the process
for amending a comprehensive plan, except that a specific plan may be amended as often
as deemed necessary by the legislative body (Government Code Section 65453(a). Both
require public noticing in a newspaper of general circulation and public hearings before
the PTC and City Council. In order to amend a specific plan, the City Council must f’md
that because of changed conditions it is in the public interest to amend the Terman
Specific Plan. The City Council must make fmdings with regard to environmental
impacts.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed specific plan amendment shall be consistent with the plans and policies of
the City of Palo Alto.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
The Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation for the Terman Park site is "Public
Parks". The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s def’mition for
the Public Parks designation:
Public Parks: Open lands whose primary purpose is active recreation and
whose character is essentially urban. These areas have been planted with
non-indigenous landscaping and require a concerted effort to maintain
recreational facilities and landscaping.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policies and Progams
Staff finds that the proposed specific plan amendment and project complies with the
Comprehensive Plan’s policies and programs for park improvements, including the
following policies:
Policy C-3:
Policy C-4:
Policy C-6:
Policy C-22:
Palo Alto should continue to take a leadership role in addressing
community service issues that cross-jurisdictional lines.
Maintain a close, collaborative relationship with the PAUSD to
maximize the use of school services and facilities for public benefit,
particularly young people, families, and seniors.
Continue and enhance City efforts to assist PAUSD in anticipating and
addressing land development-related school enrollment impacts.
Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible
fimctions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the
community.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Policy C-25:Make infrastructure improvements on public open space only when
these improvements are consistent with the goals of protecting and
conserving the natural environment.
¯Policy C-26: Maintain and enhance existing park facilities.
¯Program C-23: Study and recommend methods of private and public fmancing for
improved park maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction.
¯Policy C-27: Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to
meet the growing needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto.
¯Policy C-32: Provide fully accessible public facilities to all residents and visitors.
¯Program C-27: Continue to implement Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements
PUBLIC NOTICING
Due to the high level of interest in the Terman Park improvements, a more extensive
noticing area than what is required for a Specific Plan amendment was used for the PTC
hearing. In addition to the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper, property
owners and utility customers within 2,000 feet of the project site were mailed a notice
card. Notice cards were also sent to all property owners and residents within the Green
Acres I and Green Acres II areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Terman Middle School Reopening Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
certified by the PAUSD Board of Education on March 12, 2002 (State Clearinghouse #
2001062108). The school reopened in August 2003. The project analyzed in the Terman
EIR consisted of renovating and reopening existing facilities on 8 acres of the 15.6 -acre
former Terman Middle School site and using the adjoining dedicated parkland for middle
school activities. (See page III-1 of the Terman EIR for the discussion of park use.)
Although use of the playfields and other park amenities were considered as part of the
project in the Terman Middle School EIR, the physical change of adding basketball
courts and relocating and removing other facilities was not contemplated. An Addendum
to the EIR was prepared to address the physical change to a portion of the Terman Park
for the court construction.
Construction of the basketball courts is a project subject to environmental review through
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An addendum to the EIR was
prepared in conformance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines and was certified
by the PAUSD Board of Education on September 15, 2003 (Attachment K). The PAUSD
City of Palo Alto Page 8
is the "lead agency" and the City of Palo Alto is a "responsible agency" for the basketball
court improvements. As a responsible agency, the City must review the Terman School
EIR and the District’s Addendum to make legally required f’mdings under the California
Environmental Quality Act before approving the project.
The analysis of the Addendum and previously Certified EIR and other information
developed for the project concludes that the implementation of the proposed project
would not result in any new significant environmental effects that were not identified in
the Terman EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects described in the Terman EIR, specifically noise and construction
impacts.
The PTC will consider the Addendum along with the Terman EIR prior to making a
recommendation on the Terman Specific Plan amendment to the City Council. The draft
Resolution Approving the Addendum is Attachment A of this staff report. Staff
concludes that the Final EIR and Addendum have been completed in compliance with the
CEQA. The Addendum f’mds that the proposed project would not result in any new
significant environmental effects that were not identified in the f’mal EIR or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects described in the EIR, specifically
noise and construction impacts.
NEXT STEPS
On October 14 the City Council is scheduled for a public hearing on this project,
including the environmental review, the Terman Specific Plan amendment and the Park
Improvement Ordinance. The City Council will review the proposed project and
recommendations from staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission and take
public testimony before taking f’mal action on the project. The City Council is also
expected to act on an amendment to the Joint Use Agreement and to address use and
maintenance of the new basketball courts in a Construction/Cost Sharing Agreement.
If approved by the City Council, the f’mal project design and construction details, such as
grading and drainage, would be reviewed by the City prior to commencing construction
on the park site. If approved, the second reading would be on October 27. Because all
City Park Improvement Ordinances are subject to a referendum petition for 30-days
following their second reading, construction would begin after November 27. The
PAUSD expects for construction to be completed in less than one month.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Resolution Approving the Addendum to the Terman Middle
School Reopening EIR
Attachment B: Draft Resolution Amending the Terman Specific Plan
Attachment C: Terman Specific Plan and Resolution of Adoption
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Attachment J:
Attachment K:
Site Plan for Proposed Basketball Courts and Site Improvements (half
size plan sets to Commissioners only)
City Council City Manager’s Report from September 8, 2003 (without
attachments)
Correspondence received for the September 8, 2003, City Council
meeting
Park and Recreation Commission Staff Report from August 26, 2003
Minutes from Park and Recreation Commission from August 26, 2003
Site Location and Zoning Map
Letter from John Abraham, dated August 7, 2003
Addendum and Terman Middle School Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) and the PAUSD Board of Education Resolution
approving the Addendum (Commissioners only to receive the FEIR)
COURTESY COPIES
Palo Alto Unified School District
Terman Termites
Palo Alto Tennis Club
Prepared by: Beth Young, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: John Lusardi, Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT/DMSION÷.. HEAD APPR. OVAL~a~ote,~,~ief Planning
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Attachment A
DRAFT - NOT YET APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 655 AARASTRADERO ROAD; TERMAN
PARK PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION !. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. The Palo Alto Unified School District ("District") has
proposed to remove two existing tennis courts and construct four
new basketbal! courts on the same area in Terman Park ("The
Project").
B. The City wishes to adopt an amendment to the Terman
Park Specific Plan and an ordinance permitting improvements to
Terman Park to permit this construction by the District.
B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
(hereinafter "CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq., an Environmenta!
Impact Report, ("EIR"), was prepared by the District to evaluate
anticipated environmenta! impacts resulting from changes in land
use as a result of the implementation of the Terman Middle Schoo!
Reopening. The Final EIR is on file in the offices of the Pa!o
Alto Unified School District, a!ong with the records, minutes and
files constituting the environmental review record of proceedings.
C. The draft EIR was offered by the District for public
review and comment beginning on September 17, 2001, and ending on
October 26, 2001, and the District received written and oral
communications during the public review period. The District
responded to these comments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, and
the comments and responses have been included in the Fina! EIR.
D. The Palo Alto Unified School District Board (PAUSD)
held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on October 16, 2001. The
030925 sm 0091312
Board found the draft EIR provided an adequate project description,
identified and analyzed each potentia! significant environmenza!
impact and proposed feasible mitigation measures, described and
evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project and its
proposed location, including those specific alternatives required
by CEQA, and recommended preparation of Final EIR based upon the
draft EIR reviewed by them.
E. The PAUSD Board certified the Final EIR on March 12,
2002. As part of the accompanying resolution, the Board also
approved a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ("MMP") pursuant to
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. The .~MP is designed
to ensure compliance with project changes and mitigation imposed to
avoid or substantially reduce the environmenta! effects identified
in the final EIR.
F. An Addendum to the final EIR was approved by the
District on September 15,.2003 to address the physica! change to a
portion of the Terman park for court construction. The addendum
concludes that implementation of the proposed project would not
~" in any new significant environmenta! effects that were notresu=~"
identified in the fina! EiR or a substantia! increase in the
severity of previously identified effecns described in the EIR,
specifically noise and construction impacts.
G. Alternatives to the construction of new basketball
courts were addressed by the Addendum prepared by the District.
These alternatives included constructing new courts on the Terman
park site and retaining al! four tennis courts, relocating two
tennis courts and consnructing new basketball courts, and
constructing new basketbal! courts on the Terman Schoo! site. The
proposed project was selected because it would not eliminate
existing park open space, and would not impact significant trees
while still achieving objectives of the project.
SECTION 2. Consideration. As a "Responsible Agency" the
City Council hereby finds and declares than it has reviewed and
considered the info.~mation contained in the Fina! EIR and Addendmm,
staff ~eports, ora! and written testimony given at public hearings
on the proposed Project, and al! other matters deemed maneria! and
relevant before considering the Project for approval. The City
Counci! hereby finds the fol!owing:
A. That the -=~un~ DistrictDr=~ and Final EIR prepared by ~=
and reflect the independent review and judgment of the District as
Lead Agency.
B. That the EiR has been prepared in compliance with the
CEQA. There is no significant new information that would support a
conclusion that the EIR should be re-circulated pursuant to Public
030925 sm 0091312
2
Resources Code Section 21092.1 and the CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5.
C. That an Addendum to the final EIR was prepared on
September 15, 2003 to address the physica! change to a portion of
the Terman park for court construction. The addendum was prepared
in compliance with CEQA, and concludes that implementation of the
proposed project would not result in any new significant
environmental effects that were not identified in the final EIR or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects described in the EIR, specifically noise and construction
impacts.
SECTION 3. ~ignificant impacts Which Can Be Mitigated To A
Less Than Significant Level. The City Council finds that the EIR
certified by the PAUSD Board identified potentially significant
environmental effects of the Terman middle schoo! Reopening with
regard to land use, noise, including noise ’conditions during
construction, public facilities and recreation, and traffic.
Mitigation measures were identified which eliminate or
substantially reduced each of these impacts. The City Council finds
that, in response to each significant effect listed in this Section
3, all feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR
as summarized below. Each of the mitigation measures summarized
be!ow is more fully described in the EIR.
B. Noise. The final EIR and Addendum identified
potentially significant impacts from construction noise, though
no major construction is proposed as part of the Project. To
mitigate these impacts, Best Management Practices that require
appropriate mufflers for large vehicles and prohibit radios used
outdoors by construction personnel would be used during
renovation. Al! renovation activity at the site would occur
within the hours prescribed by the City’s Noise Ordinance. The
intermittent noise generated by the schoo! is for a limited
duration and represents a minor increase in noise levels and
therefore does not represent a significant impact. Additionally,
the incorporation of Best Management Practices in the
construction wil! limit any temporary noise to less than
significant levels.
SECTION 4. No Cumulative ImDacts. For the reasons stated
in the EIR and Addendum, the Project was not found to result in
cumulatively considerable impacts when considered in combination
with past, current, and probable future projects.
030925 sm 0091312
SECTION 5. No Significant Immacts Which Cannot Be Fully
Mitigated. The City Council finds, as the final EIR and Addendum
concluded, that the Project would not result in any significant
unavoidable impacts.
SECTION 6. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The City
finds that the Final EIR and Addendum neither expressly identifies,
nor contains any substantia! evidence identifying significant
enwironmental effects of the Project. The proposed project would
not have any impacts on Land Use, Traffic, Agricultura! Resources,
Energy, Mineral Resources, Recreation, Population and Housing,
Public Services, Air Quality and Noise.
SECTION 7. Substantia! evidence supporting each and every
,_-!rid_rig made herein is contained in the P-~nal EIR including
amendments, revisions and records of proceedings.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
Cizy Clerk
,~D ~TOA__RO\~D AS FORM:
Se~o~ Asst. City -’~ ~ ="....
Mayor
City Mana@er~ _
= ~ ~ ofD_r~c~o_ Planning and
Community Environmenz
0309!5 sm 009131Z
Attachment B
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALOALTO
AMENDING THE TERMAN SPECIFIC PLAN TO REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF TENNIS COURTS FROM FOUR TO TWO
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission, after
duly noticed public hearing on October i, 2003, has recommended
that the Terman Specific Plan be amended to reduce the required
number of tennis courts from four to two;
WHEREAS, the City Council deems the amendment of the Terman
Specific Plan to reduce the number of required tennis courts from
four to two in order to provide the space needed to accommodate
additional basketball courts to be in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public
hearing on the matter on .... 2003, and has reviewed the
Addendum to the Terman Middle Schoo! Reopening Environmental
Impact Report and all other relevant information prepared for the
project, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and
oral, presented on the matter:
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION i. The City Council finds that because of changed
conditions it is in the public interest to amend the Terman
Specific Plan.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby amends the Terman
Specific Plan (Section II. D. I.) as follows: ~The City will
retain ~ two tennis courts on the Terman site. The courts will
be maintained by the city in a manner equivalent to the City
tennis courts elsewhere."
SECTION 3. The City Council, after reviewing the Terman
Middle School Reopening Environmental Impact Report and Addendum
prepared by the Palo Alto Unified School District, finds that this
project will have no significant effect on the environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
1
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment D
Attachment I
Attachment J
A,+,-..-- ......o~-~- .....o ~.-.,-~.- ,,-- r~.+ of Palo A!to~ul. u~th ;’uU;l’.q., , u!-=,~t, l~,,lu: for ~ri~. ....
Steve Ernsl]e: Plannlng D]reccor
F,=,,n,ng u1.iic]alLisa Gro-Le: Chief ’~’: -~ ....
RECEIVED
AUG 0 ? 2003
~~nnin~nd
! wisi~ to direct m!-i remarks on noise probiems to the "Addendum
to the Terman Middle Schod] ~--~",-’ c-,,~,--, .....;÷ ..........o,-.-...uu,h_.,,lnq ~.h,,,,,..,,h,~r,;.! Imnuut R~por~. t._,,_.H
No. 2001062106)", authored by Thoma:~ Reid Associates ~TRA), dated July
I I, 2uO._s, pa;-tlcularlq v;.’ith r~qurd tu tn~ p~ upu’.::.uu [IU(’~,’ I-~u:=:F-..uf_u-;~.11 court:=.:
¯’" ’,"’~ "l " " i -~a l.a,_’~ ~’- -~r~:~,.." ’~;o;~it’i.x "-’~ -.~----4Pulu ~l~uo t]u]~_ Uru]~mt.u..TI .....~,,,~., ........nu. uu,,utuu in u~eand- - ~ ..... --~-- ----: ..................
recent City Council Hearing of August 4, 2003. Please forward these
remarks as appropriate to re:,,’iewers oi u~ environmental impacts of the
various proposed configurations of these courts.
¯._.Otl:5Lt UL:~.I on, ’~- "’dc~, ,, ......:,t. -~"~ ,-..’A, .:,"’- discussion ori paqe iii-8 about
~-~--~~ ~~-.paragraph from the bu4om, is out otu~t,., incorrect and needs to
.+ .UUL~IU~ I~.U!: :L,,.u~+dated, c. .....< ......+- ~- ,L,, +,-.U,,~pl+. is no longer - -’+----~.-~ ~-.’--_,,.~!uuu!~ L.UI’I.::,.IUU~.IUtI: ~’-"- " ’+ - "; -
,_.u~ :o u u+tlUh.permitted .......-+: .- ~ :
+,+L.:lUn U, ’+ -, + ’="-’. +..,,.. Irnnar:f Revi~.,,u,d.:,,,.:.’ :-’-+’ ’-+’-
Of~l"i "-’:," r::~,~-~ i+’ +~ ,’++ -.’-, :,~’" -~ -i v~’--’l-, ~ + iI:~ ’ 1, u.-,u.-~- ,...i, T~.:,,-,, r~s not establ-~-- .......Iv,~.u LrlU~ ti-iechanica] ......~.,_,’,-._ "~..-, :-, ,_ "Z" ,-. ~p,_ i--- --~-- F’;- ~++--- --u-+,-~,-~- "-~-~.-,I _t0 r;~ .......~_~...,..’,
,--i .’=.,"t i-,_-, +~,.,..~ t-k--, r,-,r-n-+ l:ni---,..--e÷~,---e i’:~:.V,-.fha!..--.-d :----,T-.’-’.~,
M.-II,=.,-, ,’-p-t4i ........-, o.--1+.-,- Q .........’_,~.+.,,,,,i 1~t~+m~ ~.a+~ reads-I’,H_ ..-,,_+ L÷ JIiIiJIH_-,_+ -.. -
Attention ~;o;.d.-- to be dra’,,,vn to the ............."’ ,;~ ...."’
¯ ~ t’, ~; t-i i i" ~ ~ -, "bu::;~-:.~t uu I !,+,_,,,.,. ,,,r,_,., ’-’-~’ ,.:’ ":°.....Noise [ f-’,’_+Rl UOIJnq. L.It;-’I" i 1,!,~l!"-’-’ "~"+!,.F,,]>.. 1=1 ’ "’j ~ ] t i~1 1~1 .........l Pl! ....
,~dui~S plaijlnQ a Qarrle. -~’" .+=i;-~ i,-,--=~-~,- ;i_.-~ ,--,~,-, ,-,_ ¢:-, .....,.--’. +.<" """lk,~.-_.d,u,.,~ ,.,, !,:u,~l,, .--,pu~,_.!li lu._-,,~y.=.th,~t,_,,.,+,
100 foot ~stance, the .ouues~ ~+ ot uaSr.:e~ua,+ court no,so w,,] be ~2 uUA.
The + ~ +uste+i tloi.--:+ ]eve] for P+~.]o A1 :v.:’.,’s ..-.,.-,,,~,,-, ,+ .._., ~ .......,~._,ah ....,’+.~+’,,~-~’-.~ ’"= <.-..-,t +~° in tile General
ba.Llt]noie c .....~+...+,+,-,~-.-. .-,~ " .,,._..+...,.h, ’.,,vould ru+se the,. :iURl~er buUUUUL-+-"" 12 dUA- .....usino"--+ " ", u, ,,,u!,., brinmna thn--.,-,~.--.-, ".-,,,o~ ~ "2.~c,.=,uu, distance dnuhiiriQ +’-’-"" ’ ~" ., . ~,.,_.,,o,. i,.;,,., to ,’4 d~A ""~1. _
fe~t_ from courtside. ?here needs to De 6ate ,--’-,-=~,u-.,,,,,’",,~,a the’,. . the ,:--,-,,- ;~n,:,,~..~.t .....
sounds .--"--;-’"’-2 ,u, ma!e arlults does r,,oto,.,u,~ a:=; dribblinM and hittinq the h,_,u,_,
exceed ~,.-", dBA at s’=, f’&et if indee-d +~’-~+ is the case. In the case of
uu::,~.-..~:uull n,;i:--;e,_ the settin,] ,-,n. the rneter also lfl.,’3KU:=;" ...... a difference.
are not "- " :~ .... " " c,~ basketba]! ducu ,,,,,,es "slov,,,’," <" ~qchculu if c,~.~ ~ucdnR used for ‘r ............ ,-,,,, ,
.... " "",,_. - ......such __ " ................" ....,~ .-,- ....-,-. ,-~,,,,,-. ,-4-,-,~- lr~lril,:;l’,,’~ ::;Ui.lf!H::;R::; [I,’~.-,,,H,U,,,i t;[ iiiiiilfla u[
"fast" ,,,vhich measures tr~ same sound over an l latho~uur~u ..........~.,r~" ....p~r-:-
-:, ’--. --:- i -,~,-and is more u!~o~ uof tul u irl .h~.:, case.
~ th,, ,_, ~, ublu,,, ,-_-, t,,ut uuri~ -,tu tt, a!,.!!.i,,,u ,.,i,_. r,ul.=,~ ut U,,luftb~ tU
9.10.05,’.) Public Propert!~ Lirnits: "(a) No person shall produce, suffer or
a~1ow co be produced onpublic prove,-L~, a noise le,.el more t,+an IJ uSA
,~uu~,~ th~ ]u,~u~ ~mb1~nt ut a dlotun,_.~ uf 25 1~t u, IHut e. utilu.,~ oth~PAl~..e
provided in th, is chapter..." There is no mention of, or relevanc.LI to, Leq or
median Leq in the Palo Alto noise ordinance or Cornprehensi,.e~": P’ian, as TRA
I
=’~’"~ .....about "}""-the DrO--’~,:L at "-,,,:i:-~.-.:- Z,4,~.o ~,...; "...~.~,<.,~.o+~.~,~ ’:.-~.-_.
~ uI~u~.:, ’-’,","a~]f. a ~0 foot
their h~,-~.....~._.,.. ~ard. Th’--’r’-’, ,_. .._. n~,-,,~.=...:.,:.. f-n._ -:.-,~.... some di:=~r:u:=;:=;inn h~f~-,~-~ )-.’~~iateraiiy
~-~n~Hrir~Q ÷v~,. ,-,-
"- ’-’- ......the ....:..--’,-tan~ ~~"n the ~.~.--~-.-~-=-"i : uqu, u.=,t LnmL ,.,,,,--,,~,~ ,.-..~ obtai.. ’basic
~’-~"-"i~M aFld S’-~J ....;~ ...."~" *~"’-’÷Li; iULII l::’~-: ....~ .......~hUl ,,,.~ is~uuT.~Lu,! -~,:-~’,,’’ described~u,,= and
_ .~ ,_.,L,.~ T. ~ U~ ............,., ................
F:ni.~r~ ]UUmLILm:_-;, W)10 SO ~,~.t [i,~,,,,_. b ....~I ....y,..,,.~_ !~.~Ir:nr,,’.--;i~lnni)iinP
2
...... ~,~ ,, u,~ r, u~,uocu ~¢~l~la r~c~ll~.y a[. auu~J lVllddle[leld Road, PaloAlto, CA--Third Par..ty ,Review of the Noise issues," Letter to the Zoning
Administrator Lisa bror.e, City of Palo Alto, April 16, 1997.
Lisa Grote
April 16, 1997
Page 3
We reviewed several reference documents (Ref. 3-8) to provide some guidance regarding
appropriate sound’level meter settings. The use of the peak setting on a sound level meter is
only discussed in the context of intense impulsive sounds, such as a quarry blast, gun shot,
or sonic boom. The measurement of A-weighted peak levels is not recommended.
Exponential time weighted, either "fast" or "slow", sound pressure levels should be
measured with respect to the enforcement of this Ordinance. The only decision to be made
by the person conducting the measurement would be whether or not to use the "fast"
response (1/8 second time constant) for rapidly fluctuating sources or the "slow" response (1
second time constant) for continuous or slowly varying sources. In the case of tennis ball
strikes, the "fast" meter response setting is b.ppropriate.
Section 9. lO.020(d).
"Local ambient means the lowest sound level repeating itself during a 6-minute period
as measured with a precision sound level, using slow response and A-weighting. The
minimum sound level shall be determined with the noise source at issue silent, .and in
th6 same location as the measurement of thg noise level or the source or sources at
issue. However, for purposes of this chapter, in no case shall a local arn’bient be
considered or determined to be less than: (1) 30 dBA for interior noise in Section
9.10.030(b); (2) 40 dBA in all other sections..."
If one were to measure the sound level on slow response with a standard sound level meter
and note the sound level which repeated itself during a 6-minute period, this sound level
would be essentialIy the minimum sound level. If it were represented by standard acoustical
statistical descriptors, this would be equivalent to about the I.~.s; that is, the sound level
exceeded 99.5 percent of the measurement time. The best way to determine this for a strict
interpretation with respect to the Ordinance would be to conduct a 6-minute measurement
observing the sound level continuously and noting the minimum sound level that repeated
itself during the measurement. Using modern sound monitoring equipment and recognizing
the nature of typical statistical distributions of ambient noise levels in the community, one
could use the I-.99 as a good estimate of the ambient noise level.
Section 9.10.040 - Commercial and Industrial Property Noise Limits.
";No person shall produce, suffer, or allow to be produced by any machine or device,
or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more
than 8 dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane."
Section 9.10.050 - Public Property Noise Limits.
"(a) No personshall produce, suffer, or allow to be produced by anymachine or
device, or any combination of same, on public property, a noise level more than 15
dB above the local ambient at a distance of 25 feet or more, unless otherwise
provi,ded in this chapter."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 1, 2003
SPECIAL MEETING- 7:00 PM
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
DRAFr EXCERPT
655 Arastradero Road, Terman Park*: Request by the Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD) for Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation to the
City Council of an application for a proposed specific plan amendment to the Ten-nan
Specific Plan to allow modifications to the City-owned park site to accommodate four new
basketball courts, remove two existing tennis courts, and related site improvements. Zone
District: Public Facilities (PF). Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Ten-nan
Middle School Reopening Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2001062108) was
prepared in conformance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). PAUSD is the Lead Agency and the City of Palo Alto the Responsible Agency.
City Files: 03-CPA-03; 03-EIA-11.
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: Thank you Chair Griffin and members of the Commission.
Before I introduce Staff to give you the detailed presentation I would like to make a few
introductory comments regarding the history and how we have arrived where we are and the
presentation and the consideration of the Planning Commission’s amendment to the Specific
Plan. As a Commission we will note in the Staff Report this item has been before the City
Council as well as the Park and Recreation Commission several times. This is essentially a
continuation of the reuse of the Terman facility and you might consider this one of the final
actions in terms of resolving the active recreation space for the reuse of the facility as a third
middle school for the City of Palo Alto. So it is coming to you in a little bit of a different
fashion. Normally the Commission is the body that receives applications at their initial stage,
fleshes out issues and makes it recommendation to the City Council. We are a little bit different
here because the City Council has essentially indicated a preferred development scheme and
reuse of the facility. They have entered into a joint use agreement with the school district and
are awaiting the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding a Specific Plan change.
The reason this needs to come to the Planning Commission is that the preferred alternative after
much input at the City Council level from both the public as well as the appointed Park and
Recreation Commission requires an amendment to the Specific Plan for one very simple reason.
That is that the Specific Plan specifies, as it is supposed to, a number of tennis courts, four. It is
very clear that four tennis courts are to be maintained in the Specific Plan in a manner as other
tennis courts are maintained throughout the City. Well joint use or restriping of a tennis court for
games other than traditional tennis is not in keeping with that direction. So it is necessary for the
Planning Commission to consider an amendment to that plan to reduce the number of tennis
courts to two. The district intends in its reconfiguration of the two courts to still have multiple,
we understand that the district would still like to stripe their two courts for multiple use and that
is fine but they won’t be maintained in a manner as other tennis courts because that is not typical
of how the City maintains its tennis courts.
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
So I just wanted to make a little clarification on that. We are kind of at the tail end. This is
scheduled to go back to the City Council in October, we are in a very short timeframe because
the City and the district are working together to initiate all the approvals and entitlements
necessary and complete them so that construction can begin this year so that we would be able to
have the recreation facilities in place for the remainder of this school year. As you know the
Terman School reopened this September, is in its full operation and the need for recreation
facilities is especially acute.
So with that said I would like to introduce Staff who is here to answer your questions. First of
all I would like to introduce a special guest, our Park and Community Service Director, Paul
Thiltgen. With Paul is Paul Dias, Director of Parks and Golf Division. We also have Bill
Garvey who is the Chairman of the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission to answer any
questions about their deliberations and consideration. On the City side we have Beth Young who
will be giving you the report and John Lusardi, her supervisor, to also answer questions. With
that I am going to turn it over to Beth who will give you the specific presentation.
Ms. Beth Young, Senior Planner: Thank you, Steve. Good evening Chair Griffin and members
of the Planning Commission. The item before the Commission tonight is the amendment to the
Terman Specific Plan for the reduction of tennis courts from four to two. Terman Park is an
eight-acre neighborhood park located at 655 Arastradero Road in South Palo Alto. It is adjacent
to the recently reopened Terman Middle School.
The proposed project is a request by the school district in order to meet the physical education
needs of the students at the middle school site. The school district’s proposed improvements
include the following: four unlighted basketball courts, which will be replacing two existing
tennis courts, a slight shifting of the baseball diamond and relocation of the existing backdrop,
restriping of the soccer field to match the size of the existing field onsite and associated grading,
irrigation and drainage improvements. Since the Staff Report was prepared there is a
clarification. The proposed duel use of the basketball courts, you can see that there are actually
two, they are not official tennis court size they are paddle ball or pickle ball is a term they use in
middle school, courts that are actually striped over the four basketball courts. The City’s
recreation program has said that this duel use of the basketball courts would not be any problem
for the City’s basketball program.
The current school district proposal is consistent with both the preferred alternative that was
recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission as well as the City Council. On August
26 the Parks Commission did review this project and heard public testimony. They came to an
agreement that this was the best location and consideration of noise impacts, keeping the open
space that is there near the Glenbrook entryway as well as the progam needs of the school and
City. On September 8 the City Council reviewed the Parks Commission recommendation and
recommended for the siting of the basketball courts in this location and directed Staff to proceed
with this Specific Plan amendment. The Terman Specific Plan that was adopted in 1983 when
the original school closed and the JCC moved into the site also included some affordable housing
as part of the Specific Plan. The process for amending it is within the Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 19.06 and as an amendment to the Specific Plan the City Council must make findings
Page 2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 that this is a change in conditions in order to serve the public interests. At this point we are
2 requesting a change in just the specific text which is Section 2.D. 1 on page 14 of the Terman
3 Specific Plan, which says that the City will retain four tennis courts. That would be changed to
4 two tennis courts and that these courts will be maintained by the City in a manner equivalent to
5 the ten City tennis courts elsewhere. Other provisions pertaining to tennis courts in the Specific
Plan would remain unchanged. The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the
plans and policies of the City. The current land use designation is Public Parks and this is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
Along with your packet the Commissioners did receive an EIR that was prepared by the school
district as well as an addendum for.the EIR. Staff has found that they have been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The addendum, which was prepared
to address the physical improvements on the park site, did find that it did not result in any new
significant environmental effects that were not identified in the Final EIR.
In conclusion Staff would recommend that the Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of the amendment to the Specific Plan to reduce the number of tennis courts in order to
accommodate the construction of the basketball courts and related site improvements as follow.
First adoption of a resolution approving the addendum to the Terman Middle School Final
Environmental Impact Report and second adoption of a resolution amending the Terman Specific
Plan to reduce the number of tennis courts from four to two.
As Steve mentioned the next step would be for the City Council to hear this item on October 14.
At that meeting the City Council is also expected to act on the Park Improvement Ordinance, an
amendment the Joint Use Agreement and a construction cost sharing ageement. With that this
concludes the Staff Report.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Is Bill Garvey here from the Parks and Recreation? Bill, would you
like to address us? Thank you.
Mr. Bill Garve¥, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission: Thank you. Let me just give
you a brief background on the process my Commission went through to recommend the plan you
see here before you tonight.
We held a Special Meeting in early August onsite at Terman where Staff walked us through the
various alternatives that they were proposing in order to add two additional tennis courts to the
site. Subsequently we had a Special Hearing at the end of August where we heard very, very
lengthy public comment on the various proposals put forward by the City Staff as well as the
school district, we reviewed dozens and dozens of emails from the public for and against various
proposals for proposed plans for four additional courts at Terman. At the end of the day the
Commission took four primary factors into account when deciding and recommending the plan
you see here before you tonight. First it was our goal to minimize the impact to open space in
the park. Second we wanted to minimize the impact to any existing athletic facilities in the park.
Third we took into consideration the park-like area towards the Glenbrook entrance to the park
where you can see a lot of trees. If you notice the rest of the park is primarily athletic facilities,
soccer fields, a baseball diamond, tennis courts and that was the only one area of the park where
Page 3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 you maintain sort of a park-like setting. We wanted to preserve that area of the park. In addition
2 we heard a lot of comments from neighbors who were concerned that if additional courts were
3 built towards that end of the park it would create a lot of noise and other issues to the Glenbrook
4 neighborhood. Finally, we wanted to try to accommodate the school district’s needs to add four
5 additional tennis courts. So at the end of the day we came up with the proposal you see here
before you tonight. I would point out that the one group that was clearly against the proposal
you see here this evening were the tennis players. Specifically there was a group called the
Terman Termites who felt that the four existing courts were some of the best in the City and felt
that eliminating two of them was really bad for tennis in Palo Alto. I will point out that.
Tonight is the first time I have seen the proposal for the lining for the paddleball courts. So I
can’t speak on behalf of my Commission but personally I don’t feel that the secondary lining for
those courts should impact the use of the basketball courts. So from my perspective I don’t see a
problem.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chair Griffin: Bill, you said a couple of times ’°four additional tennis courts" do you mean four
additional basketball courts?
Mr. Garvey: That is correct. Did I say tennis? I meant four basketball.
Chair Griffin: Does anyone on the Commission have any questions for Bill? Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: When you talked about open space preservation or enhancement of
open space was there concern on the part of your Commission about the exclusion of landscape
area into this extra 8,000 square feet of hardscape? Did they look at inclusion of additional
landscaping around either the edges of the basketball or in between? Maybe it is comment but I
am curious about that exploration.
Mr. Garvey: We didn’t explore that. If you look at the diagram the way it is today the soccer
field runs almost right up against the existing tennis courts. The addition of two additional
basketball courts has kind of the same scenario. There is really not, I don’t believe, any room
out there to add any kind of landscaping around the basketball courts without impacting the
soccer facility.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thanks.
Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Proiects: Also if I could just simply point out Mr.
Chair that we have an issue with handicap access which we have to maintain from the parking
area not only to the basketball courts but also to the soccer fields. That is an important
consideration also.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. There appear to be no more questions. Thank you for your
comments, Bill.
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
I am wondering if the Palo Alto Unified School District, the applicant, has any interest in making
apresentation. Yes? Good.
Mr. Bob Golton. Deputy Superintendent, PAUSD: Good evening. Thank you for having us here
tonight. Actually my initial comment is just to thank the Commission, thank the Parks and
Recreation Commission, thank the City Staff that is here tonight for the tremendous amount of
energy that the City of Palo Alto has devoted to working on this issue that involves their school
district. I am aware that having a Special Meeting tonight is an imposition on this Commission
and we really want to go on record as thanking you for it.
As far as this. particular plan it has gone through a number of iterations, as you may know to
arrive at this particular solution. It is a solution that the Palo Alto City Council was. comfortable
with and it is a solution that we, the school district, are comfortable with. We think that the
additional basketball courts not only are beneficial to the program at Terman Middle School but
beneficial to the City as a whole. I don’t shoot baskets anymore but in high school and in college
and as a young and even a medium age adult people like to go out and shoot baskets. It is an
easy thing to do. It is easy to have a basketball and to do that. In addition I am glad that the
Planning Department Staff did callout and we do have on that drawing the notion ofduel striping
so that those facilities during the school day can be available to the school not just for basketball
but also for some kind of racquet sports. It is interesting because we have had a lot of very
intense conversations and yet when I go out to the school during a school day that particular park
is a very peaceful and pastoral place. It is just a nice place to be.
So at any rate we have members of our staff here and also Cathy Kroymann who is on our Board
of Education. We will be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have of us. We
thank you for considering this tonight.
Chair Griffin: Bob, we may have a question for you actually. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Bob, in all this paper we received I read somewhere that the state
requires a certain number of basketball courts depending on the population of the school. With
the addition of these courts will you be meeting the state requirements?
Mr. Golton: It is a recommendation on the part of the state. There are schools that have more
basketball courts than is stated in their comments and there are schools that have less. We feel
that with this number of basketball courts and of course with the indoor gym it will be adequate
for the school that we presently have at the Ten’nan site.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Bob. At this point we are going to open our agenda to taking
comments from the public. I have three cards, which is not very many actually. If any more of
you would like to speak now is the time to fill out a card. Each of you will have five minutes. I
have a card from Teri Blackburn, Martha Bowden and Kermin Dion. I will hear from Teri first
please.
Ms. Teri Blackburn, 408 Grant Avenue, #308, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am President of the
Terman Middle School PTA and my son is an eighth grader at Terman. I will definitely be less
Page 5
1 than five minutes. I would like to urge you all to pass the items as recommended this evening. I
2 have been attending Board meetings for the City, for the parks. I have been attending meetings
3 with the neighbors and even though it is not put up there there are houses all around the
4 perimeter there even though you don’t see them. I think what is being proposed is a very good
5 compromise to try and meet everyone’s needs. We have spent the summer going over numerous,
6 numerous plans and many iterations to come up with a solution that is amenable to everyone.
7 While not all of us got everything we want we really have finally come to a good compromise.
8 So I just recommend that you pass it so that we can get these courts built so that they can be used
9 for the children as well as the City.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
It is important for the kids because Terman has a very unusual culture of play. It started out as
just a sixth grade and they did what they do in elementary school, which is play. Then the next
year you have a seventh grade and they see the seventh graders play. We are seeing the same
thing again in droves with the sixth, seventh and eighth. So I think it is not typical of a normal
middle school where kids are kind of hanging out and everybody is being cool. They really are
out there and very, very active. So we really appreciate your support and consideration. Thank
you so much for your time this evening, I appreciate it.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Teri. Martha Bowden please.
Ms. Martha Bowden, 27833 Saddle Court, Los Altos Hills: Hi I am Co-President of the Terman
t~A with Teri. I have a seventh grade son who last year played on the Terman basketball team
and he also plays NJB basketball. So he is on two basketball teams and they both start
November first. Including all the revisions of the different proposals that have come before the
Parks and Recreation Committee, the City Council there must have been when you consider the
A, B and C revisions of different proposals there must have been at least a dozen proposals that
we have looked at. While none of them are ideal for all parties we have all worked together, the
City, the school district and the neighbors have all worked together to come up with an
acceptable proposal, one that is acceptable for everyone. This is the one that you see before you.
We realize that this process does take time but we want to impress on you that time is very
important. I mention that the basketball programs start November first, these basketball courts
will not be in place then even with this accelerated schedule. What that means is that for at least
part or maybe all of the basketball season that the kids will have to practice in consecutive time
slots. This means there are going to have to be numerous trips to and from school. There is
going to be more traffic on Arastradero Road because parents are going to have to drive back and
forth multiple times to get their kids to practice. It also means inconvenience for the parents
because we do have to drive back and forth multiple times. It also means less ability for the
community to use the facilities that are part of the Terman School, the indoor gym. This is going
to be totally booked because of this bottleneck of just having one outdoor basketball court and
one indoor basketball court.
We have a possibility of having up to 12 basketball teams, four per grade, and two for each
gender in each grade. Last year we had an A team and a B team for both boys and girls. So
there could be 120 kids involved in basketball starting November first. I would like to see all of
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
them being able to participate. So we urge you to approve this and quickly so we can move
forward. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Martha. Our next speaker is Kerman Dion and Kerman appears not to
be here. How about Michael Maurier. Michael you may want to repronounce your name for me.
Mr. Michael Maurier, 646 Fairmede Avenue, Palo Alto: I live in the Green Acres I
neighborhood that abuts the property at the northeast. In my email today which some of you
may have seen I pretty much stated what we have to say. This has been a long exhaustive
process with the neighborhood that was involved in the development of the original Terman Site
Specific Plan. We follow it very closely and are in favor of this plan and its amendment. We
hope at this stage that you will proceed expeditiously to approve it as presented.
One of the things that we have witnessed in the past summer is people arguably doing their very
best to come up with new and innovative solutions and come off with wild tangents and propose
interesting excursions into additional work and thrashing around. It has pretty well been
covered. On of the things in my humble estimation we would appreciate it if we could get on
with this. This has all been done under a very tight timeline. We have been attempting to do
what we can on our end to make it as expeditious as possible so the kids have some place to play
sooner rather than later. I was one of the students by the way that was one of the first graduating
classes of Terman that spent its first year at Cubberly as a certain amount of dawdling and
fiddling around and a late school start and so on. So I have kind of been down the road with
Terman before so I hope things will proceed expeditiously in this case. We did what we could to
make it move briskly along.
If you have technical questions at this stage one of the grim discoveries that we made was that in
certain circumstance the Staff of the City couldn’t say anything unless they were asked specific
questions. So we hope you will, if you have questions, ask them that they may have a chance to
respond if you have additional questions. That is pretty well it. We have done what we can and
look forward to assisting the schools downstream. The City Council, the neighborhoods, the
schools, the Parks and Recreation, those that were most intimately involved with this site and its
future have done their very best to achieve a compromise and it wasn’t easy. The people who
have to live with the results the longest have done what they can to put it before you so we hope
you will proceed accordingly. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. We have a question for you Michael. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Michael, I see in your comments that you stated you are a Board Member
of the Green Acres I Neighborhood Association. Are your comments the comments of the
organization?
Mr. Maurier: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, so they have been approved by your Board?
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Maurier: We have members that are designated if you will as the Terman Basketball
Committee of that Board.
Commissioner Burt: How many people are part of the neighborhood association?
Mr. Maurier: We have 88 homes I understand in the neighborhood, of those I would say at any
given time you get half or so, maybe better, participating in any decision. We have had 30 to 40
at the meetings we’ve held. The ones that participated on their general desires in this regard and
proceeded accordingly and that shaped our decisions in the discussion of what we presented.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Our final speaker is Cathy Kroymann.
Ms. Cathy Kroymann, 1 Somerset Place, Palo Alto: I am here this evening as Palo Alto Unified
School District Board Member and I would like to thank you very much for scheduling this extra
meeting to deal with this issue. I know that you are hearing from us a sense of urgency this
evening but I want you to know that we have been at this for nearly a year, our staff working
with your staff. It has just been a very complex situation dealing with all the different interested
parties and coming up with a solution that worked for everyone. I think you have heard from
several folks here this evening, your own Parks and Recreation people and the neighborhood
association and our parent community, our school staff that we do believe we now have a plan
that is compromise that meets the needs of all the interested parties. Our staff and our Board
president met several times with members of the neighborhood and they were very clear in their
desire to have the park space preserved especially that area near the Glenbrook gate and to keep
the basketball courts and tennis courts away from the homes as much as possible both in that
Glenbrook area and behind the sound wall on the edge of the school district property along
Pomona. I strongly urge you to look at this very favorably this evening and to pass it so that we
can move as quickly as possible. I did download some information from the City website today
from Parks and Recreation and it lists their basketball season, the registration deadline as
October 31. This is for Terman Middle School so I am not sure where they are going to schedule
all of the games and practices for Terman but in order for them to be able to run a progam that is
comparable to the programs at the other middle schools for the other sections of the community,
both the north and the south, we do need to move as quickly as possible with these tennis courts.
I want to thank you very much for your time this evening and for giving this serious
consideration. We really appreciate the extra effort on your part. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Are there any questions? Pat, did you have a question? Then what I
would like to do at this stage is ask the applicant if they if they would like to make any wrap-up
comments at all, Bob? You are not obliged I am just offering the opportunity.
Mr. Golton: Simply to say that again we appreciate your time in meeting here tonight. We
really thank you for your consideration.
Commissioner Bellomo: I have a question.
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Yes, Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: Is the landscape architect present that came up with this scheme?
Mr. Golton: Yes, our friend Nick Morisco from CSS is here and he is available to respond to
questions.
Commissioner Bellomo: I have a couple of questions.
Chair Griffin: Welcome.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thanks, just a couple of quick questions. The fencing on the perimeter
does it go through to separate the basketball courts in the short direction?
Mr. Nick Morisco, Landscape Architect, CSS: Yes it does. Basically the intension is to make
the fenced area contiguous, completely contiguous.
Commissioner Bellomo: Contiguous but does it go through the short direction? In other words
does it cut-through the 115-foot length or the 114-foot through direction?
Mr. Morisco: Can you point out exactly where you mean? There are a couple of short directions
up there. We are going to maintain the existing fencing between the tennis courts and basketball
courts.
Commissioner Bellomo: So there is no fencing between ....
Mr. Morisco: Here?
Commissioner Bellomo: No the other way.
Mr. Morisco: This way?
Commissioner Bellomo: That way there.
Mr. Morisco: No fencing at all, all open space.
Commissioner BelIomo: Then fencing between the tennis courts and the basketball courts?
Mr. Morisco: Existing fencing remains all we have to do is cut in a couple of gates so that there
is more communication between the courts.
Commissioner Bellomo: There is existing fencing between those courts and the other courts
presently?
Mr. Morisco: That is correct.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Bellomo:
Mr. Morisco: Yes.
Commissioner Bellomo:
Okay, so that wilt be maintained.
Did you look at anything in the way of refuge, like shade refuge or
landscaping through the short direction or any landscape elements or just refuge areas for shade?
Mr. Morisco: It is not exactly consistent with what I think the district needs are in terms of
maintaining as much open space to form programs and also it is important to keep good sight
lines available for supervision from the interior of campus.
Commissioner Bellomo: No, I wasn’t mentioning sight lines or ADA accessibility. I was just
talking about refuge spaces that provide shade.
Mr. Morisco: It is actually along here there are several fairly mature redwoods that provide a fair
amount of shade.
Commissioner Bell0mo: But you have to get through the fence to get to them too. In other
words you have to kind of separate yourself from the cage and move yourself outside. I was just
wondering if you considered it that was the question.
Mr. Morisco: It was never on the table for consideration really.
Commissioner Bellomo: Okay, thank you.
Chair Griffin: Unless there are any more questions at this stage I am going to close the public
hearing and bring the item back to the desk for the Commissioners to discuss. If you would like
to start and ask a question of Staff now is the time. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I presume and I may be wrong since the architect was speaking that I would
ask this question of our Parks and Recreation Staff about the surfacing on this ground. Would it
be all hardscape or some that can be hard but pervious.
Mr. Thilt~en: That is basically going to be hardscape is what we are talking about.
Vice-Chair Cassel: There is no way to get water through any of that or put any of the new
surfaces on it that provide both?
Mr. Thiltgen: You would have to ask the architect we haven’t presumed that that would happen.
It would be consistent with the hardscape on the existing tennis courts now is what they are
planning to do.
Vice-Chair Cassel: And you have space around the baseball diamond and things and all of that
is just plain hardscape?
Mr. Thiltgen: Yes.
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
Vice-Chair Cassel: You haven’t considered anything to avoid the imperious portions of that?
Mr. Thilt.,,en: We actually know that this does reduce the amount area was drainage that was
grass but we also looked into the consideration that we were accommodating an additional use
on that site and trying to retain all the other uses and that was the best way for us to
accommodate that and to accommodate the drainage off of the rest of the site as well.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Just a follow up question on that. So when you refer to accommodating the
drainage off of that site what measures have been taken?
Mr. Thiltgen: There is some additional drainage that is going to have to be put in and I would
have to have the architect talk about that. Right now we have basically sheet drainage that goes
from one direction down into the area where the parking area is and that is where the water
always used to flow so we are going to have to create some new drainage as a part of the
renovation that they are going to make with the basketball courts.
Commissioner Burt: So do I understand correctly that all of the drainage is going to be offsite in
a storm drainage there is no additional effort that percolates or anything?
Mr. Thiltgen: Obviously we have percolation through the turf and all of that area will percolate
but there are still excessive water areas where you have heavy rains that we need to
accommodate as it flows off of the ~ass and off of the asphalt.
Commissioner Burt: So what I am referring to is if we have created additional hardscape and we
have additional runoff are there any mitigation measures to reduce the impact of that runoff?
Mr. Lusardi: As the Director pointed out there are existing storm drains in the open space area,
in the turf area, that this could accommodate. The addendum to the EIR points out that the
increase in impervious areas less than 33% or 25%, which is a moderate increase and doesn’t
result in a significant impact in increase of pervious area. Preliminary reviews by the Public
Works Department have indicated that they would prefer that the sheet flow come off of the
impervious area and into the turf and not into the storm drains. They think there is enough open
space there to actually percolate and capture the additional runoff and they would prefer that at
this point.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question that is more process and procedural it doesn’t go to the
substance of what is before us. I don’t want it to delay anything by my asking this. We have the
Specific Plan that describes and relates to a situation that because of the exchange of the
ownership of the lands doesn’t apply anymore. I understand our zoning ordinances don’t apply
to school district lands. So I just wondered while we are changing one part of this Plan if it were
appropriate and if it is not tell me, first to suggest that there also be somehow an amendment to
the Plan that reflects the existing ownership of the property so that there is so much of the Plan
that doesn’t apply anymore because of the change of ownership.
Page11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Nellie Ancel, Assistant City Attorney: I think we agee there is a lot in that plan that doesn’t
reflect reality at this point. Any modification that you did to show the school ownership that was
in the context of the Plan I think would be considered an amendment to the Plan and you would
need to come back. The Director of Planning and I were talking about other ways in which we
can acknowledge that this is a school use that is not subject to the Specific Plan at this point. We
could have a Staff handout that goes with the Specific Plan, we could do something on the
Zoning Map or we could put a recital or a finding in the resolution that the Council adopts
acknowledging that. So there are other ways I think to address your concern at this point.
Otherwise I do think Staff would need to come back and we would have to agendize an
amendment to the Plan.
Chair Griffin; I would like to ask a clarification on the issue of the Joint Use Ageement
between the City and the Palo Alto Unified School District. It is not part of our purview tonight
to be involved with discussing this Joint Use Agreement, is that the case?
Ms. Ancel: Yes that is correct. When this comes back to the Council we are going to include an
amendment to the Joint Use Agreement to deal with the use of the new basketball courts. At that
time it will be addressed with maintenance and when the school and when the City have access
to those areas.
Chair Griffin: But it is not a PTC item this evening.
Ms. Ancel: Right, that is correct.
Chair Griffin: Karen, did you have a question?
Commissioner Holman: That mostly answered my question. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: Just a quick question to Staff. Does a project like this typically go to
the Architectural Review Board?
Mr. Lusardi: The surface area you are talking about as far as the improvements is approximately
seven to eight thousand square feet, however, there are no structures involved in this. What has
happened is we have gone to the Architectural Review Board subcommittee and asked them for
some preliminary observations on the project but typically we would consider this a Staff level
architectural review. Absent any other project or any other project review Specific Plan
amendment this would be a Staff leve! architectural review.
Commissioner Bellomo: What were the comments John from the committee or did they have
any?
Mr. Lusardi: The primary comments were addressing the alternatives and how the Staff arrived
at this configuration as far as the use of the courts and how it relates to other recreational uses on
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
the park and on the school site. I don’t believe they saw this alternative at that time. They saw
the previous iterations that the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed. Their comments
were similar to how we arrived at this conclusion.
Commissioner Bellomo:- So they did not see this scheme and they did not speak to any drainage
or landscape issues around this scheme then?
Mr. Lusardi: I think they did address those kinds of questions. Again, the landscaping as we
addressed here addresses to the extent that we can given where we are putting the paving and
where we have ADA access requirements and the existing landscaping areas as far as the
pervious surface material they asked about that how it related to the other recreational uses there.
They did ask questions such as lighting and how the basketball courts would be used over and
above the school use.
Commissioner Bellomo: So this improvement is paid for by the City of Palo Alto Parks? Where
is this paid from?
Mr. Thilt~en: It is a joint project between the City and the school district.
Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I was reviewing the letter from School Board Member Mandy Lowell and
on the second page there were a couple of points made about kind of some offsetting public
recreational benefits. One refers to the City and public use of the Terman pool during the
summer and specified periods. Can Staff comment on that? As I recall in our latest budget
funding was eliminated, if I am remembering correctly, for Jordan School use of the pool in the
summer. First, is that correct and second is the City planning on utilizing this Terman pool for
public use during those times?
Mr. Thilt,~en: One you are absolutely correct we did eliminate the Jordan funding and the reason
for that was lack of use predominantly plus we had to make a cut so we took where our least use
was. The second thing we did was we have not yet made a decision whether to use Gunn or
Terman. It will depend and we are cooperating with the JCC on the use of facilities during the
summer. Frankly, we haven’t gotten around to starting to plan our summer schedule yet. We
have used Gunn over the years and whether we use Gunn or Terman that would be a progam
decision made by the Recreation Staff later on in this winter. We do plan a pool program at that
end of town.
Commissioner Burt: The gymnasium would be used widely by the public?
Mr. Thilt,~en: Yes. We have an agreement with both the school district and the JCC for shared
use of that facility. When the JCC took over part of Cubberly and got a gym, they originally had
an ageement with the school district to have first priority after them and then they signed over
Page13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
that we have priorities the times that we generally schedule program, after the school has first
priority. We are always second to the school.
Commissioner Burt: Then it is also noted that in the exch~inge of land at Terman for land at
Cubberly the City obtained ownership of tennis courts at Cubberly. Did that result in any change
in the effective use of tennis courts or was that simply an ownership change issue?
Mr. Thilt~en: Basically an ownership change. We were already using those tennis courts as a
part of our lease use.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Are you ready to accept a motion being made?
Chair Griffin: Yes. I thought you might have a question but we would take a motion.
MOTION (7-0-0-0)
Commissioner Bialson: If no one else has a question I would move that we approve the
application of the school district to amend the Terman Specific Plan to reduce the number of
tennis courts from four to two and that will allow for construction of four basketball courts and
related site improvements and that we adopt the resolutions attached to our Staff Report,
Attachment A and Attachment B.
Chair Griffin: Do I have a second?
SECOND
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will second it.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis seconds. Would you like to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Bialson: I think we have seen that a tot of effort and time has gone into this
matter and there is no need to start second-guessing at this point and I think it has been studied
very well. I am impressed by the compromises that have been made and I think all the issues
that we could possibly address have been addressed already. So I would want to move this
forward in a timely fashion to Council.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I also feel that much work has been done in a great dea! of detail both at the
City Council and other meetings. I think it is important based on some other comments that have
been made to me about our deliberations that we point out that we have looked at the other
alternatives, and I have looked at the other alternatives and I tried to figure out other ways it
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
might be done so we keep the tennis courts, I sat in at the City Council meetings quite by
accident but I did and listened through several proposals and a geat deal of discussion by the
City Council and I couldn’t see any other alternatives that would meet the proposals that are
before us. So I feel that this is an adequate proposal or an adequate compromise on everyone’s
part. I didn’t see that it would impact the traffic in any way. The neighbors don’t seem to be
overly concerned about the potential impacts of noise.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I would like to add to what my esteemed colleagues are saying that I am
very pleased to see this wonderful compromise worked out. I want to thank the efforts of the
PTA. Of course I have to thank the PTA because I am a PTA member. I think they do a great
job supporting the.needs of the children at the school. I visited Terman yesterday and walked
around and saw the kids playing in the courts and around the whole area. It is just a wonderful
place. It is wonderful to see that site being used again as a middle school. It is a lovely park and
I could see that the basketball will just add to the value of that park by having an additional kind
of use will just be again a lively place for both the students and at the appropriate time the public
to use. So I just again want to thank everybody for working with what was a difficult situation
for a while but it is going to come to a very happy conclusion.
Chair Griffin: Pat, do you have any comments? Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: I do have one comment. I am very much in support of the project and
adding play spaces and this type of space but what strikes me being out there today was the
opportunity presented with landscape and with enhancement of open space. I think when I see a
37,000 square foot total approximately of hardscape it always brings it to my attention how can
you mitigate such a hard and heat island for children. I played a lot of basketball in Palo Alto
from seven years old to not too long ago and I know how important it is to have places of refuge
and how important it is to have shade and mitigate that. As a kid you don’t care but I do think as
a park and as adding this additional space, hardscape, I do think that there was an opportunity to
create nodes. Budget aside, I am just talking about what is best, the big picture not immediate,
yes you need to get this open November first, I understand that I don’t want to be in any way
placing this requirement on you now. I am not going there but I do think there is a missed
opportunity here from a land use and from a design standpoint. Other than that I am in support
of the project but there is something missing when I see 115 by 300 foot area. In the 1950s I
would say go for it because that is what they are doing but I do think it should be done
differently today. So other than that that is where I find difficulty with this plan.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I guess upon hearing Joe’s comments I think I would like to concur and
encourage that the district and the Staff explore whether within the context of this plan there are
some remaining opportunities to create some of the refuge spots and concepts that Joe was
referring to. I would not attempt in the midst of our meeting to make any specific
recommendations as to where or how those could occur but it does seem to be that this may be
an area that still has potential. It is minor tweaking of the Plan and that could be done between
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
our Staff and the school district staff and look for those opportunities. I don’t think it is cast in
stone that this fundamentally sound plan is refined in every aspect possible and I would like to
just support further exploration of those opportunities.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I will support the motion and I do want to agree and support the
comments that Commissioners Bellomo and Burt have just made. I would add to that the issue
that Commissioner Bellomo raised earlier which is the issue of percolation off those courts rather
than the water running off into storm drains. So I would like to add that into the considerations.
One other comment I think is appropriate and Chair Griffin referenced it earlier, this project has
taken an unusual course in that it went to the Council before us. I think it would be prudent just
to acknowledge that that is the case and that there are still issues of access and usage that are still
out there. They are not what is before us tonight but I think it is important given the situation
with the dedicated parkland that we just acknowledge that those are out there, they have been
well vetted at Council and that situation still exists.
Chair Griffin: I too will support the measure. It is not often that we have issues gift wrapped
like this but I will take it. I am also pleased that we were able to develop a plan here that was
satisfactory to the neighbors and that there is sufficient mitigation of noise impacts so that the
tranquility of the surrounding neighborhood is protected. I think that is important.
At this stage I am going to call for the question. I am not going to call for the question.
Commissioner Bellomo: I would like to just suggest a friendly amendment to the motion. That
is that there is without subjecting this from process or from detaining the constructabiltiy is that
the landscape architects or designers and Staff look or areas that could be kind of site
enhancement to a desert of hardscape. It is a football field.
Commissioner Bialson: Could you phrase that in a less harsh way?
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Bellomo: Could there be areas of pervious area looked at within the bounds of
the tennis and basketball area that could be additional pervious area or landscape zones?
Commissioner Bialson: Nothing with regard to shade?
Commissioner Bellomo: That could provide shade and runoff.
Commissioner Bialson: I would accept that amendment.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will too.
MOTION PASSED
Page 16
ATTACHMENT J Mandy Lowe!l
1423 Ham, ilton Ave.
Pa!o A!to, CA_ 94301
October !, 2003
P!anvSng and Transportation Committee
250 _Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Com-_m__~ssion Members:
! am unable to attend your specia! meeting tonight, but am w~ting to comfibute a
few items of information that have arisen in the many community meetings ! have
attended on this subject.
Fkst, thank you for making time for this specia! meeting. As you know, in 2000 and
200!, our community had extensive digcussions about the need and location for a
third middle school, and the Terman site was dete__rmined to be the best choice. This
basketba!l court issue is an important step in the opening of the third middle schoo~
which was the basis for the compficated land swap agreement in which the
obtained ownership of land at Cubberley, and the community obtained rights to
increased use of the Terman school buildings. Thank you for disrupting your
schedules to have a specia! meeting on the Terman site.
Second, The Terman park dedication states that the land "is hereby reserved for
park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes." Municipal Code 22.08.370.
The installation of additional basketbal! courts is _fully consist.ent .with that park
dedication.
Third, the proposa! before you tonight has been carefully considered and discussed
at many public meetings. I have attended several meetings with members of the
neighborhood near the Glenbrook gate. In addition, schoo! staff-have had extensive
discussions with City staff Tennis advocates have spoken at various meetings.
Residents of Barton Park have provided input. Numerous layouts and locations for
courts were discussed. The benefits and detriments of several plans were analyzed.
The attractive park surroundings and quality of the ex’i’sting tennis courts were
described. The importance of maintaining the .two mccer fields and the availability
of tennis con~.s at numerous other !ocations throughout the city were addressed.
Neighborhood priorities in confignring the space were avoiding new courts, tennis
or basketba!!, near the G!enbrook gate or in the Pomona sotmd wall area, preserving
green space, and preserving trees. In discussing our respective interests, the dL~rict
and the neighbors were able to reach consensus on reducing the number of tennis
courts and building additional basketball courts toward the center of the parcel. The
plan you are reviewing tonight incorporates ne’~mhborhood, commtmity, and schoo!
priorities.
Fourth, the Terman Specific Plan was written when the buildings were to be used
primarily by the JCC. The circumstances today are different. The buildings are used
as a public school As part of the agreement to enable that use, the City and the
School district agreed to many joint uses of facilities. The City will run an after
school basketball program. During the .summer and other specified periods, the City
and the public will have use of the Terman pool and gymnasium and other Terman
facilities. At the time that the Specific Plan was dra~ed, the number ofyonth in the
surrounding neighborhoods had been declining, but the portion of youth in Palo Alto
is now increasing. Moreover, in the exchange of land at Terman for land at
Cubberley, the City obtained ownership of tennis courts at Cubberley. Approving
this small amendment to the Terman Specific PlaI~ reducing the number of tennis
courts from four to two, facilitates the package of compromises that was agreed
upon several years ago.
Fifth, although often referred to as a baseball field, you may want to ask your staffif
the field is regulation size. My understanding is that the current field is considered a
practice field. Iu any event, the baseball diamond, as shown in the proposa!, is not
being significantly moved, but just slightly reoriented.
Finally, I think that you wi_ll be pleased to learn that from a tran~ortation
standpoint~ locating the third middle schoo! near neighborhoods has resafited in more
students biking and walking. The City staffworked with our PTA and staffon safe
commute routes. A survey of students revealed that over 60 percent arrived at school
by bike, foot, or public transportation.
Aga~ in~ thank you for yottr time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mandy Lowell a member of the PAUSD
school board
ATTACHMENT K
Park Facilities Improvements (PG00010)
Continuing --Infrastructure: Parks and Open Space
(FORMERLY PROJECT #10010)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project will upgrade and/or renovate playground areas, picnic areas, athletic fields, park benches, bleachers, soft-
ball outfield and soccer field fencing, irrigation systems, and signs in City parks.. This project also provides for lighting
repair and improvements in parks, as well as sign and pathway repairs at community centers, libraries, and fire stations
and City tennis and basketball court resurfacing projects. At Terman Park, there will be two tennis courts converted
to basketball courts, two new basketball courts constructed, and the baseball field will be realigned.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
This project will enhance the safety, quality, and condition of City parks and facilities as well as address legal and gov-
ernmental mandates. Playground areas have old or ADA inaccessible play equipment. Additionally, lighting does not
exist in most parks and where it does, fixtures are old and replacement parts are not available. Park and other facility
pathways are in need of repair due to base failures, lack of maintenance, and tree root invasion. Picnic areas are old and
dilapidated and are not accessible to persons with disabilities. Signage and fences are also in need of refurbishment or
replacement. The reopening of Terman School requires additional basketball courts to meet the needs of a ne~v
student population.
PROJECT STATUS
Park renovations at three parks and renovation at the Baylands Athletic Center. These projects are estimated to be com-
pleted in September 2003.
Park Facilities Improvements (PG00010)
continued
lP
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FISCAL YEAR
PY Budget
PY Actuals
Actuals As Of
Date
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
AMOUNT
$1,915,450
$1,382,114
12/31/02
$1,073,000
$1,132,000
$1,160,000
$1,158,000
$1,085,000
COMPONENTS
Baylands Athletic Center irrigation and drainage; Terman Park Basketball
courts; Briones Park maintenance repairs; miscellaneous Community Centers
walkways, fencing, trash receptacles, benches.
Baylands Athletic Center fencing, netting, field equipment; Cameron, Mayfield,
Monroe, Weisshaarr Parks irrigation, paths, benches; miscellaneous Community
Centers walkways, fencing, trash receptacles, benches.
Boulware, Cogswell, Hoover maintenance renovations. Rinconada Park mainte-
nance renovations and lighting repairs.
Hopkins, Ramos, Terman Parks, Lytton Plaza maintenance and renovations;
miscellaneous community center walkways, benches, fences, trash receptacles,
etc.
E1 Camino, Peers, Wallis parks renovations; miscellaneous benches, signs and
fencing at community facilities.
Sources of Funding: General Fund and Infrastructure Reserve (City and PAUSD have agreed to share costs on
the Terman Basketball courts construction at 50 percent each up to a maximum of $50,000 from PAUSD.)
IMPACT AND SUPPORT ANALYSIS
¯Environmental:
¯Design Elements:
¯Operating:
¯Telecommunications:
Categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
Site and design review by the ARB, PTC, and City Council are required for all projects in
the Baylands. Project should be coordinated with the updated Baylands Master Plan and
pending Design Guidelines.
Improvements have historically resulted in increased maintenance costs (TBD).
None
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This project furthers Policies C-22, C-24, C-26, C-32 and Program C-19 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Managing Department: Community Services
2
ATTACHMENT L
RESOLUTION NO 2003-04.12
RESOLUTION OF THE PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVING
AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TERMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL REOPENING
WHEREAS; the Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Education (the "Board")
prepared and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Terman Middle School
Reopening (the "EIR") and adopted mitigation measures and a monitoring program
pursuant to Resolution No. 16/02 adopted on March 12, 2002; and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2003, the Board approved Resolution #2003-04.01, which was
an addendum to the previously certified EIR; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2003, the Board approved Resolution #2003-04.2 and
Resolution #2003-04.3, which made further updates to the previously approved EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that there are modifications required to the project
as described in the EIR in order to accommodate the needs of the students at Terman
Middle School, these modifications being the need to construct additional basketball
courts on the Terman Parkland; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that a subsequent EIR is not required for the
modifications to the project because
a) the changes to the project do not cause significant environmental effects
or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified effects;
b) there have not been substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; and
c) the Board has not received new information that shows that the project
will have significant effects not previously disclosed in the EIR, significant effects
previously examined will be substantially more severe than as shown in the EIR,
mitigation measures or alternatives which are different from those analyzed in the EIR
would substantially reduce one or more significant effects.
The Addendum to the EIR attached to this Resolution provides additional information to
support the above findings.
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that an Addendum to the EIR discussing the
modification to the Project is the appropriate environmental review for the modification
to the Project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and
WHEREAS, the Board had reviewed and considered the information included in the
Addendum to the EIR attached hereto and incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board hereby finds and certifies that the
Addendum to the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR
Guidelines and the Local Guidelines; that the Addendum to the EIR adequately addresses
the environmental issues of the contemplated modification to the Project; that the Board
has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum to the EIR; and
that the Addendum to the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Board and the
Board hereby adopts the attached Addendum to the EIR.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting
of the School Board held on September 15, 2003, by Boardmember .~tDT~Z’?
who moved its adoption and passage by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:None
ABSTAINED:None
ABSENT:None
Barton, Price, Tuomy, Lowell, Kroymann
Mandy’L~well, President
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum
to the
Terman Middle School Reopening
Environmental Impact Report
(SCH No. 2001062108)
September 15, 2003
Palo Alto Unified School District
25 Churchill Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Prepared by:
Thomas Reid Associates
560 Waverly Street, Suite 201
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)327-0429
www.traenviro.com
Table of Contents
II.
m.
A.
B.
1.
3.
C.
IV.
i
Table of Contents
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................I-1
Project Description ..............................................................................................................II- 1
Project Impacts ...............................................................................................................HI- 1
Impact Summary ............................................................................................................HI- 1
Noise Impacts Described in Terman EIR ......................................................................HI-4
Environmental Setting ...............................................................................................III-4
Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..............................................................................III-8
Noise Impact, Revised Analysis 2003 .........................................................................III-10
References, Persons Contacted, and Report Preparers ...........................................: ......IV-1
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location ..........................................................................................................II-3
Figure 2. Existing Layout ..........................................................................................................II-4
Figure 3. Proposed Layout .........................................................................................................II-5
List of Tables
Table HI-1. Potentially Impacted Environmental Resources ....................................................III-1
Table HI-2. Representative Sound Levels at Basketball Court ...............................................HI-11
Table ILI-3. Neighborhood Sound Level Statistics Compared with Basketball Court ...........HI-12
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September !5, 2003
~troducdon ~
INTRODUCTION
The Terman Middle School site is located at 661 A_rastradero Road, Palo Alto, California (Figure
1). On March 12, 2002, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board of Education
(BOE) approved the Terman Middle School Reopening Project. Renovation of the school site
has been underway since that time, and the school reopened in August 2003. The PAUSD issued
an Initial Study for the project in January 2001. The Terman Middle School Reopening Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was issued in September 2001, and the Final EIR was issued
in February 2002. The PAUSD BOE certified the Draft and Final EIRs (collectively the Terman
EIR) on March 12, 2002.
The PAUSD determined that the available basketball courts will not adequately meet the needs
of the school and proposed to reconfigure the adjacent play fields to add basketball courts. The
PAUSD has previously considered two possible basketball court layouts: Schemes 3R and 2A.
Scheme 3R proposed constructing additional basketball courts along the northern edge of the
play fields (near Glenbrook Drive). Scheme 2A proposed constructing four basketball courts in
the current location of two tennis courts and an existing berm and constructing two tennis courts
along the northern edge of the play fields (near Glenbrook Drive). Addenda to the Terman EIR
addressing these possible layouts were prepared on July 11, 2003, and August 8, 2003. The
PAUSD is now considering a revised version of Scheme 2A. This Addendum addresses Scheme
2A (Revised).
The project analyzed in the Terman E!R consisted of renovating and reopeni~n, g existing facilities
on 7.97 acres of the 15.63-acre former Terman Middle School site and using the adjoining
dedicated parkland (Terman Park) for middle school activities (see page lIl-1 of the Terman
EIR). Although use of the playfields and other park facilities were considered part of the project,
the Terman EIR did not contemplate physical change to the parkland. This Addendum addresses
physical change to a portion of Terman Park for court construction.
Construction of the basketball courts is a project subject to environmental review through the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The PAUSD is the lead agency for the project.
The PAUSD has reviewed information developed for the project (including a site plan and noise
study) and determined that the project would not result in any new significant environmental
effects that were not identified in the Terman EIR or a substantial increase in the seventy of
previously identified significant effects described in the Terman EIR. This Addendum is thus
being prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. The PAUSD will consider this
Addendum along with the Terman EIR prior to making a decision on the basketball court project.
The City of Palo Alto (the City) is a responsible agency for the project. If the project is to be
constructed, the City must take two actions: 1) Amend the Terman Specific Plan, and 2) Adopt a
Park Improvement Ordinance. The City will consider this Addendum along with the Terman
EIR prior to making a decision on those actions.
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Description I1-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Terman Middle School gym has two indoor basketball courts. The adjacent play fields,
which are not part of the Terman Middle School property, have one basketball court (Figure 2).
The PAUSD and the City of Palo Alto (the City) have entered into a joint use agreement
allowing the use of the play fields, including the basketball court. The PAUSD has identified the
following requirements for the site’s basketball courts:
¯Adequate facilities relative to enrollment
¯Equity among Middle School campuses
¯Security and safety via adequate supervision and clear boundaries
¯Hard courts grouped together for effective Physical Education instruction
The three available courts do not adequately meet these needs. The PAUSD proposes to develop
four basketball courts in the current location of two tennis courts and an existing berm (Figure
3). Two existing tennis courts would be resurfaced for basketball, and the new basketball courts
would be contiguous with the two remaining existing courts. Two tennis courts would thus be
displaced. The project would create four full basketball courts and retain two tennis courts. The
project would require a slight reconfiguration of one of the soccer fields. This soccer field is
currently oversize and would still be regulation-sized once reconfigured. The location of the
existing baseball diamond would also be slightly shifted.
The exact timing of court construction is not finalized, but the project could likely be completed
in less than one month (N. Morisco, pers. comm.). All construction would occur during the
hours prescribed by the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 9.10). As per the
Terman EIR, BMPs would be implemented requiring that all construction vehicles have
appropriate mufflers and prohibiting construction personnel from using radios outside of
enclosed vehicles.
The total area of ground disturbance would be approximately 8,000 square feet (N. Morisco,
pers. comm.). An existing berm between the tennis courts and baseball diamond would be
removed. Because the site is not entirely level, grading and some fill (less than 600 cubic yards
of fill material) would be required (-N. Morisco, pers. comm.). The project would implement
standard control measures to ensure dust from construction is minimized. Such measures would
include, as needed, watering the bare soil area, ensuring all trucks hauling soil or other loose
materials are covered or have at least two feet of freeboard, and sweeping all paved access roads
(BA_AQMD 1999). Some of the existing irrigation and drainage system would be relocated out
from under the new basketball courts. Drainage from the courts would be directed into the
existing storm drain system. No trees would need to be removed.
Because school would be in session while construction is occurring, the PAUSD would develop
a Construction Safety Plan to ensure that the project does not present a hazard to Terman
students, faculty, and other school and park users. The PAUSD has several years of experience
in developing such plans due to the Building for Ex<:ellence Program. The PAUSD would
consult with a traffic engineer as a part of Safety Plan development. Fencing and other measures
would be implemented as needed maintain safety (A. Lavagnino, pets. comm.).
The new basketball courts would not be lighted. The basketball courts could be used by Terman
students from 7:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. (i.e., during campus hours). As with the rest of the play
fields, the City’s Recreation Department would manage the use of the basketball courts during
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Pain Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Description 11-2
non-school hours for Terman Middle School athletic events. According to Chris Neier, City of
Palo Alto Recreation Coordinator, the after school basketball program runs from the beginning
of November through the fn’st week of April. Practices are typically held from the end of the
school day through 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Games, which may also be held Monday
through Friday, would be held in the gym. Teams might practice on the outdoor courts prior to
games, but due to limited daylight during basketball season such practices would only last until
about 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. The City does not anticipate using the new courts for any other sports
(C. Neier, pets. comm.). The courts would be available to the rest of the community during non-
school hours when not booked for Middle School or City events (A. Lavagnino, pers. comm.),
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Description
Figure 1. Project Location
Source: Thomas Bros. ~,,1aps ~I 998; Thomas Refd Aasoc. 2000
11-3
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Description
Figure 2. Existing Layout
11-4
P A U S D 15~s~ng Condilions
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Description
Figure 3. Proposed Layout
11-5
P A U S D Scheme 2A {i’evi~ed}
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Pale Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Imp acts III- 1
III.PROJECT IMPACTS
A.IMPACT SUMMARY
Table III-1 provides a summary of potential impacts from the basketball court project in
comparison to the effects analyzed in the Terman EIR. This table lists all significant impacts and
mitigation measures listed in the Terman EIR. Chapters V and VII of the Draft Terman EIR
provide detailed discussion of the impacts from the original project. These impacts and
mitigation measures have been compared against the proposed basketball court project (Scheme
2A). Based upon review of the project and comments raised during public meetings, the PAUSD
determined that potential noise impacts warrant further discussion in this Addendum. As
discussed below, the PAUSD has determined that these noise impacts would not be significant.
Table II1-1, Potentially Impacted Environmental Resources
Impacted Impact from Terman EIR Terman EIR Mitigation
Resource Measure
Aesthetics
Agriculture
Air Qualit~
Biology ,
Cultural Resources
New or Substantially
Increased Significant
Impact Not Analyzed
inTerman EIR?
No significant impacts.No mitigation required or
proposed.
No landscape trees
would be removed, and
the courts would not be
lighted. No significant
iimpact would occur.
N~ significant impacts,No mitigation required or !No impact would occur.
prop£sed.
No significant impacts......... No mitigation required or
proposed.
Standard dust control
measures would be
implemented during
grading. No significant
impact would occur.
No significant impacts,No mitigation required or
~roposed.
No sensitive biological
resources exist on the
site, and none would be
affected by the project.
No significant impact
would occur.
No significant impacts.No mitigation requi~ed or
proposed.
The project would entail
minor soil disturbance in
an already developed
site. No impact would
OCCUr.
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Impacts 111-2
Table II1-1.
Impacted
Resource
Potentially Impacted Environmental Resources
Impact from Terman EIR Terman EIR Mitigation
Measure
Geology and Soils
The site could be subject to
"violent" seismic
acceleration. Upon
completion of building
retrofitting in compliance
with state law addressing
seismic hazards, no
significant impacts would
Occur.
~lazards and Hazardous Materials
Upon completion of building
renovation in compliance
with federal law addressing
asbestos hazards, no
significant impacts would
Occur.
Hydrology
Land Use
Mineral R~sources
No mitigation required or
~roposed.
No mitigati’0n required or
proposed.
New or Substantially
Increased Significant
Impact Not Analyzed
in Terman EIR?
The project would entail
minor soil disturbance
and fill on a level site.
No significant impact
would occur.
No impact would occur.
No significant impacts.No mitigation required or
~roposed.
Court drainage would
be directed to existing
storm drains. No
significant impact would
occur. "
The projebt was inconsistent
with the Terman Specific
Plan as to site use by the
Jewish Community Center.
No mitigation was
3rescribed that would
eliminate this inconsistency,
which resulted in a finding of
a significant, unmitigable
impact.
The project would be
consistent with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive
Plan. The project would
not be consistent with
the Terman Specific
Plan as to the number
of tennis courts
available in the park.
Inconsistency with the
Specific Plan was noted
in the Ten-nan EIR. No
new impact would
OCCUr.
No significant impacts.No mitigation required or No impact would occur.
proposed.. ....................
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Impacts 111-3
Table II1-1. Potentiall), Impacted Environmental Resources
Impacted Impact from Terman EIR Terman EIR Mitigation
Resource Measure
qoise
New or Substantially
Increased Significant
Impact Not Analyzed
in Terman EIR?
The project would cause a
minor increase in the Ldn of
the adjacent residential
area, but this increase
would be well below City
standards. Additionally,
noise at the front of the
school may eventually reach
63 dBA due to increased
traffic on Arastradero Road,
but this impact on students
would not be si£1nificant..
Compliance with the City’s
Noise Ordinance and
incorporation of BMPs
would avoid significant
noise impacts during
construction. A sporadic 6
dBA noise increase could
occur and be noticeable at
adjacent residences. Due
to the timing and level of
noise anticipated, this
~mpact would not be
si£1nificant.
Population and Housin£1
No significant impacts.
No mitigation requ’i~ed or
Public Facilities and Recreation
The project would not result
~n the need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities or
cause substantial physical
deterioration of existing
3arks or other recreational
facilities.
proposed.
No mitigation required or
proposed.
No mitigation required or
proposed.
No mitigation required or
The courts would not
cause the noise at
adjacent residences to
exceed the City
standard. No significant
=mpact would occur.
See discussion below.
i Minimal change from
proposed.
existing conditions.
Although noise from the
courts would be
noticeable at adjacent
residences, the periodic
noise increase would
not cause a significant
’impact.
See discussion below.
No impact would occur.
This Addendum
addresses modification
of the Terman play
fields to accommodate
basketball courts for the
school. The project
would eliminate two
tennis courts. More
tennis players may shift
to other courts, such as
at Gunn High School or
Cubberly. No additional
facilities would be
i needed, however, and
the project would not
cause substantial
physical deterioration of
the existing park
facilities. No significant
impact would occur.
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Impacts 111-4 "
Table II1-1.
Impacted
Resource
Pote,ntiall~/Impacted Environmental Resources
Impact from Terman EIR Terman EIR Miti’~ation
Public Facilities Reopening the site as a
and Recreation school would cause the JCC
(cont.)to relocate, which could
itself cause significant
!~mpacts. The Terman EIR
idid not speculate on those
impacts as they were
outside the scope of the
EIR.
I Transportation/Traffic
The existing waiting areas
at each comer of the
Terman/Donald Ddve
intersection with
Arastradero Road may not
safely hold all the students
waitin9 for the lights.
The Terman/Donald Drive
intersection would be a
hazard for the students
crossing the street until
improvements are complete.
Utilities and Service Systems
The project would not affect
utilities and service
systems.
Measure
Any r~’~uired mitig~i’ion for
relocating the JCC would be
outside the PAUSD’s
jurisdiction. No mitigation
proposed.
TRA-1 Prior to reopening
the school, the PAUSD will
work with the City to
improve and expand staging!
areas on all four comers of
the intersection.
TRA-2’" The PAUSE)’ would
not reopen the school until
until the improvements are
complete.
No mitigation required or
proposed.
Cumulative Impacts
No significant cumulative
impacts were identified.
No mitigation required or
proposed.
New or Substantially
Increased Significant
Impact Not Analyzed
in Terman EIR?
No impact would occur.
No impact would occur.
No impact would occur.
Existing storm drains
would adequately
handle the small
amount of drainage
from the additional
hardscape. No
significant impact would
occu r.
iNo impacts would
:OCCUr.
B.NOISE IMPACTS DESCRIBED IN TERMAN EIR
The 2001 Draft EIR contains a comprehensive discussion of potential noise impacts. The
analysis was based on field measurements at the site and of similar school programs. The Noise
section environmental setting and some of the impact discussion apply to the proposed basketball
court addition. For ease of reference, the more relevant text from the 2001 Draft EIR is reprinted
here. This excerpt is not the full EIR text and is included only as a convenient reference for the
reader of this addendum.
1.Environmental Setting
a)Noise Terminology
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is widely recognized as a form of environmental
degradation. The frequency, duration, and intensity of noise contribute to the effect on the
listener. Noise is measured on the logarithmic decibel scale (dB), usually with a frequency
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Pale Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project impacts 111-5
sensitivity that matches the human ear, called "A-weighting." Thus, most environmental
measurements are reported in dBA, meaning decibels on the A-scale. The logarithmic scale
means that a sound level reported as 60 dBA has 10 times the sound energy as a sound with a.
level of 50 dBA; a sound of 63 dBA is twice as loud as a sound of 60 dBA. Human heating
matches the logarithmic A-weighted scale, so that an increase of 3 dB is usually perceptible, and
in a complex noise environment such as along a street, a noise increase of 5 dB is usually
considered perceptible. Conversational speech ranges from 50 to 65 dBA, with levels rising as
the distance between speakers increases or as background noise level rises. Table V-1 [from the
Draft EIR] lists typical outdoor noise levels.
Table V-1. Typical Outdoor Noise Levels
Common noise
Jet flyover at 1000 feet
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
Commercial area at 50 feet (area of rough pavement)
Quiet urban daytime
Quiet urban nighttime
Quiet suburban nighttime
Noise level (dBA)
105
95
75-80
50
40
35
Source: Caltrans Technical Analysis Notes, March 1991
As a sound wave travels away from its source, the energy spreads out in space. Theoretically,
with each doubling of distance from a stationary noise source, the level of sound drops by 6
dBA. For a roadway line source, attenuation is 3 dB for distance doubling. As an example, if
noise from a piece of stationary equipment is measured at 75 dBA at a distance of 100 feet,
theoretically, sound levels will be 69 dBA (75 minus 6) at a distance of 200 feet. In actual
experience, sound often attenuates more over a given distance than the theoretical attenuation
because of non-reflective ground, intervening dense vegetation, or topographic and structural
barriers. Overall noise exposure is described by the CNEL (community noise equivalent level) or
Ldn (Level day-night), which are 24-hour averages with noise in the nighttime period given extra
weight. In calculating the Ldn, a 10 dB penalty is added to noise levels recorded during the
nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The penalty means that a sound level measured as 50
dBA in the middle of the night is counted as though it were 60 dBA for the purpose of
calculating the 24-hour average. These penalties are imposed to account for the increased
annoyance and intrusiveness of evening and nighttime noise on quality of life. The CNEL
average also provides a 5 dB evening penalty from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. In practice the two
measures are essentially the same.
Sound is quantifiable, but merely describing the quantity (loudness) of sound does not always
provide a sufficient picture; the content of a sound, or the qualitative aspect of noise, also
influences its perceived significance. Two sounds with different content at the same loudness
may have a different significance to the listener. Technically, a sound is not considered audible
until its sound level rises above the background noise. If the new sound has a different
characteristic from background noise, such as music or amplified speech, then it may be
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Impacts 111-6
discemable at levels below ambient, particularly if ambient noise varies and includes relatively
quiet periods. If the listener has an adverse association with the sound source, it can be annoying
and will cause public complaint, even though the sound levels are technically low. The EIR
preparer has found that in the case of schools, noise content (or its quality) rather than loudness
is often the cause of a perceived impact.
b)Regulatory Setting
The City of Palo Alto has a noise component in the Natural Environment element of the
Comprehensive Plan as well as a Noise Ordinance, both of which serve to protect the public
from excessive or potentially excessive noise. While the Noise Element is generally used as a
planning guideline, the Noise Ordinance is legally enforceable. In evaluating impacts of the
Terman Middle School, this DEIR considers the standards provided in both the City’s Noise
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan noise component. Applicable noise ordinance sections
and noise element policies are discussed below.
(1)City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance
Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code governs noise sources and levels on residential,
commercial, industrial, and public property. All references to dB in this chapter utilize the A-
level weighting scale (dBA). The following sections are relevant to the proposed project:
9.10.030 Residential property noise limits. (a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be
produced ... on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at
any point outside of the property plane. (b) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be
produced ... on multi-family residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local
ambient three feet from any wall, floor, or ceiling inside any dwelling unit on the same property,
when the windows and doors of the dwelling unit are closed ...
9.10.050 Public property noise limits. (a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be
produced ... on public property, a noise level more than 15 dB above the local ambient at a
distance of 25 feet or more, unless otherwise provided in this chapter. (b) Sound performances
and special events not exceeding 80 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet are exempt from this
chapter when approval therefore has been obtained ....
9.10.060 Special provisions.
(a) General Daytime Exception. Any noise source which does not produce a noise level
exceeding 70 dBA at a distance of 25 feet under its most noisy condition of use shall be exempt
from the provisions of Sections 9.10.030(a) ... and 9.10.050(a) between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8
p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturday, except Sundays and holidays, when
the exemption herein shall apply between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
(19) Construction. Except for construction on residential property as described in subsection (c)
of this section, construction, alteration and repair activities which are authorized by valid city
building permit shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays and shall be prohibited except
between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on
Saturday provided that the construction, demolition or repair activities during those hours meet
the following standards:
(1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a
distance of 25 feet. If the device is housed within a structure on the property, the measurement
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Impacts 111-7
shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as
possible.
(2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 110
dBA.
(3) The holder of a valid construction permit for a construction project in a non-residential zone
shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site upon commencement of construction, for
the purpose of informing all contractors and subcontractors ... of the basic requirements of this
chapter.
(2)Noise Element
The City of Palo Alto uses Ld~ as the basis of its noise standards, which are described in Policies
N-39 and N-41 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise environment table [DEIR (Table V-2)] referred to in Policy N-39 provides the
following standards relevant to the proposed project: [60 dBA Ld~ is normally acceptable for
residential land use.]
Policy N-41 states that the noise impact of a project on existing residential land uses should be
evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community
impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. A project should be considered to cause
a significant degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria (City
of Palo Alto 1998):
The project would cause the Lan to increase by 5.0 dB or more in an existing
residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB;
¯The project would cause the Ld~to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing
residential area, thereby causing the Ld~ in the area to exceed 60 dB;
¯The project would cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential
area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB.
c)Existing Conditions
The EIR consultant, TRA, recorded sound levels for consecutive 15-minute intervals at two
locations on the project site in March 2001 (2:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 21 to 9:45 a.m. Friday,
March 23, 2001). The purpose of this noise study was to measure and interpret existing levels of
noise at the project site. One noise meter was located at the northwest comer of the Terman
Public Library, 130 feet from Arastradero Road, and the other was located along a fence at the
terminus of Glenbrook Drive, just inside the Terman Park boundary [DEIR (Figure V-l)].
Before the noise study began, the two Larson-Davis noise meters were calibrated and
synchronized, and set to use the A-weighted scale. The meters were deployed at 2:30 p.m.
Wednesday, March 21, 2001, and retrieved at 9:45 a.m. on Friday, March 23. The meters
measured noise levels constantly, second-by-second. They were set to analyze the data in
fifteen-minute intervals, calculating average noise levels (LEQ) and other noise statistics,
including L01, L1 O, L50, and Lgo values for each interval. LEQ values are time-weighted
averages, and reflect the average level of sound during the interval for which they are calculated.
L01 values represent the level of sound in dB exceeded one percent of the time interval, L10
values represent the level of sound in dB exceeded 10 percent of the time interval, etc. For 15
minute intervals, the L0! value thus represents the Ievel of sound that was equaled or exceeded
for 9 seconds total during the interva!, and the L10 value represents the level of sound that was
Scheme 2.4 (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Impacts 111-8
equaled or exceeded for 90 seconds total during the interval. Consequently, the L01 and L10
values are good indicators of the loudest noises in an interval; L50 is the median noise level for
an interval, and Lg0 represents the noise level during quiet moments in an interval. In addition,
three 24-hour Ldn values for each location were calculated to summarize the 24-hour noise
environment in each location.
The meters measured noise levels constantly, second-by-second, and then calculated average
noise levels for 15-minute intervals. In addition, L~ values for the 24-hour period of Thursday,
March 22, were calculated for each location. In this period, the La~ at the northwest comer of the
Terman Library, near Arastradero Road, was 61.7 dB. The Ld~ at the location near 663
Glenbrook Drive was 51.2 dB.
During the day between approximately 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., noise levels remained at or
above 60 dB at the noise meter location near Arastradero Road. During the same time period,
noise levels at Glenbrook Drive generally ranged between 45 and 53 dB, with a few peak
intervals reaching 60 dB. The greater variation in noise levels between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
at Glenbrook Drive when compared to Arastradero Road is attributable to the quieter noise
environment at Glenbrook, which is punctuated more noticeably by brief sounds. In contrast, the
results from the noise meter near Arastradero Road have less variation between 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 22, because traffic provides a more constant, close source of
noise. The Contribution of area traffic to the noise environment at both Arastradero Road and
Glenbrook Drive is clear, seen in the overall rise and fall in noise levels in the morning and
evening.
3.Impacts and Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of established
standards.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Noise Impacts to Adjacent Residential Neighborhoods. As described above, the La~measured
in front of the library on March 22 was 61.7 dB, which is 1.7 dB higher than the upper limit of
the normally acceptable standard for schools and residences. The L~measured at the end of
Glenbrook Drive was 51.2 dB, which is well under the City’s 60 dB standard for residential
areas. Per the City’s standards, the project would cause a significant impact to residential areas
if it caused the Ld~to increase by 5.0 dB or more, even if the Lanwould remain below 60 dB,
increased the Lanby 3.0 dB or more thereby causing it to exceed 60 dB, or increased an Ld~that
currently exceeds 60 dB by of 3.0 dB or more. The project site is currently used extensively, but
reverting the site back to a school would alter the timing and pattern of site use. Noise emitted
from the playing fields is not expected to increase substantially, because use of the playing fields
is not expected to increase substantially above current levels. The residential Lan measured (at
the end of G1enbrook Drive) was well under the normally acceptable 60 Ldn standard, during
noise monitoring that included a time period during which the playing field nearest the
Glenbrook Drive residences was in use.
The MPJCDS already uses one of the fields during the school day. Terman Middle School
would use both fields during the day for physical education classes, which would generate some
additional noise potentially audible at residences adjacent to the fields. According to David
Brees of the Palo Alto Recreation Department, the fields are already fully booked and cannot be
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Impacts ill-9
used after dark (D. Brees, pers. comm.). The project does not propose lighting the fields to
extend the hours of use. Terman Middle School students may be new users of the sports fields
after school, but little room is available in the schedule for increasing the overall use of the
fields. Some other users would likely no longer use the fields after school or on weekends.
Thus, because the fields are already heavily used and limited opportunities exist for increasing
the overall number of users, use of the fields by Terman students is notexpected to significantly
contribute toward an increase the L~ at adjacent residences.
Noise emitted from the campus itself may increase somewhat, and the pattern of noise generation
would change. Noise levels emitted from the buildings and surrounding campus would be
greatest when large numbers of students are outside, generally before and after school, between
classes, and at lunch time. Noise studies conducted at JLS indicate that the noise from students
departing in the aftemoon generates noise that sporadically peaks above 63 dB. The morning
drop-off period would also represent a brief increase in traffic noise above current levels at that
time. The project is not expected to cause the La~ in adjacent residential neighborhoods to
exceed the City’s thresholds. The existing L~ of the neighborhoods that are removed from
Arastradero Road (e.g., Glenbrook and the east end of Pomona) is 51.2 dB. The ambient noise in
this area already includes existing noise generated by the heavily used Terman site. If the school
is reopened, noise from the students and some cars dropping off children at Pomona and
Glenbrook Could briefly peak above 63 dB, but these noise events would be very sporadic (e.g.,
peaking 20 minutes before and after school) and are not expected to raise the neighborhood L~
by 5.0 dB or more.
Based upon the noise study conducted in front of the Terman Library, the La, in residential
neighborhoods adjacent to the school and nearest Axastradero Road likely already exceeds 60
dB. This La, is expected to increase through Year 2010 even without the proposed Terman
school project based on the projected increase in traffic on Arastradero. The projected changes
in traffic patterns at the intersection of Terman Drive and Arastradero Road caused by reopening
the school are not predicted to increase the average noise for any peak traffic hour by more than
0.4 dB. Averaged out over 24 hours to an La,, the noise increase due to changes in traffic may
be even smaller. Thus, the changes in traffic due to the project would not cause any significant
degradation in the noise environment. The 0.4 dB increase in traffic noise during peak traffic
periods, in conjunction with sporadic noise generated by students themselves (e.g., students
arriving and departing school, movement between classes, and lunchtime), suggests that the
project would not cause the La, in these residential areas nearest Arastradero Road to increase by
3.0 dB. The school would not expose the residential neighbors to noise levels in excess of
established standards. Impact NOI-4 addresses the impact of periodic noise itself on the
residences.
NOI-4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Less Than Significant Impact. No major construction is proposed. Renovation work would
primarily comprise interior upgrades and exterior seismic structural bracing. The District
anticipates that up to 30 workers would be on the site Monday through Friday generally between
the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The JCC would continue to use the pool and gym from September
2002 through August 2003 as long as the use does not interfere with the renovation. No heavy
equipment would be used at the site. Best Management Practices (BMPs) that require appropriate
mufflers for large vehicles and prohibit radios used outdoors by construction personnel would be
used during renovation. All renovation activity at the site would occur within the hours
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Impacts 111-10
prescribed by the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 9.10), i.e., between 8 a.m.
and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. and eight p.m. on Saturday, and 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance and implementation of these
BMPs would prevent a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels from
renovation.
>>> End of 2001 EIR excerpt.
C.NOISE IMPACT, REVISED ANALYSIS 2003
The earlier 2001 analysis reflected a plan for playing field reuse with no substantial changes in
facilities. The current proposal would add four basketball courts, eliminate two tennis courts,
and slightly relocate the existing soccer field and baseball diamond. All four basketball courts
would be located close to campus and an existing basketball court. Overall, the project would
add a somewhat more concentrated source of recreational noise near the Glenbrook
neighborhood.
Construction of the basketball courts would be a minor noise source. Minor grading would be
required to level the construction site. A gravel sub base and asphaltic top coat would be applied
and compacted. Such construction would be subject to all the City noise restrictions as the other
construction. In the context of other renovation work, the noise impact from basketball court
construction is considered minimal, short term, and less than significant.
The addition of four new basketball courts in the place of two tennis courts would be an ongoing
change in site use. The minor changes in baseball and soccer location would not materially
affect those sound sources.
Basketball court noise is the game play (ball impact noise from dribbling and rebounding offthe
backstop) and the players and the spectators (people shouting). The sound is variable, depending
on the number and character of players. There is no "standard" noise rating for basketball court
noise. Further, basketball court noise is not constant, but has louder and quieter periods.
Because of the speech component, the noise also has an information content that changes the
listener’s sensitivity to noise.
The EIR consultant (TRA) made measurements at an existing basketball court to characterize the
noise as a basis for the impact analysis. The measurements were at a park in a quiet
neighborhood in Santa Cruz, specifically selected to minimize interference from passing traffic.
In one 15 minute span, 24 cars passed on a street 77 feet away from one noise meter. This level
of traffic is not considered to add much to the data recorded from the basketball game alone.
The court was in busy, full use: About 15 people were on the court at on average and anywhere
from one to four balls were in play on the court at once. Eight men were playing a full court
game, and other players tried to get in shots when they could.
Two measurements were taken: one in the transverse axis (to the side) and one in the
longitudinal axis (at the end, behind one of the baskets), each 100 feet from the edge of the court.
The results for the four 15-minute recording intervals is shown in Table III-2. A basketball court
is 50 by 80 feet with play moving rapidly from one end to another. Measurements taken closer
would show time variation more due to the moving geometry of the source rather than due to the
changing nature of noise from game play. Given the back-and-forth play, the two locations were
similar and these results are a reasonable representation of the sound levels near, but not
immediately in the playing areas.
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project Impacts II1-11
The proposed school reconstruction project would add four basketball courts. In layout Scheme
2A (Revised) these would be clustered south of the existing tennis courts away from the
Glenbrook neighborhood side of the campus in a cluster stretching from approximately 200 feet
from the site boundary to 400 feet from the boundary. This setback would reduce noise overall,
but have a particular benefit in reduction of short term noise levels. The effect of this setback is
shown in Table III-2. Some intervening landscaping blocks the direct view onto the site, but is
not sufficiently dense to act as a sound barrier.
Table 111-2. Representative Sound Levels at Basketball Court.
15 minute Intervals
Side, Interval 1
Side, Interval 2
End, Interval 1
End, Interval 2
Use as T~tpical Terman Basketball Courts at 100 feet
Use as Typical Terman Basketball Courts at 250 feet
keq L01 L10 L50 L90
50.0 59.0 54.0 47.0 42.5
52.0 62.0 56.0 47.5 43.0
52.0 62.0 52.0 47.0 43.5
50.5 59.5 54.0 47.5 43.0
53.0 62.0 56.0 47.5 43.0
50.0 57.0 52.0 45.0 41.0
For the proposed project in Scheme 2A (Revised), two tennis courts would be replaced by four
basketball courts, eliminating the existing tennis noise source. Tennis court noise is the game
play (ball impact noise) and players’ speech. There are rarely spectators. There is no "standard"
noise rating for tennis court noise. Further, tennis court noise is not constant, but has louder and
quieter periods. Because of the speech component, the noise also has an information content that
changes the listener’s sensitivity to noise.
The EIR consultant (TRA) made measurements at an existing tennis court to characterize the
noise as a basis for the impact analysis. The measurements were made August 6, 2003, at
Rinconada Park, away from the swimming complex, in a relatively quiet Palo Alto
neighborhood. Three courts were in use. Four men were playing doubles in the closest court,
and there were men playing singles games at the other two. Measurements were taken from
bleachers that were 25 feet away from the closest court. The sound of a ball being hit ranged
from 51-59.6 dB from the nearest court. The sound of a ball being hit from the middle court, 72
feet away ranged 52-55 dB. Shouting from the players was about 60 dB, loud talking ranged
from 50-55 dB. The interval Leq was 56.0 dBA, but in this time, several airplanes flew
overhead, and there was traffic noise as well, the value probably overestimates tennis noise.
Considering the nature of tennis play, the average noise source is probably 50 dBA or less,
measured at 100 feet. This noise level is clearly less than that expected from a basketball court.
The loss of two tennis courts would not offset the noise from the four new basketball courts. The
four new basketball courts will result in a net increase in neighborhood noise levels.
The basketball courts would be available to the middle school) during the school day (7:30 am to
mid afternoon), to the City’s after school sports program (typically, November through March,
3:15 to 4:30 pm), and to the general public, from the end of school to twilight. The courts would
not be lighted.
The noise from this source can be evaluated quantitatively for effect on average noise level Ldn.
The measured Ldn in the residential area was 51.2 dBA. Considering the geometry of the houses,
and the multiple courts, the changed recreation group would probably have an average sound
level (Leq) of 50 dBA at the nearest residences. If the courts were all to be used continuously
during the full 12-hour 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. time period, this would raise the L~ at the nearest
residences by 1.4 dB to 52.6 dBA Lan. If the courts were used only by the students during the
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School DistrictJSeptember 15, 2003
Project Impacts 111-12
eight hours from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., the neighborhood Lan would increase by 1.0 dB to 52.2
dBA L~n.
Even assuming a very heavy use schedule, the average sound level from the new courts is
unlikely to raise the ambient noise level above the City’s applicable significance criterion:
Would the project "cause the Ld, to increase by 5.0 dB or more in an existing residential area,
even if the L~ would remain below 60 dB?" According to Palo Alto City Comprehensive Plan
Noise Element Policy N-41, the project-induced change would be less than significant.
A second way to evaluate noise is to consider potential intrusiveness. The existing neighborhood
has a time-varying noise environment. During the March 2001 field monitoring, the 15-minute
average sound level (Leq) during the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. period, ranged from 42.5 to 60.0, with the
typical (median)value of 49.0. Within each monitoring period, the "Lxx" statistics show the
variable sound level (see Table 1II-3). The loudest 90 seconds in the 15 minutes (L10, 10% of
the interval) ranged from 44.0 to 65.0 with a median value of 51.0. The LS0 (the level exceeded
50% of the interval) and L90 (the level exceeded 90% of the interval--essentially the
background) are less variable.
Table 111-3. Neiohborhood Sound Level Statistics Compared with Court Noise
Leq L01 L10 L50 L90
Minimum 42.5 47.0 44.0 41.0 39.5
Median 49.0 57.0 51.0 45.5 43.0
Maximum 60.0 72.5 65.0 52.0 49.5
Expanded Court 50.0 57.0 52.0 45.0 41.0
The typical loud periods from the basketball courts (L10) is estimated to be around 52 dBA; in
the neighborhood, the median L50 sound level or median background levels are around 43 to 46,
so the loudest period of play would be up to 10 dB above the ambient, quieter periods.
Outdoors, the noise from basketball court play will be perceived above background. Sound
levels on the order of 52 to 57 dBA are below the level of normal speech, and would not interfere
with conversation outdoors. Sound is attenuated between outdoor and indoor levels by 10 to 20
dB, depending on whether windows are open or closed. With indoor attenuation, the loudest
court sounds would be barely audible above normal activity noise inside.
Although the numerical impact of court noise would be less than significant, the sound character
is readily associated with its source: school children or adults playing basketball. For neighbors
who already feel their privacy encroached upon by the school site, the clearly audible court noise
would be unwelcome. The orientation of Scheme 2A (Revised) with the basketball courts
clustered adjacent to the school and the existing basketball court would have low potential for
increased neighbor annoyance compared to existing conditions. Previously, the District has
considered alternative configurations of new basketball courts or relocated tennis courts that
placed new courts closer to the residences. The Scheme 2A (Revised) layout described in this
analysis would have an appreciably sma!ler incremental noise impact on the neighborhood than
those alternative layouts.
City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance section 9.10.050 "Public property noise limits," prohibits a
noise level more than 15 dB above the local ambient at a distance of 25 feet or more, subject to
Section 9.10.060 Special provisions, (a) General Daytime Exception: Any noise source which
does not produce a noise level exceeding 70 dBA at a distance of 25 feet under its most noisy
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
Project lmpacts III- 13
condition of use ... [is exempt during no.rmal daytime hours]. The court play would comply with
the 70 dBA limitation for the daytime exemption, and would generally comply with the 15 dB
limitation, comparing court L01 (the noisiest 1% of the time) with neighborhood median Leq
sound level. This sporadic noise would thus not be significant.
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003
References, Persons Contacted, and Report Preparers
IV.REFERENCES, PERSONS CONTACTED, AND REPORT
PREPARERS
IV-1
References:
[BAAQMD] Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. April 1996, Revised December
1999.
Persons Contacted:
August Lavagnino, Assistant Business Manager, Palo Alto Unified School District.
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, City of Palo Alto.
Nick Morisco, CSS Associates Architects.
Chris Neier, Recreation Coordinator, City of Palo Alto.
Beth Young, Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto.
Report Prep arers:
Thomas Reid Associates
560 Waverley Street, Suite 201
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: 650-327-0429
Fax: 650-327-4024
~v~vw.traenviro.com
Thomas Reid, Principal
Paula Hartman, Senior Associate II
Virginia Justus, Associate I
Scheme 2A (Revised) Addendum to the Terman Middle School Reopening EIR
Palo Alto Unified School District--September 15, 2003