Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-16 City Schools Liaison Committee Agenda Packet BIG CREEK ELEMENTARY Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) City of Palo Alto Todd Collins, Board Member Karen Holman, Council Member, Chair Ken Dauber, President Eric Filseth, Vice Mayor Staff Cathy Mak, PAUSD, Chief Business Officer, Staff Liaison Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, Staff Liaison 1. Oral Communications 2. Approval of Minutes From the June 21, 2018 City/School Liaison Committee Meeting 3. Review Recent City Council / PAUSD Board Meetings: a. CITY Examples Including but not Limited to: Rail Grade Separation Alternatives to be Evaluated, Citywide Cumulative Cap on Office/R&D Development, Council Adopted Ordinance to Regular Unnecessary Idling of Vehicles b. PAUSD Examples Including but not Limited to: Approval of the Chief Business Officer Contract 4. City and District Staff Comments and Announcements 5. Cubberley Master Plan – Introduce Bobbie Hill From Concordia (Consultant) 6. Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) PAUSD and City Comment Letters (Attached) 7. Future Meetings and Agendas (Attached) 8. Adjournment City/School Liaison Committee Meeting Thursday, August 16, 2018 8:00 AM to 9:30 AM Palo Alto City Hall Community Meeting Room 250 Hamilton Avenue, Ground Floor City/School Liaison Committee Special Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 7 Special Meeting June 21, 2018 Chairperson Holman called the meeting to order at 8:04 A.M. in the Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: City of Palo Alto Representatives Karen Holman, Council Member, Committee Chair Eric Filseth, Vice Mayor Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, Staff Liaison Palo Alto Unified School District Representatives Todd Collins, Board Member Cathy Mak, District Chief Business Officer, Staff Liaison Absent: Ken Dauber, Board Member, Board President Oral Communications Christy Moision announced Bike Palo Alto was a family-friendly community event that promoted bicycling as an alternative to driving. The Parent Teacher Association (PTA) utilized Bike Palo Alto as a kickoff event for the fall Walk and Roll Week. Council Members and Board Members were invited to participate in Bike Palo Alto. Minutes Approval 2. Approval of Minutes from the May 17, 2018 City/School Liaison Committee Meeting. MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Board Member Collins that the City School Liaison Committee approve the minutes as presented. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Dauber absent 3. Review Recent City Council / PAUSD Board Meetings: a. CITY Examples Including but not Limited to: - City Manager Recruitment, Traffic Safety/Bike Boulevard, Rail Grade Separation Alternatives to be Evaluated, Budget Adoption/Utility Rates, Potential Ballot Measures; City/School Liaison Committee Special Meeting Minutes MINUTES Page 2 of 7 Sp. City School Liaison Committee Meeting Minutes: 6/21/2018 b. PAUSD Examples Including but not Limited to: • Superintendent Contract • Special Education Update • Pre-Kindergarten – Grade 12 Computer Science Curriculum • Social Emotional Learning Implementation • Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) • Funding in Amount of $600,00 for Teacher Housing • Proposed PAUSD Budget 2018-19 • Resolution on Community Relations • Resolution Ordering a School Bond Election • Board Term Limits • Resolution on Preparation of Documents for November 6, 2018, School Board Election • Cubberley Community Center Vice Mayor Filseth reported recruitment for a City Manager was underway. After ten years with the City, James Keene planned to retire in December 2018. More than 100 people attended a community meeting regarding bike boulevard infrastructure the prior week. The Council voted to proceed with a ballot measure to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) by 1.5 percent to fund infrastructure projects. If the TOT increase provided sufficient funding, Council Members were interested in funding projects from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, improvements to the Animal Shelter, and expansion of Boulware Park as well as infrastructure projects. Chair Holman advised that the City had retained a new consultant to handle community outreach for the grade separation project. The City would form a Community Advisory Panel and a Technical Advisory Committee as part of the community outreach effort. The main topic of conversation at the Council's June 19 meeting was the Churchill Avenue crossing and potential impacts of a Churchill project on Embarcadero Road. The Council eliminated the hybrid options, retained a partial closure, and added protections for Embarcadero. The Council held a lengthy discussion of ways to consider grade separations comprehensively. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, added that the focus of the discussion was the proposed hybrid options for the Churchill crossing. The challenges with hybrid options were lowering or raising the roadway sufficiently and impacts to surrounding properties. The number of properties impacted by the hybrid options would be significant. Chair Holman clarified that the properties were privately owned residences. MINUTES Page 3 of 7 Sp. City School Liaison Committee Meeting Minutes: 6/21/2018 Mr. de Geus indicated the Council would narrow the number of options to a handful for further study. The Council also focused on the property impacts of hybrid options for the Charleston and Meadow crossings. Chair Holman noted the Council had scheduled a meeting for July 30. Board Member Collins asked if closure of Churchill was likely. Mr. de Geus answered yes. The Churchill crossing could be closed partially or completely. Board Member Collins inquired about the timing of construction. Mr. de Geus suggested construction could be complete in ten years. Board Member Collins reported the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board of Education (Board) voted to place a measure for term limits on the ballot. Vice Mayor Filseth reiterated the Council's action regarding a TOT increase. The Council also passed the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget. The budget totaled more than $600 million; the General Fund comprised a little more than $200 million of that amount. The Council instituted pension reform by recalculating pension expenses and by focusing on the incremental cost of each year's pensions for current employees. As a result, General Fund pension expenses increased by $8 million, and the Council directed the City Manager to reduce expenses structurally by $4 million with the intention of applying the savings to pension expenses. The Council did not recognize the remaining $4 million as new debt but would revisit the issue in the future. Board Member Collins asked why the accrual of the second $4 million was delayed. Vice Mayor Filseth explained that the City was not required to show it as new debt on the operating statement, but it would appear on the balance sheet in the future. In addition, the amounts were calculated in arrears. Board Member Collins clarified that the Council calculated the liability using the appropriate inputs and used that amount rather than the amount the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) required. Vice Mayor Filseth responded yes, but the Council focused on the liability instead of the expense. MINUTES Page 4 of 7 Sp. City School Liaison Committee Meeting Minutes: 6/21/2018 Audrey Gold advised that she had requested and was awaiting approval to celebrate the renaming of Terman Middle School to Ellen Fletcher Middle School as part of the Bike Palo Alto event. Cathy Mak, District Chief Business Officer, provided the name of a PAUSD employee for Ms. Gold to contact. Board Member Collins did not believe there would be an issue with the request. Graduation and promotion ceremonies were held approximately two weeks prior. During promotion ceremonies, students welcomed the audience in every language spoken in the homes of the schools. The Board passed its Fiscal Year 2019 Budget, which included reductions to fund a revenue shortfall and new program choices and reallocation of funding for top priorities. The new Superintendent would begin his employment on July 1. Ms. Hendricks would remain with PAUSD in a capacity to be determined. The Board approved a ballot measures to issue $460 million in bonds and to enact term limits. In addition, the Board adopted a Resolution acknowledging the negative community feelings engendered by renaming two schools. Vice Mayor Filseth reported two ballot measures driven by citizens were presented to the Council. One ballot measure proposed reducing the office growth limit by 50 percent. The Council would discuss the ballot measure and potentially call an election at a meeting scheduled for July 30. The second measure called for the City to regulate healthcare charges of medical, dental, and other healthcare providers located within the City of Palo Alto. The City had no expertise and no capacity to regulate healthcare charges. Board Member Collins explained that the item regarding funding for teacher housing was removed from the Board's agenda. Vice Mayor Filseth noted the Council's Consent Calendar for the following week's meeting contained an item authorizing the City Manager to reserve $3 million for teacher housing. Board Member Collins indicated the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) was a State-mandated plan to utilize funding for underserved populations. The LCAP was becoming the strategic plan for the Board. 4. City and District Staff Comments and Announcements. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, announced the Chili Cook-Off was planned for July 4. The Peers Park dog park opened the prior week. The City Council and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board of MINUTES Page 5 of 7 Sp. City School Liaison Committee Meeting Minutes: 6/21/2018 Education (Board) approved the contract for the Cubberley Community Center Master Plan, and planning would begin over the summer. Summer camps were underway for more than 5,000 children. The City had begun a transition from human security to camera security around the train tracks. Regarding the Churchill bike safety project, the City had submitted a formal request for an easement to PAUSD. City Staff would meet with the PAUSD Landscape Committee and respond to concerns raised about the project. Board Member Collins reported the crossing at Castilleja and Churchill raised safety concerns. He suggested the project be separated into the crosswalk and the landscaping so that the crosswalk could proceed independent of the landscaping issue. Mr. de Geus explained that separating the two components of the project could be challenging because of grant funding for the project. He concurred with addressing safety issues as quickly as possible. Cathy Mak, District Chief Business Officer, advised that the summer break was the prime time for capital projects on campuses. Capital projects included installation of solar panels at seven school sites, major renovations at Henry M. Gunn High School, replacement of existing lighting with energy efficient products, and repairing building roofs. Chair Holman asked if installation of solar panels at Palo Alto High School had been removed from the list of capital projects. Ms. Mak replied yes. 5. Summary of Contracts and Support Services provided between City and PAUSD. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, reported the list was compiled at the City Manager's request and was a work-in-progress. Staff was reviewing all services and evaluating their costs and revenues. As demonstrated by the list, the City was very supportive of public schools. Chair Holman inquired regarding the timeframe for Staff to complete assigning costs and revenues. Mr. de Geus advised that preliminary estimates showed the total cost of services was in the millions of dollars. August was probably too soon for Staff to complete the exercise, but they were working to present the information to the Council as part of the General Fund reduction discussion. MINUTES Page 6 of 7 Sp. City School Liaison Committee Meeting Minutes: 6/21/2018 Chair Holman requested Mr. de Geus present as much information as possible in August. Mr. de Geus noted some of the services were subject to contracts between the City and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Costs for many of the services could be determined by August. Board Member Collins felt it was appropriate for the City to support schools and for PAUSD to support the City. A clear accounting would help the City/School Liaison Committee (Committee) understand the services and their net impacts. He did not believe the PAUSD Board of Education (Board) had ever viewed its relationship with the City from a monetary standpoint and reviewing the list would take some time. Mr. de Geus added that the coordination of services and use of facilities was another area for potential savings and/or efficiencies for both agencies. Board Member Collins did not believe the City and Board worked together as closely as perceived by the public. Working together more effectively would benefit everyone. 6. Future Meetings and Agendas. Chair Holman suggested the new Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Superintendent introduce himself to the City/School Liaison Committee (Committee) or the City Council. Board Member Collins hoped the City Manager would be present. Vice Mayor Filseth inquired whether the City Manager should attend a Committee meeting or a PAUSD Board of Education (Board) meeting. Board Member Collins answered both. He did not recall a City Manager attending a Board meeting. Vice Mayor Filseth reiterated the search for a new City Manager. Chair Holman wanted to hold a Town Hall with the Board or have the Council attend a Board meeting to hear from students and parents about issues. Board Member Collins agreed to discuss it with his colleagues. A working meeting with public input would be good. Chair Holman related the format of previous Town Hall meetings. MINUTES Page 7 of 7 Sp. City School Liaison Committee Meeting Minutes: 6/21/2018 Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, found value in the exchange of information and perspectives with the Board. Board Member Collins believed the Board and the City could collaborate on the Board's community relations initiative, which affected the community as a whole. Chair Holman suggested a member of the City's Human Relations Commission (HRC) attend a discussion of the initiative. Board Member Collins shared his comments to the Board regarding the Board investing in the Cubberley Community Center master planning process. He hoped the Board and the City would engage with the process and each other. Perhaps the Committee could also engage in the process through monthly updates. Chair Holman remarked that Staff could provide the Committee with timelines, actions, and updates in written form. Vice Mayor Filseth believed the two agencies should work together as one agency, especially concerning Cubberley Community Center. Board Member Collins volunteered to explore collaboration methods used in other jurisdictions. Chair Holman added an item regarding the Stanford University General Use Permit to the August agenda. Future agenda items could be a review of State mandates, the City's 125th anniversary, the May Fete Parade's 100th anniversary, and student participation in City internship programs. She and Board Member Collins had discussed a parade for the high schools' spirit floats and student pop-up music events. Perhaps Board Member Collins would work with Chair Holman, Mr. de Geus, and Ms. Mak to prepare agendas for the remainder of the year. Board Member Collins agreed to do so. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 A.M. PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hnmilton Avenue. 5th Floor Palo Alto. CA 94301 650.329.2441 July 24, 2018 Mr. David Rader Santa Clara County Planning Office County Government Center 70 W. Hedding Street, 7th Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 Dear Mr. Rader, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Stanford University 2018 GUP Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR). The City of Palo Alto supports Stanford University's (University) academic interests and recognizes and appreciates the positive contributions, direct and indirect, that the region, and specifically, Palo Alto, receives from the University's location. And, we believe that Palo Alto's reputation for its excellent residential neighborhoods, pedestrian-oriented commercial districts, spirit of innovation, community parks and schools, likewise enhance the University's appeal when recruiting Stanford Affiliates1. Accordingly, these two entities and many of the surrounding communities, including the Santa Clara County, have shared interests ensuring any future University expansion adequately mitigates its impacts to surrounding communities. For Palo Alto, the RDEIR reveals that housing and transportation impacts are not adequately disclosed or mitigated, among other concerns. Environmental Consequences of Off-Campus Housing (New Significant & Unavoidable Impact) The RDEIR recognizes for the first time that the Stanford 2018 General Use Permit (Project) will result in a significant unavoidable impact to housing. It also notes that Palo Alto is disproportionally impacted by the housing demand that is generated by the Project. The document, however, fails to anticipate how Palo Alto and surrounding communities would be impacted by this housing demand. There is reference to University records that suggest Palo Alto historically accounts for 19% of the University's off-campus housing units, but it is unclear if the County projects this ratio to the Project's future housing demand. Rather than disclosing Project-related housing impacts in Palo Alto, the County suggests the City's own Comprehensive Plan accounted for the Project's population growth. This statement however, is unfounded and there is no evidence in the administrative record to support this assertion with respect to Palo Alto or the other surrounding cities. The Comprehensive Plan El R's projections for cumulative growth in surrounding areas, for purposes of modeling traffic, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and noise, were sufficiently high to consider certain plans and projects including the Project's 3,150 1 Includes students, faculty, staff, and other workers City Of Pa I oA lto.org Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine. units/beds. However, at the time of certification, the City was unaware of the additional 2,342 housings units now being reported in the RDEIR to support Stanford Affiliates. The City's Comprehensive Plan anticipates a housing goal of up to 4,420 units through 2030. Citing the City's Comprehensive Plan and suggesting it anticipated this additional population growth is not only wrong, failure to disclose impacts renders the document inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The RDEIR identifies one mitigation measure to address the description of the housing impact, which reads: local agencies in which off-campus housing would be located can and should mitigate the environmental impacts from off-campus housing to the extent feasible. (Emphasis Added) This is not a satisfactory mitigation under CEQA and irresponsibly shifts the burden from the University to Palo Alto and surrounding communities to mitigate the housing impact. The University has the land and resources to mitigate housing-related impacts and the County can and should require greater analysis of how induced population growth will impact Palo Alto and to require mitigation measures that reduce this impact. Examples of some reasonable mitigation measures include the following: • Require all or a greater portion of Stanford Affiliate housing to be located on-campus near services and major transit • For new academic and academic support facilities added within the City of Palo Alto's Sphere of Influence, require the University comply with the City's housing impact fee ordinance • Phase new academic and academic support facilities to coincide with the University's construction of new housing units to accommodate anticipated housing needs If the County determines recirculation is not required and pursues a Development Agreement with the University, as suggested by Robert Reidy, Vice President of Land, Buildings and Real Estate, in the July 23, 2018 edition of the Daily Post (page 8), City officials expect to have a role in negotiating outcomes with the County and University to represent Palo Alto interests. Housing Alternatives: Traffic and Air Quality The City appreciates the County's incorporation of the Housing Alternatives (Alternatives). The comments in this section relate primarily to Alternative A. The Alternative includes 2,342 additional on-campus housing units, but otherwise retains all other components of the Project. Operational emissions from the new housing units results in three new significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality (PM10). Ninety-four percent of these emissions are attributed to mobile sources. The RDEIR provides an analysis that shows VMT will increase under the Alternative compared to the Project. Accordingly, the County finds that the Alternative will have greater impacts than the Project, result in greater VMT and worsen air quality. This comparative analysis is flawed, however, because the County has not conducted a similar review of the Project impacts associated with Stanford Affiliate off- campus housing. Instead of analyzing this impact, the County, as noted above, identified a new significant and unavoidable impact on the operation of off-site housing and stated this housing would result in unspecified off-site environmental impacts. Two of these impacts not specified and not disclosed or analyzed relates to VMT and air quality. The County asserts, in fact requires as a mitigation measure, that surrounding communities absorb the need for housing units generated by the Project. These housing units are principally located in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Mountain View. The University reports that nearly 30% of all off-campus housing is in these three communities. A small percentage is located on site, and the balance, is presumably distributed throughout the Bay Area. The County has not properly Page 2 of 5 analyzed the VMT and air quality impacts of locating 2,342 additional housing units so far from the University campus in the Project. Any comparison between the Project and the Alternatives is meaningless and misrepresents the environmental impacts to decision-makers. The RDEIR also notes concern that the University may not be able to achieve compliance with the No Net New Commute Trips (NNNCT} mitigation measure. While the City supports all efforts to reduce single occupancy trips and the University's efforts to reduce traffic to the campus core, the City remains concerned that NNNCT does not adequately address direct and indirect traffic-related impacts. The City reiterates its concerns regarding the methodology and feasibility of NNNCT specifically with respect to the lengthening of the peak period and definition of peak hours, direction of travel limitations, trip credits, and feasibility of mode split required to meet NNNCT standards. The City's traffic consultant's comments, dated November 13, 2017 and previously transmitted to the County during the DEIR comment period are hereby incorporated by reference. By not identifying the true traffic-related impacts of the Project, the burden of responsibility shifts from the University to Palo Alto and surrounding communities. Not only is this not equitable, it is inconsistent with CEQA. Annually, the City has a National Citizen Survey prepared to gauge resident satisfaction in several topic areas. Since 2003, near the approval of the 2000 GUP, trend line data shows a steady drop in resident satisfaction on travel by car in Palo Alto, with citywide residents in 2017 reporting ease of travel by car as good or excellent at 429{, -the lowest level in fourteen years of data collection. For residents nearest the University, this figure drops to 31%. Development under the 2000 GUP and, as proposed with the 2018 GUP, has placed a significant strain on the City's transportation network. The RDEIR for the first time begins to recognize these impacts in its Alternatives analysis, but does not identify these impacts for the Project and does not provide sufficient measures to mitigate these impacts. While the City supports the concept behind NNNCT, it remains concerned that NNNCT does not fully account for traffic generated by the Project and is weak in identifying when mitigation measures would be employed. The University relies heavily on non-motorized trips to support its goals and the City encourages the following reasonable mitigation measures be required in an updated DEIR or included as conditions of approval: • The University shall provide up front funding to improve the efficiency, capacity and reliability of Caltrain and the Palo Alto Inter-Modal Transit Center, including fair share contributions to Caltrain grade separation • The University shall coordinate with the City of Palo Alto to support the City's Shuttle Program and enhance connections with the Marguerite Shuttle. • Academic, academic support facilities and housing unit production within the City of Palo Alto's Sphere of Influence shall make fair share payments to the City in line with the City's Transportation Impact Fee requirements Housing Alternatives: Aesthetics The City supports increased housing density on campus land for the University to mitigate its housing impact. However, the notion that future housing must be up to 134 feet tall adjacent El Camino Real exaggerates the impact of placing housing in the identified locations. The City encourages the County to take a closer look at how and where housing could be placed so it respects and preserves the surrounding character. If such further analysis does not result in meaningful changes, it is difficult to support the Page 3 of 5 conclusion based on information contained in the RDEIR that such housing would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of its surroundings. El Camino Real in Palo Alto has low profile buildings and construction contemplated in the Alternative would significantly alter the character of the street and by extension the character of Palo Alto. The need for modifications to the County's Plan for the El Camino Real Frontage to extend the height limit and reduce the building setback would have a dramatic impact on visual character and may impact scenic vistas. Clearly reasonable mitigation measures could be established that focus increases in height in locations most appropriate to accommodate it, building articulation, upper level setbacks and landscaping could be employed to minimize mass, and developing more site-specific regulations could be established to minimize impacts. Prior to adopting either Alternative, the City requests a more careful examination and mitigation of these potential impacts to Palo Alto. The DEIR should evaluate the placement of additional housing on .campus in locations that would not impact the character of the surrounding area, for example, in more interior areas of the campus that are still outside of the academic core and where on-campus housing currently exists. Housing Alternatives: Project Objectives The County notes that the Alternative is not consistent with the Project objectives, which, in part, seeks to minimize potential negative impacts on the surrounding community; balance academic and academic support facilities with historical housing growth; and to prioritize the use of campus lands within unincorporated County land for academic space, students and faculty housing. The City supports efforts to minimize impacts to surrounding communities, but the RDEIR fails to disclose these impacts. Also, using the University's historic housing growth rates as a metric for future housing production artificially constrains housing development and pushes the burden to meet this need on adjacent jurisdictions. The City supports and appreciates the University's interests in cultivating a campus environment that focuses on education, student learning and discovery. The University has sufficient resources and land area to meet this objective and still off-set the impacts it generates. Housing Alternatives: Public Services Public Services include services provided to the University by the City of Palo Alto Fire and Police Departments. It should be noted that while the analysis of Fire Service assumes fire protection and emergency services from Palo Alto, these are contracted services with the University and will be reviewed periodically as development on campus occurs. While the Santa Clara County Sherriff's Department provides on campus patrol for the University, the Palo Alto Police Department provides dispatch services for the campus. They also provide parking enforcement on city streets impacted by University construction workers. Increased campus housing may require mitigation to include an annual evaluation of calls for service from the University and, if applicable, contribution to off-set unanticipated demand on City resources. PAUSD Impacts The City values and supports the educational opportunities offered by the University and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). PAUSD has identified undisclosed impacts to local schools and inadequacies of the RDEIR. The Palo Alto City Council encourages the County and University to work closely with PAUSD to address these concerns and ensure the District maintains its neighborhood enrollment standards. The impacts to PAUSD, new school sites and funding for increased enrollment, should be more clearly disclosed to the public in an updated environmental document. Unmitigated impacts to the school district is a significant concern to the City. Page 4 of 5 Previous Comments on DEIR The City, by reference herein, reiterates the comments it made on the DEIR on January 29, 2018. The City appreciates the time of County staff, its consultants, and the Board of Supervisors in their consideration of the above comments. If further clarification is needed, or when appropriate, there is time to meet and discuss Palo Alto's interest further, please contact me. c: Palo Alto City Council James Keene, City Manager Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager Molly Stump, City Attorney Catherine Palter, Associate Vice President at Stanford Meg Monroe, Management Specialist Page 5 of 5 9 0 Id f Orb 1 300 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor I j pm O n Oakland, California 94612 attorneys s10 836-6336 M David Kroot July 23, 2018 Lynn Hutchins Karen M. Tiedemann via electronic mail Thomas H. Webber Dianne Jackson McLean David Rader Santa Clara County Planning Office County Government Center 70 W. Hedding Street, 7th Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 david.rader@pln.sccgov.org Michelle D. Brewer Jennifer K. Bell Robert C. Mills Isabel L. Brown James T. Diamond, Jr. Re: PAUSD Comments on Recirculated P01iions of Draft EIR (SCH# 2017012022) Margaret F. Jung for Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Heather J. Gould William F. DiCamillo Amy DeVaudreuil Barbara E. Kautz Erica Williams Orcharton Luis A. Rodriguez Rafael Yaqui6n Celia W. Lee Dolores Bastian Dalton Joshua J. Mason Eric S. Phillips Elizabeth R. Klueck Jeffrey A. Streiffer Daniel S. Maroon Justin D. Bigelow Nahal Hamidi Adler Aileen T. Nguyen San Francisco 415 788-6336 Los Angeles 213 627-6336 San Diego 619 239-6336 Goldfarb & Lipman LLP Dear Mr. Rader: Our firm represents the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) in connection with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Stanford University's 2018 General Use Permit application. As stated in the February 1, 2018 letter from PAUSD Interim Superintendent of Schools Karen Hendricks regarding the Draft EIR, the entirety of which is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in this letter, PAUSD is one of the premier school districts in the United States, and it values both its ongoing partnership with Stanford University and also its role in serving Palo Alto, the Stanford University Campus, and portions of Los Altos hills and Portola Valley by providing high-quality K-12 education for the community's children. To that end, PAUSD appreciates that the County has provided opportunities to comment on the original Draft EIR for Stanford's project and the recirculated portions of the Draft EIR, which were revised in response to public comments and concerns regarding the project and the original Draft EIR (Recirculated Draft EIR). Unfortunately, the revisions discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR do not correctly identify the scope of the project's potential impacts, properly mitigate the project's impacts, or fully inform the public and public agencies like PAUSD about the project's potential environmental effects. As more fully explained below, the Draft EIR, as revised and partially recirculated, remains legally inadequate. Accordingly, PAUSD requests that the County revise the Draft EIR to identify and mitigate all of the project's environmental impacts and that the County recirculate the entire Draft EIR so that the public has the opportunity to understand and meaningfully comment on the project's environmental effects. l l 85\03\2399264.4 July23,2018 Page 2 I. New Impact 5-17 obfuscates the Project's scale and impacts. When "significant new information" is added to an EIR after the draft document is circulated, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to recirculate the Draft EIR. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15088.5(a).) "Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes the identification of new significant environmental impacts or when the draft EIR is "so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." (Id. at§ 15088.5(a)(l)-(4).) When revisions only affect one portion of an EIR, the lead agency is only required to recirculate the portions of the draft that are affected by the revisions. (Id. at 15088.5(c).) One of the reasons the County determined to recirculate portions of the Draft EIR is because it identified a new, previously undisclosed significant impact. Starting on page 2-7, the recirculated Draft EIR describes a new Environmental Impact related to the "Environmental Consequences of Stanford Providing Off-Campus Housing under the Proposed Project." Impact 5.17-1, which is identified as significant and unavoidable, simply concludes that "the construction and/or operation of off-site housing would result in off-site environmental impacts." (Recirculated Draft EIR, p. 2-7.) The Recirculated Draft EIR says that Stanford proposes to develop some unspecified amount of affordable housing within one-half mile of "any major transit stop ... in the Bay Area," concluding that the impacts associated with this development would most directly and "disproportionally" affect Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Mountain View. (Id.) Despite acknowledging this fact, the Recirculated Draft EIR makes no effort to quantify the effect this planned housing would have on any of the three identified communities. In the place of analysis, the Recirculated Draft EIR recites policies and impacts from the three cities' recent general plan updates. (Id. pp. 2-8 to 2-12.) This approach precludes any meaningful form of public review or comment on the scope of the impacts, and is "so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature" that the Recirculated Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated in its entirety. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15088.5(a)(4).) Identifying that Stanford's project would result in "environmental impacts" is not a substitute for disclosing and analyzing those impacts themselves. The Recirculated Draft EIR leaves readers to guess how much housing is actually proposed under the project, where such housing would be developed, and what effect such housing would have on the sixteen environmental impact areas discussed in the Draft EIR. In essence, Impact 5.17-1 modifies the project description, because it changes the nature, scope, and scale of the project; however, it does so without providing any detail as to what are those precise changes. This approach violates CEQA's requirement that every EIR include a reasonably definite project description. "An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (Washoe Meadows Community v. Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 17 I I 85\0312399264.4 July 23, 2018 Page 3 Cal.App.5th 277, 287; citing County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193 .) Without an adequate project description and corresponding analysis of the specific environmental impacts of a project, the EIR fails to include relevant information and "precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process." (Washoe Meadows Community 17 Cal.App.5th at 290.) Therefore, to comply with CEQA, the County must revise the Draft EIR so that it discloses more details regarding Stanford's plan for off-campus housing in the project description. Then those details must be used as the basis for updated environmental analysis throughout the EIR, and the full document should be recirculated for public review. II. Mitigation Measure 5.17-1 is vague and unenforceable. The Recirculated Draft EIR adds a new mitigation measure, Mitigation Measure 5 .17-1, in an attempt to address Impact 5 .17-1. (Recirculated Draft EIR, p. 2-12.) Even if Impact 5 .17-1 were a legitimate category of impact to discuss, the mitigation offered is so vague and indefinite that it amounts to improperly deferred mitigation. Any mitigation measures included in an EIR must be "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures" to reduce the significance of an impact. (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 1252, 1261.) Mitigation Measure 5-17.1 does not include any of these mechanisms to ensure it is enforceable. Instead, it says other local governments "can and should" mitigate the impacts caused by the project's off-campus housing development. This amounts to an improper deferral of mitigation, and an abdication of the responsibility to identify and incorporate feasible mitigation that would reduce a projects impacts in an EIR. Mitigation Measure 5 .17-1 should be replaced with some definite action or actions that the County or Stanford can take that are enforceable and would reduce the severity of the project's impacts related to off-campus housing development, and the EIR should be recirculated. III. The two new alternatives distract from the public's ability to comment on the Project and Stanford's development plans. In addition to discussing Impact 5.17-1, the Recirculated Draft EIR introduces two new alternatives: an increased on-campus housing option and an increased off-campus housing option. As discussed above, the project itself has not been revised to specify what level of off-campus development is associated with the project, so it is unclear how to evaluate how these two alternatives compare with the project itself. I I 85\03\2399264.4 July 23, 2018 Page 4 By providing hundreds of pages of new information on alternatives, but not fully describing the project itself, the Recirculated Draft EIR improperly "presents the public with a moving target and requires a commenter to offer input on a wide range of alternatives that may not be in any way germane to the project ultimately approved." (Washoe Meadows Community 17 Cal.App.5th at 288.) When the EIR is revised and recirculated as requested above, it should be clearer about what development scenarios are feasible and acceptable to Stanford so that it is not necessary to review different sets of impacts, requiring different mitigation measures, for projects with vastly different approaches and development footprints that may never come to fruition. IV. The EIR understates current and future school enrollment impacts. The Recirculated Draft EIR makes the same mistake the Draft EIR made by relying on outdated student generation rates to project future PAUSD school enrollment demand created by Stanford's development. (Recirculated Draft EIR p. 2-161.) As discussed in PA USD's February 1, 2018 letter regarding the Draft EIR, current student generation rates range from 0.66 to 0.98 students per household, depending on the type of housing being developed. Because the housing proposed as part of the project and the alternatives in the Recirculated Draft EIR focus on graduate student, faculty, and staff housing (groups that tend to have school age children), it is appropriate to use the 0.98 student generation rate, which would provide a conservative estimate of the extent of the environmental impacts. At a minimum, a student generation rate of 0.66 should be used, although this could cause environmental impacts to be undisclosed or understated. The Recirculated Draft EIR uses an even lower figure: a student generation rate of 0.5. (Recirculated Draft EIR p. 2-161.) This lower figure understates future enrollment demand by almost 50 percent, and every attendant impact - from the need to new facilities to the traffic associated with taking twice as many students to school - is also correspondingly understated. Accordingly, the EIR should be revised to disclose the project's and the alternatives' actual impact on PAUSD facilities and related impacts using more recent and accurate enrollment projection data. V. The EIR does not attempt to fully mitigate impacts related to school operations. Throughout the Draft EIR and the Recirculated Draft EIR, analysis of school impacts are dismissed as being less than significant because Stanford would commit to paying the school impact fees required by Government Code section 65996. (See, e.g., Recirculated Draft EIR pp. 2-160 to 2-162 and 2-363 to 2-366.) It is correct that the Government Code caps development fees, and that the collection of such fees is l I 85\03\2399264.4 July 23, 2018 Page 5 adequate mitigation for CEQA purposes regarding impacts on school facilities and the need to develop new school facilities. However, the EIR must still examine environmental impacts that affect school operations but are not directly related to the need for new school facilities. (See Chawanakee Unified School Dist. v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1029.) For example, the two schools that would serve development on Stanford campus, Escondido Elementary and Nixon Elementary, have capacities of 595 and 460 students, respectively. For the 2017-2018 PAUSD academic year, Escondido Elementary enrolled 53 7 students, and Nixon Elementary enrolled 441 students. Potentially, new students could be accommodated at Barron Park Elementary, which has capacity for 380 students and a current enrollment of 255 students. However, sending students from the Stanford campus to Ban-on Park Elementary, which is further from campus and not a "neighborhood school," would directly contravene PAUSD Board Policy 7110 (BP 7110). BP 7110 calls for PAUSD to "provide sufficient capacity so new student residents and siblings have predictable and routine access to neighborhood schools." In addition, BP 7110 says that PAUSD shall "plan and preserve educationally effective school sizes throughout the district that promote positive student connections and community, strengthen adult-student relationships, and build a sense of individual belonging in the schools." PAUSD places a high value on this policy and historically has made efforts to maintain a connection between a child's place of residence and place of education. For example, following the development of Stanford's University Ten-ace residential project, Ban-on Park Elementary had the most capacity for new enrollment, but it is further from the development than Nixon Elementary. Rather than reassigning existing students, disrupting their connections to school, or forcing new students to travel outside their neighborhood to attend school, PAUSD absorbed the new students into Nixon Elementary, bringing it even closer to capacity. Moreover, reassigning students to schools outside of their residential neighborhoods would likely result in secondary environmental impacts. For example, shifting students from Escondido Elementary or Nixon Elementary to Ban-on Park Elementary would require students to cross Page Mill Road, exacerbating traffic impacts (and the attendant noise, greenhouse gas, and air quality impacts) and creating safety concerns by increasing the potential for traffic accidents involving pedestrians. The Recirculated Draft EIR claims that PAUSD could "reactivate" other existing school sites or use school properties leased to other providers, including the Ventura site, to meet the demand created by new students. (Recirculated Draft EIR p. 2-161.) As an initial matter, the Ventura site is not owned by PAUSD, and the EIR should be corrected to reflect this fact. Furthermore, none of the sites or schools listed in the Recirculated Draft EIR are located in the neighborhoods where new development is proposed. Even if it were feasible to use sites identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR, assigning children to schools outside of their neighborhoods would result in the same increase in traffic, noise, greenhouse gas, and air quality impacts discussed above. Despite these I I 85\03\2399264.4 July 23, 2018 Page 6 facts, the Recirculated Draft EIR makes no effort to address these secondary impacts, even though case law makes clear that "these types of impacts to the nonschool physical environment are caused indirectly by the project and should be considered in the EIR." (Chawanakee Unified School Dist. 196 Cal.App.4th at 1029.) Similarly, the Recirculated Draft EIR makes no effort to address how development fees would be used or analyze the environmental effects associated with developing new PAUSD facilities that would be required to serve Stanford's development. In order to maintain PAUSD neighborhood enrollment standards, for every 400-500 new elementary students generated by Stanford, P AUSD would need to construct an additional neighborhood school, with each school requiring a three to four-acre site. New schools would need to be carefully sited to ensure they serve neighborhoods where they are needed and maintain effective classroom sizes in accordance with BP 7110, but their development would be sure to influence traffic patterns, increasing vehicle miles traveled throughout the City and associated impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions and air quality. However the Recirculated Draft EIR ignores the secondary potential environmental impacts associated with this new development that would be needed as a direct result of Stanford's development. In addition to failing to discuss the indirect environmental effects of the project or the alternatives, the Recirculated Draft EIR ignores Stanford's impact on PAUSD's ongoing operations. Using the conservative student generation rate of 0.98 discussed above, the 2,892 additional units created under Additional Housing Alternative A would result in 2,834 additional students enrolling in PAUSD (nearly twice as much as the Recirculated Draft EIR discloses). The cost of educating these additional students generated by Stanford's development would exceed $51 million per year, maintaining PAUSD's current expenditure per student. PAUSD is a "basic aid" school district, and so it get very limited state funding; its operations are essentially funded directly by property taxes in Palo Alto. Much of Stanford's development is on land that is exempt from paying property tax, yet the EIR and other project documentation is silent regarding how PAUSD and the people of Palo Alto can be expected to educate the incoming students created by Stanford's development while maintaining the level of excellence for which PAUSD is known. Therefore, the EIR must be revised to include analysis of the project's environmental effects and recirculated so that the public has the opportunity to consider and comment on the development's full range impacts. **** As demonstrated tlu·oughout this letter, the Recirculated Draft EIR does not yet provide a legally adequate analysis of the project's or the alternatives' environmental effects. The EIR must be revised to clarify what Stanford intends to develop, disclose the full nature of the project's impacts, and include legally adequate mitigation for those impacts. I I 85\0312399264.4 July 23, 2018 Page 7 We hope that the EIR can be revised to address these concerns and recirculated so that decision-makers and the public can understand the true impacts of the Stanford's proposal before deciding to support its approval. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, cc: Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Trustees Dr. Don Austin, Superintendent I I 85\03\2399264.4 City-School Liaison Committee 2018 Schedule (8-8-18) 1 Date Item February 15, 2018 • Library collaboration with PAUSD to issue students Library Cards • 2018 Council Priorities • Agenda planning for 2018 March 15, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council/PAUSD Board Meetings • 2018 Summer Programs (City) • Planned bike and pedestrian improvements to Churchill Ave – City Chief Transportation Official • Discussion of Agenda Topics for April and May April 19, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • Update Coordinated North Ventura Area Plan • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda’s May 17, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Safe Routes to School - Rosie Mesterhazy, MPH, LCI #5255. Safe Routes to School Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division Department of Planning + Community Environment • Cubberley Master Plan Update • Future Meetings and Agenda’s June 21, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Summary of Contracts and Support Services provided between City and PAUSD • Future Meetings and Agendas July 19, 2018 Cancelled due to Council and PAUSD Holiday Break August 16, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Cubberley Master Plan – Introduce Bobbie Hill from Concordia (Consultant) • Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) • Future Meetings and Agenda’s September 20, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda’s October 18, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda’s November 15, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda’s December 21, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda’s City-School Liaison Committee 2018 Schedule (8-8-18) 2 To be Scheduled and/or Potential Items for discussion with tent. dates: • Cubberley Master Plan (Month/Standing item) • Introduction of PAUSD Superintendent w/City Manager • Consideration of a joint Town Hall with BOE and City Council (TBD – purpose and structure needs to be defined) • Invest in May Fete Parade (Dec) • Community Relations Resolution (Aug) • Stanford General Use Plan (GUP) – (Aug) • City Internships for PAUSD students (Align with City’s existing job shadow day) • State Mandates that impact PAUSD and City (As relevant mandates are identified) • Grade Separation (Sept) • Traffic School Team (May 2019) • Teacher housing - thoughts and potential collaboration (TBD) • Stanford – PAUSD/City – Coordination and shared interests (TBD) • Ways for City and District to work together more effectively to accomplish shared goals (Aug-Nov) o Shared use of facilities o Cost of services • Middle School Athletics (Nov) • Coordination on Capital Improvement in the right of way (Aug) • Emergency Preparedness (Dec) • Teacher & staff housing (TBD)