There's a reason why Nina Bell and her neighbors in the Green Acres 1 neighborhood of Palo Alto view Terman Park as an essential neighborhood treasure.
For decades, area residents, visitors and passersby have been using the 8-acre Arastradero Road park, behind Fletcher Middle School, to play team sports, perambulate its walking trails and cut through to Los Altos without having to get in their cars.
Even though the school gets first dibs when it comes to park's playing fields and tennis courts, Bell said the park serves a critical role for her neighbors on the Glenbrook Drive, on the north side of the park. It's also important to residents in housing complexes like Terman Apartments, just west of the park, and for the park's many other visitors.
"Seniors in our neighborhoods and in Terman Apartments on the other side of Terman use the park regularly for their daily exercise, and many have walkers or canes," Bell said in an interview with the Palo Alto Weekly. "And it provides a safe place for them to walk. It's truly advantageous for well-being."
But Terman Park isn't just a valuable bit of community-serving open space. As Palo Alto considers ways to increase its footprint in Cubberley Community Center as part of a future redevelopment plan, city leaders view it as a critical asset in negotiations with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). One idea that the two sides are exploring is having the city trade Terman Park to the district in exchange for land at Cubberley, where the district owns 27 acres and the city owns the remaining 8 acres.
Council member Pat Burt, who serves on the City/School Liaison Committee, said in an interview this week that Terman is a prime candidate for a potential swap, given its location next to Fletcher and the fact that students already use the park fields.
"Terman stood out as a real intriguing one because it functions right now as school playing fields, even though this is technically still city-owned parkland," Burt said.
The land swap is still many months, if not years, away from becoming reality. School Superintendent Don Austin told the Weekly that the idea of trading Terman land for Cubberley space has been "discussed informally in a few settings but has not come to the PAUSD as an actual proposal from the city."
He noted in an email that the swap "would have several hurdles on the city side since it is currently a dedicated open space." As such, it would require the vote of Palo Alto residents to "undedicate" the land and transfer it to the district.
Part of a ballot measure on parkland?
Those hurdles need not, however, be insurmountable. Burt said that the city may consider a vote on Terman Park as part of a broader ballot initiative that includes other local sites. This may include a proposal favored by Stanford University to un-dedicate a strip of designated parkland near the University Avenue transit center so that Quarry Road could be extended east across El Camino Real, allowing direct bus-only access to the transit hub.
Burt said the ballot measure could also consider dedicating additional park space in the Baylands, next to Palo Alto Airport — land that Burt said was once envisioned as a possible site for a second runway.
Now, there is general recognition that the runway is no longer necessary, making the land a possible candidate for park dedication, he said.
Elsewhere in the Baylands is what's known as the Measure E site, a 10-acre property near the Regional Water Quality Control Plant that voters "undedicated" in 2011 to enable construction of an anaerobic digestion plant that would convert organic waste into energy.
That project was subsequently scuttled, triggering an argument between climate activists who believe that the city should continue to explore a waste-to-energy proposals at the site and conservationists who believe the land should be reverted to parkland and restored as a wildlife habitat.
The 2011 measure gave the city the option of re-dedicating the land as parkland after 10 years if plans for the waste-to-energy plant fizzled. While the council has not yet decided to do so, the city's Parks and Recreation Commission last year recommended moving ahead with reversion of the land to park space.
The ballot measure could potentially restore all of the 10-acre site as parkland or reserve a part of the Measure E site for a future industrial facility.
A new sense of urgency
But while other parts of Palo Alto may see their share of officially designated parkland wax or wane in the coming years, Bell and others are fighting to keep Terman Park firmly under the city's control.
The issue took on a greater sense of urgency in March, when the Board of Education submitted a letter to the city formally inviting proposals for land swaps that would give city at least 7 additional acres of Cubberley land, leaving the district with 20 acres that it would be able to use for a future school if the need arises.
The March letter, which was signed by board member Shounak Dharap, also noted that the district "will not automatically foreclose a deal that might include a transfer of more than 7 acres."
"Furthermore, nothing in such a deal would preclude the city from continuing to lease the remaining acreage from the district until such a time as the need arises for a new school," Dharap wrote.
Though the letter doesn't mention Terman, residents near the park believe any future deal could hinder their access to the park. Bell recalled the early days of the pandemic, when the school district temporarily closed the Glenbrook Drive gate to the park, a move that both restricted access for Green Acres residents and that Bell said violated the school district's agreement with the city over park use.
The deal, which has been in place for the past two decades, grants the public access to the walking path at Terman Park even when school is in session. Otherwise, public access to the playing fields is restricted between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
How park ownership has changed
Disputes over Terman Park access aren't exactly new. The school district owned the park until the early 1980s, when it shut down the middle school formerly known as Terman amidst declining enrollment and sold 20 acres of land, including the school and the park, to the city.
Two decades later, as enrollment rebounded, the city traded 8 acres that today include Fletcher Middle School back to the district in exchange for 8 acres at Cubberley.
Even then, some neighbors took issue with the district's use of Terman Park. In 2004, a group of residents complained to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury that the city had effectively transferred dedicated parkland to the city without a vote of the people, in violation of the City Charter.
While the Grand Jury concluded that the land swap did not violate the charter, it found that the agreement was implemented in an "ad hoc fashion" and recommended that the city "create, adopt, and enforce a city policy that any agreements to share dedicated parkland must explicitly specify the terms of use and the conditions for access by the general public."
Now, residents are concerned that the Cubberley discussion will once again disrupt the delicate balance of Terman Park use. Green Acres resident Linda Perata is one of dozens of residents who have emailed city leaders in recent weeks to oppose any change that would further restrict their park access.
Perata called the park a "wonderful treasure" and one of the reasons her family purchased their home.
"It would be devastating for us to have you take this away from us now," Perata wrote. "Our family, friends and neighbors use it to exercise, connect to Los Altos without using a car, and enjoy the natural beauty that park has to offer."
Dean Wu, who lives on Glenbrook Drive, wrote that the park is "the only way to access Los Altos shopping area without driving" and said he strongly opposes a land swap that involves Terman.
Area resident Alexander Liu wrote that he often uses the basketball court at Terman and sometimes chats with youth who play there. He also noted that there are many apartment complexes in the area with affordable-housing units, including Arastradero Park Apartments, Tan Plaza and Terman Housing.
"They don't have backyards, so Terman Public Park is their backyard," Liu wrote.
Terman Park, Liu noted, is the only public park on the southeast side of Arastradero Road. He called it "the quintessential public park cherished by residents."
"It seems inconceivable that the city would even contemplate giving it away and losing access," Liu wrote.
Burt believes that these concerns, while valid, are premature. For one thing, the deal is far from done. For another, Burt said that he is confident that any agreement between the city and the school district would preserve the public's access to the park.
He noted that the city already has many agreements with the district over public use of school sites. This, he suggested, would be no different.
"I'm hopeful we can come up with an access agreement that would meet their needs and meet the needs of the broader community to have the acreage we need at Cubberley to be able to do a true Cubberley Community Center plan in the future," Burt said. "They seem to be jumping to a conclusion that whatever agreement would preclude that."
Comments
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 5, 2023 at 5:56 pm
Registered user
on Jul 5, 2023 at 5:56 pm
What's not mentioned in this otherwise extensive story is the likelihood that transferring Terman Park to the school district will actually destroy it as the school district builds new buildings on the former park land. The school district already has access to the land; the only reason for it to want to actually own the park is to be able to build on it. Perhaps those will be school buildings, but there are rumors that the school district wants to instead build teacher-preference housing on it.
As noted in the story, there is already little park land in this area north of Fletcher -- we must preserve what we have, not let them "pave Paradise and put up a parking lot (housing)".
This is not fundamentally an issue about access, as I suspect CM Burt realizes, but rather about preserving existing park space in Palo Alto rather than bulldozing it for development.
Registered user
Mayfield
on Jul 6, 2023 at 10:30 am
Registered user
on Jul 6, 2023 at 10:30 am
As the city grows, we must make sure to protect every bit of precious green space. Those residents close to Terman Park deserve a safe place for their children to play, their elders to walk, and their teens to play and chat. Greenspace contributes to mental health, physical health, and it it helps protect us from climate change. Keep Terman Park green!
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Jul 6, 2023 at 12:54 pm
Registered user
on Jul 6, 2023 at 12:54 pm
It doesn't seem fair to trade centrally located park space (Terman) for park space adjacent to an airport or a water treatment facility. I can see why the City would want to do that though. Centrally located land is more valuable. Cubberley land is worth more than Terman land which is worth more than airport or water treatment land.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 6, 2023 at 2:48 pm
Registered user
on Jul 6, 2023 at 2:48 pm
Council member Pat Burt status: "Burt believes that these concerns, while valid, are premature. For one thing, the deal is far from done. For another, Burt said that he is confident that any agreement between the city and the school district would preserve the public's access to the park."
If the park is undedicated, then the school district can do whatever it wants at Terman Park. If Terman Park stays a dedicated park, only then can neighbors be assured that the public's access to the park remains. Council members are free to make promises, but promises are not binding, so promises from council members do not prevent the school district at some future date from building on the land with portables, or housing, or just closing the gates to the park. Only the dedicated park status is what keeps it a park. Otherwise, next year, or a few years from now, others can make changes as they see fit, promises or not.
Terman Park should stay a dedicated park.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 6, 2023 at 3:10 pm
Registered user
on Jul 6, 2023 at 3:10 pm
Reporter Gennady Sheyner's article on Terman Park in the July 5th edition of the Palo Alto Weekly revealed a lot. He shared School Superintendent, Don Austin's comment that the swap of Terman Park "would have several hurdles on the city side since it is currently a dedicated open space" to which Councilman Pat Burt commented that "those hurdles need not, however, be insurmountable".
And what exactly does he mean by that?
Councilman Burt explained. He proposes that undedicating Terman Park could be "part of a broader ballot initiative that includes other local sites." The article then describes how making changes at those "other local sites" are viewed as a popular move by many in the community.
So, in other words, by linking Terman Park's undedication to proposals that ARE popular, Councilman Burt hopes to get Terman Park undedicated, a proposal that is NOT POPULAR.
How could he possibly think such an obvious, underhanded maneuver could go unnoticed?
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 6, 2023 at 9:17 pm
Registered user
on Jul 6, 2023 at 9:17 pm
"Burt said the ballot measure could also consider dedicating additional park space in the Baylands, next to Palo Alto Airport — land that Burt said was once envisioned as a possible site for a second runway."
But our City Council can dedicate this land as parkland anytime. No need for a vote of the people.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 7, 2023 at 12:58 am
Registered user
on Jul 7, 2023 at 12:58 am
Uh. Terman Apartments — a 100% low income, privately owned complex is “for sale”. Tenants including a 92 year-old Russian immigrant is vulnerable losing thier housing. Keep Terran Park Green and available for overflow, temporary tent housing as the evictions at Terman Apartments commence July 15. San Francisco’s parks housed victims of the 1906 earthquake. Dolores & Golden Gate Park and more. Keep Terman green and viable for temporary shelter (tent housing) housing during these time of insecure corporate greed taking every Penny snd dime from the poorest for their board profit shares. Let’s be real. California is in the state of chaotic, self made refuge camps with no “Doctors Without Borders” or the Southern Law Institute or Pat Burt’s heat pump water heaters to cool/warm unhoused or near unhoused residents . Also provide good bike lock up valet park lets for the self prescribed areas. We need to get to work while promoting zero waste, climate friendly solutions. I so miss our middle class net. It gave a bit of bounce before the free fall.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jul 7, 2023 at 6:41 am
Registered user
on Jul 7, 2023 at 6:41 am
Initial reactions to this: 1) Good for the neighbors for speaking up now. Their concerns are not premature; best to address issues early on before the City Hall steamroller flattens neighborhood values. And 2) it sounds like the usual approach of taking what could and should be a straightforward ballot measure is already being conflated and confused for the purpose of arriving at a predetermined goal. And 3) Palo Alto should stop touting its neighborhoods as a City value. Residents clearly value their neighborhoods, but it's a stretch to say that the City shares that value. Notable exception is Mayor Kou; I think she does. Council Member Stone may, too. The City Manager and senior staff do not. If they did, we would not have been perilously late in submitting our housing plan to the HCD, the Ellsworth issue would not exist, the North Ventura plan would have been adopted years ago, the Castilleja outcome would not be as lopsided as it is, etc. Neighborhoods have no choice but to push back against thoughtless bureaucracy b/c it's painfully clear that the City isn't going to think or act protectively.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jul 7, 2023 at 10:36 am
Registered user
on Jul 7, 2023 at 10:36 am
My read is that the school district doesn't "want" the Terman land - they are just trying to accommodate the City's need for more land at Cubberley and this is a parcel that would make sense.
The only reason the district doesn't own Terman Park today is they were trying to limit how much they gave up at Cubberley when they did the last land swap in ~2001. Now they seem to be unconcerned about it. So this is really just Part II of the original 2001 deal, swapping more of Cubberley for the rest of Terman.
The idea that the school district wants to expand at Fletcher seems far-fetched - its enrollment has been shrinking for years.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 7, 2023 at 10:50 am
Registered user
on Jul 7, 2023 at 10:50 am
@Resident
The only way Terman Park "makes sense" for the school district is if they want to change its current use - that is, develop it. That development, while destroying the current park functionality, could be housing or office space; it doesn't have to be directly part of Fletcher.
As CM Burt was reported to have noted, the city has other space (like that near the Palo Alto Airport) that it could trade to the school district, and which seems much more suitable to development than does Terman Park.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jul 7, 2023 at 11:46 am
Registered user
on Jul 7, 2023 at 11:46 am
What the district seems to "want" is to support the City at Cubberley. I'll go out on a limb here and guess this would "make sense" for them because, umm, it's next door to a school that uses it daily?
I wonder why the reporter didn't talk to Mayor Kou about this? From the comments it looks like Mayor Kou would have provided quite a different perspective from CM Burt, and she is the MAYOR. Mr. Sheyner, any reason you didn't ask the Mayor for her views on this?
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 7, 2023 at 12:01 pm
Registered user
on Jul 7, 2023 at 12:01 pm
The Palo Alto resident from Downtown North states that “the school district doesn’t ‘want’ the Terman land - they are just trying to accommodate the city’s need for more land at Cubberley, and this parcel would make sense.”
If that were the case then, when the Terman land was brought up in discussions between the City and school district over the last few years, why didn’t the school district try to accommodate the city then?…..but they didn’t. It is only now, this year, that they are open to making a swap.
Everyone has an agenda. The fact that the city has been wanting more land at Cubberley for a while hasn’t factored into the school district’s agenda at all.
Hence, the school district wasn’t willing to make a trade earlier.
But something has changed and now it does fit their agenda. Lo and behold, the school district approached the city, interested in a swap. Why?…. when they wouldn’t before? And apparently, the only property they are interested in swapping for is Terman Park? Why?…..when enrollment is down and they already have exclusive use of the fields and ball courts during the school day?
There is clearly something afoot but the truth is being withheld. The most logical explanation can be found in the first posting by “Mondoman”. He said “ there are rumors that the school district wants to instead build teacher preference housing on it.”
If that, indeed, is the school district's agenda and the swap goes through, then that precious open space, loved and enjoyed by so many from various communities, will be gone forever.
Registered user
Gunn High School
on Jul 7, 2023 at 1:57 pm
Registered user
on Jul 7, 2023 at 1:57 pm
All neighborhoods treasure their local parks. This appears to be setting a precedent where the city will begin selling off the public parks.
The school district has sold it's holdings for development in the past. I believe the Ortega Court development and Talisman Court development (both around midtown) were former school district holdings they decided to develop instead.
Once open space is gone, it's gone forever.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jul 7, 2023 at 4:20 pm
Registered user
on Jul 7, 2023 at 4:20 pm
"when the Terman land was brought up in discussions between the City and school district over the last few years," - when? There's been no land swap discussion aside from Cubberley. The district is shrinking enrollment - they don't need new land.
"There is clearly something afoot but the truth is being withheld" - how? The school board meets in public. You think the district staff has a big plan to develop property without telling the board??
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 7, 2023 at 4:58 pm
Registered user
on Jul 7, 2023 at 4:58 pm
I think open space - whether labeled parks or not - is a valuable asset of this city.
Once gone, it’s really gone.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 7, 2023 at 9:32 pm
Registered user
on Jul 7, 2023 at 9:32 pm
@Palo Alto Resident
As the story notes, both Superintendent Austin and CM Burt acknowledge there are discussions going on about handing Terman Park to the school district, even if there is yet no formal proposal or "big plan" :) .
It seems reasonable that the school district is considering new uses for that land that wouldn't be allowed were it to remain in its current status as park land with student use during school hours. Otherwise, there's no point in such a transfer. It's valuable to have public input on likely outcomes of policy initiatives so they can be improved or prevented if that better serves the community's goals.
You make an excellent point that further reporting on this would be a big help, to hear the thoughts of others in city government and what possible development Superintendent Austin might have in mind for Terman Park.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 8, 2023 at 2:41 pm
Registered user
on Jul 8, 2023 at 2:41 pm
Standard NIMBYism from the commenters here who are experts at spouting about inclusiveness and housing availability but will kill every possible project they can.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 8, 2023 at 11:36 pm
Registered user
on Jul 8, 2023 at 11:36 pm
@Jay
Do you really advocate that our parks be developed into housing, even when we have non-park land available for development?
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 9, 2023 at 1:54 am
Registered user
on Jul 9, 2023 at 1:54 am
@Mondoman @Jay take a gander at the 2005 Mayfield agreement, a city playing soccer field in exchange for near slum build housing — yards from said field. Get a good look at how the livelihood & quality of life was sacrificed — where work force families was expedited over an arduous lease up, then sacrificed with cheap formaldehyde dwellings. Much badly needed homes shoddily (not complete-nor safe) constructed, yet the quality of lives to thrive was traded on a rock bottom dollar slap dash build.
The same is going on w the Sabroto Fry’s 3.25 acre site. Get out your voice Wed., July 12? Planning & Transportation meeting, 6pm. Properties viable for good plentiful homes and open space are being chopped & parcel up. 14 acres of Fry’s is zoned RM30. Yet going to highest bidder for multi billion dollar luxury town homes. This loss is being exchanged for Terman park.
The dice roll in one sided weight & all favor the city’s greedy developers. I don’t buy the corporate threats of Sabroto or the city caving to said private greed.
Lose here, gain there shell game of human loss.
Historic monitor roof or no monitor roof at Cannery. There are very few of us in Palo Alto standing up, speaking up, voicing truth to power. Besides Sabroto greasing the wheels of a city contract 501 c 3 who are getting a “good” deal on their monthly rent, elsewhere in the city.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jul 9, 2023 at 10:40 am
Registered user
on Jul 9, 2023 at 10:40 am
It seems like you are just making up this idea that the school district would even contemplate build housing on their own playing fields. Where did you ever get such a notion? Has anyone ever done that, anywhere??
This seems like straight up rumor- and fear-mongering. Surely you don't need to stoop to this. It undermines the credibility of people who legitimately want to protect city parks.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 9, 2023 at 1:39 pm
Registered user
on Jul 9, 2023 at 1:39 pm
@Palo Alto Resident
Today's Terman Apartments are on land that used to be playfields/baseball diamond for the middle school, so there's one example.
As you suggested, additional reporting would be very helpful here. Perhaps there is an innocuous non-development use that is prohibited by the status quo park designation. It seems like it would be easy for Superintendent Austin, CM Burt or others to publicize such a use if it exists.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jul 9, 2023 at 3:19 pm
Registered user
on Jul 9, 2023 at 3:19 pm
Terman Apartments were built in 1984 when the school was closed and the site was owned by the city (as I'm sure you know). There wasn't a school there and the district didn't even own it, so no, they didn't build on their own playing fields.
You keep ignoring the obvious stated reason for a possible swap - to accommodate the city at Cubberley, just as the city accommodated the schools when it traded the Terman school site for eight acres at Cubberley (that it already had through a lease!).
It's fine to say hey, school district, can you confirm you aren't planning to build on your own playing fields? But in the meantime, please stop talking about the "likelihood" that this will happen, or implying that it is the undisclosed plan. It's just rumor mongering.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 9, 2023 at 5:22 pm
Registered user
on Jul 9, 2023 at 5:22 pm
@Palo Alto Resident
The playing fields/diamond were certainly still there when the Terman Apartments were built, as were the buildings that are today part of Fletcher.
If the school district wants to help out on Cubberley, which is a great idea, there are plenty of other Palo Alto properties they could accept, most of which are not parks.
There's no obvious reason to bring Terman Park into this, as the district already has access to its fields. The question remains: why Terman Park? The more people claim "there's nothing to see here, move on" without answering that key question, the more it seems like there is an ulterior motive at work.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 11, 2023 at 8:35 am
Registered user
on Jul 11, 2023 at 8:35 am
Whatever the school district’s motives, they are not to “help out” the City. This is just not in the district DNA. The district doesn’t even trust win-wins, seen it over and over again for decades.
The public keeping legally “dedicated” park space is the only guarantee it will stay park space. One measly park on that side of Arastradero where there must be 10 or 12 hotels. Promises have no teeth.
Palo Alto residents have next to zero power (leverage) when it comes to the school district. That can be changed.
Little wonky power-literacy lesson:
1) Citizens have no power to leverage democratized decisions in a school district equivalent to referendum or initiative at the City or State level of government, or even equivalent power as they have in PTA bylaws. The recent MV-calculus class debacle, for example-despite such impetus by so many district families, they literally had no actual power and the district was able to marginalize them publicly.
The fundamental balance of power could be shifted for at least some democratic community say in decisions that are very important to families.
The way to do that is by changing the school district setup in the City’s charter. Palo Alto is a CA “charter city”, which means citizens can, by a vote, change the way the City—and district which is established in the City charter—is set up and even how they, the citizens, wield their own decisionmaking power. Citizens can propose charter amendments.
Example: our district could truly benefit from an Ombuds position that works for families, powered perhaps under the mayor’s office as some districts are. That could be established through a city charter amendment.
2) Our City desperately needs a change to rules for referendum/initiative. Currently the City atty writes “impartial” analyses when usually the City opposes citizens in referenda, a conflict. Other charter cities ensure impartial analysis differently. So could we—by charter amendment.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jul 11, 2023 at 10:22 am
Registered user
on Jul 11, 2023 at 10:22 am
I love the classic conspiracy theory setup:
A: "There is no ulterior motive."
B: "That's exactly what someone with an ulterior motive would say!"
Sad to see that kind of logic tried here in Palo Alto. Surely we can do better.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 11, 2023 at 3:45 pm
Registered user
on Jul 11, 2023 at 3:45 pm
@Palo Alto Resident
Fortunately, it's more logical than that :)
1) PAUSD already has access to/use of Terman Park for use that doesn't involve partial or complete bulldozing of the park for development.
2) In Feb 2022, CM Shikada announced that PAUSD had decided not to build at Cubberley the teacher housing/administrative offices it wanted. (so where to build them?)
3) In March 2023, PAUSD (not the City) sends a request to the City to propose some land to swap for 7 acres at Cubberley. Discussions between PAUSD and City ensue.
4) In May 2023, City "Study Session" is held to discuss land swap proposal. Strangely, only 2 land parcels are mentioned (Terman Park and Ventura Community Center), of which only Terman Park is big enough to meet the PAUSD 7-acre minimum. "Strangely", because as CM Burt has noted, the City has other available land such as some near the Palo Alto Airport, and that land is not dedicated park land, unlike Terman Park.
The focus on Terman Park to the exclusion of other seemingly more-attractive properties for the land swap raises obvious questions. Why ignore the opportunity to acquire other available properties given that PAUSD already has non-development access to Terman Park? Does PAUSD hope to build on (part of?) Terman Park the teacher housing/administrative offices it once planned for the Cubberley site? Does PAUSD expect to have to close Fletcher School in the near future due to declining enrollment and want to maximize the development value of a then-surplus school site by doubling its acreage?
These are reasonable questions, yet they have gone unanswered by Superintendent Austin, CM Burt, and even PA Res :) In fact, the actions currently proposed, such as allowing development at the Terman Park site by changing its designation, and packing a future ballot with multiple land use changes to help ensure passage, seem almost designed to increase suspicions.
Let's agree that we shouldn't enable development of our Palo Alto parks.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Jul 11, 2023 at 7:36 pm
Registered user
on Jul 11, 2023 at 7:36 pm
Palo Alto Resident,
I really don't understand your position that there's no problem with undedicating Terman Park and using it in a swap. You keep maintaining that the park will be in no danger of changes. Hello, that is what the designation "dedicated" means -- it means it will remain a park. So why undedicate it? The city has other options.
Repeat: The city has other options. Talk about logic!