Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-26 City Council (4)C ty City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER ~ DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment DATE:February 26, 1997 CMR:153:97 SUBJECT:Stanford Sand Hill Corridor Projects, Response to City Council Questions of February 11, 1997 REQUEST. The purpose of this report is to transmit the answers to several questions posed by individual City Council Members, at their meeting of February I 1, 1997, about the Sand Hill Corridor projects. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss the attached answers and materials, in order to clarify or further explore the issues and concerns raised. POLICY IMPLICATIONS ¯ The policy implications of the various Sand Hill Corridor proposals were fully discussed and analyzed in the July 24, 1996 Planning Commission staff report, and were further discussed in CMR: 126:97, provided to City Council for the meeting of January 27, 1997. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY After concluding public testimony on the combined projects on February 8, 1997, the City .Council used their February 11,. 1997 meeting to raise a variety of questions. These ~questions were based on their review of the FEIR, background material, CMR: 126:97 and staff reports, and on questions raised by speakersduring the public testimony. ~The attached table provides answers to all of the questions raised by Council Members. ATTACHME~ENTS Table 1, Response to City Council Questions, 2/11/97 Table 18.1, Expected year 2000 PM Peak Trips CMR:i53:97 Page 1 of 2 Table 18.2, Transit Share Table F.b.2-1:1995 to 2000 No Project Employment, Household, and Traffic Growth F Forecasts Table F.b.6-1, Comparison of Sand Hill Road DEIR and 2775 Sand Hill Road Study Map 1, Hoover Site with SubAreas Map 2, Stanford General Use Permit Special Condition Areas Map 3, Santa Clara County General Plan Map 4, Coyote Hill Easements Figure 1, Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes in the Project Area Figure 2, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Routes in Stanford Vicinity Exhibit 1, Sand Hill/El Camino Intersection Exhibit 2, Alma Islands Attachment 1, Three Party Agreement and Protocol Attachment 2, 1/16/97 Letter from Caltrans Attachment 3, Analysis of PAUSD Information (submitted on February 8, 1997, during public testimony) CC:Planning Commission Architectural Review Board City of Menlo Park (Jan Dolan, Don de la Pena) Stanford Management Company (Curtis Feeny, Bill Phillips, Diane Healey) Stanford University (Larry Horton, Andy Coe, David Neuman) PREPARED BY: Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 153:97 Page 2 of 2 ¢ ¢ 0 ,Z 0 o ~ o~ 0 0 = 0 t"-- 0 o~ o o < 0 0 Table 18.1 Table 1.8.2 o o 0 E Table F.b.2-1 Table F.b.2-1:1995 to 2000 No Project Employment, Household, and Traffic Growth Forecasts Palo Alto 11,797 17 %660 2 %110,494 17% Menlo Park 51,000 sf 2 %365 3%1,514 1% Stanford Univ.1,259 8 %83 1%5,128 5% students Santa Clara 79,413 10%61,616 13 %707,376 9% County Other Counties N/A N/A N/A N/A 329,055 40% Total 1,153,567 Notes: 1) 2) 3) Office and retail square footage increases, instead of number of employee increases, are used for Menlo Park. The number of student increases, instead of household increases, are used for Stanford University. Trips were generated from the Year 2000 No Project with roadway improvements scenario. Source: ABAG, Cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto, Stanford, and Palo Alto Model. Table F.b:6-1 Table F.bo6-1 Comparison of Sand Hill Road DEIR and 2775 Sand Hill Road Study LOS Analysis Results for the Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue/ Alpine Road Complex Intersections Sand Hill/Santa Cruz AM PM F F 99 69 E E 49.2 56.1 Alpine/Junipero AM F 121 D 33.2 Serra/Santa Cruz PM C 23 ~ na na F F F F >60 >60 >60 >60 D D D D 32.1 32.2 33.7 38.3 an7 Rd. J L......._.._.j Red Cross Proposed Village GreenAve. Proposed Stanford Housing (75 Units) Everett Ave. area #2 |Ave. Palo Alto Pavilion Proposed Stanford Housing (555 Units) Subarea #3 / 0 200 400 6o0 8oo Scale in Feet CitylCounty Boundaries Alternative Site Boundaries SOURCE: City of Palo Alto, January 1997; EIP Associates, January 1997, MacArthur Park Holiday Inn Homer Ave. Lincoln Ave. Hoover Site with three subareas . Stanford General Use Permit Special Santa Clara County General Plan ¯ Land Use Designations for Stanford University Menlo Park General Plan Designations ~---- County Line ~ Ac~demicReserve ~ PaloAlto& Open Space (outsid~)~" Campus (inside) ] PabA]to Urban Service Area Los Altos Hills I 0 1 Mile = 1.5 Inch I 1 0.5 1 mile PAGE SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE B SCHEDULE C PCL. Palo i! II Attachment I ~985 LAND USE POLICY AGREEMENT POLICIES GOVERNING UNINCORPORATED STANFORD UNIVERSITY LANDS IN SANTA CLARA COUN~f This agreement sets forth the policies of the County of Santa Clara (’Santa Clara~County’), the City of Palo Alto ("Palo Alto") and Stanford University ("Stanford") regarding land use, annexation, planning and development of Stanford lands in Santa Clara County. i.General policies a. Stanford University differs from other unincorporated areas in Santa Clara County in that it constitutes an integrated commu- nity, its lands are held in.perpetual trust for educational purposes and may not be sold, its lands are mainly tax-exempt, and it provides its own municipa! services to its academic facilities, rather than seeking them from adjacent cities. b. All parties agree that existing annexation policies for Stanford lands in Santa Clara County should continue in force: (i) Academic land uses, for which the University provides its own services, should remain unincorporated. (2) Open space and agricultural.uses of lands held in reserve for future academic use should likewise remain unincorporated. (3) Other non-academic uses of University land should be subject to city annexation. c. All. parties agree that County policies should continue to recognize the unique character of Stanford’s academic lands, and that, at the request of any party, any proposed change ifi general County policy governing unincorporated lands should be preceded by three-party discussion as to whether the proposed new policy should be applied to Stanford lands. d. Palo Alto and Stanford further recognize that each has a legitimate interest in planning decisions made by the other, to the extent that the actionsof one entity may impact housing supply, traffic, parking, and utility systems in the other. For -I- this reason, each will continue to pr6vide notification, at th~ earliest possible date, of any projects or proposals that may affect the other. 2. Specific policies @overnin~ academic use of Stanford lands a. All Stanford lands are held by the Board of Trustees for~ ultimate academic use. Those areas designated "Academic Reserve and Open Space" may be used for agricultural and accessory purposes until they are needed ~for academic use. b. "Academic" uses of University land, as defined and described in the County General Plan and the University Land Use Plan, include: instruction and research (including teaching hospital faciliti~es); administrative facilities; housing intended for University and Hospital faculty~ staff, students and visitors; athletics, physical education, ~nd recreation facilities; support services (such as university-operated campus facilities, U.S. post office and other campus services, infrastructure, storage and maintenance); and non-profit research facilities with close academic ties to the University(such as the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Carnegie Instit0tion of Plant Biology). c. Unincorporated Stanford lands in Santa Clara County are subject to the Santa Clara County.General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the general use permit for Stanford University lands adopted by Santa Clara County, and pertinent review and approval procedures employed by Santa Clara County. d. Stanford intends to continue to provide all municipal services to its academic facilities in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. Provision of services may include construction and operationof on-sirefacilities, purchase-from public or private entities, or membership in regional facilities. For mutual benefit, Stanford and Palo Alto, or Stanford and Santa Clara County, may~contract with each other for the provision of certain services. e. Neither Stanford nor Palo Alto seeks annexation to Palo Alto of parcels which are designated for academic use in the University’s Land Use Plan. This position is consistent with the County General Plan and County policies regarding annexation and development. o Specific policies ~overning non-academic use of Stanford lands a. ~The Trustees allow non-academic use of certain designated parcels on an interim basis, to produce income to support the University an~ its programs. ¯b. "Non-academics uses include: commercial and industrial enterprises; housing that is not reserved for University and -2- ~ospital personnel; and for-profit research and professional facilities which are not an integral part~ of the University’s academic program (such as the professional offices on Welch Road and the corporate installations in the Stanford Research Park). c. Stanford intends to request annexation to the City of Palo Alto of any unincorporated parcel in Santa Clara County for which it proposes an interim non-academic use. d. Stanford lands annexed to the City of Palo Alto are subject to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, any area plans adopted by the City of Palo Alto, and pertinent review and approval procedures employed by Palo Alto. 4. Implementation of these policies a. Staffs of the three parties, in cooperation, will maintain an informational document, known as a Protocol,.which outlines all adopted land use designations, regulations, restrictions, and review and referral procedures governing Stanford lands in Santa Clara County. Revisions to the Protoco! will be made by the three staffs, to reflect any adopted changes in the. County General Plan, the County Ordinance Code and Zoning Ordinance, the general use permit for Stanford lands, pertinent County procedures, and administrative practices and procedures agreed to by the three parties. Any such revisions will be reported to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council. b. The parties will continue to refer ~evelopment applications to each other in substantially the same manner that has been employed in the past. Administrative.procedures for such referral may be implemented upon concurrence of the three staffs, but will contain at least the following features: (i) Each party.will supply copies to the others of any application or proposal which it has reason to believe might be of interest to the others. (2)The parties will take account of the concerns of any of them about a proposal made by another. (3) Any of the parties may comment to the agency having jurisdiction on any project proposed by another of the parties, within the time specified by the agency having jurisdiction. Co The parties will, as necessary and appropriate, join in requests to other jurisdictions, including but not limited to the Loca! Agency Formation Commission and the State of California, to recognize the spirit and the provisions of this Agreement in their policies and procedures. d. This Agreement supersedesand replaces the agreement between Stanford University and the City of Palo Alto dated~January 18, 1974,~ commonly known as the "-cs Zone Agreement"° e. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the authority of any of the parties to.revise its General Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan or zoning ordinance. By William F. Massy Vice President hess and Finance f THE CITY OF PALO ALTO Approved pursuant to action of the City Council on October 7, 1985 . By and D. Lev Mayor THE .COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Approved pursuant to action_cu~ Board o~or|.. .~’~ ~. ~ _ By Rod Di~’£don ’ ’"-~". Chairper son Revised Protocol for 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement Original dated: August 13, 1985 Revised: January 10, 1.990 This revised Protocol supersedes the original Protocol dated August 13, 1985, and is to be added to the existing 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement. It incorporates the small project exemption procedure and updates the procedures adopted as part of the Stanford General Use Permit (1989). PROTOCOL DESIGNATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR UNINCORPORATED STANFORD UNIVERSITY LANDS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Back~ound: Incorporated and Unincorporated Stanford Lands a.Stanford lands lie in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Stanford land that has been developed for non-academic interim use has been annexed to cities, and is subject to city planning and zoning. Map #1, which shows Local Spheres of Influence on Stanford University Lands, is included to clarify jurisdictions for the purpose of referral. Seven unincorporated parcels in the two counties are designated "University Support" or "Special Study" in the 1980 Stanford Land Use Plan (See Map #2, attached). One or more of these areas may be found to be appropriate for non- academic use and annexation in the future. c.The remainder of the unincorporated acreage (approximately 6,000 acres in the t~vo counties) is now used substantially for academic purposes or is reserved for " academic use. Jurisdiction The use of Stanford lands in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County is governed by the County General Plan and County Zoning Ordinance, a conditional use permit known as the Stanford University General Use Permit, and other use permits and approvals as required. 3. Coun .ty Land Use’Designations and Zoning The Santa Clara County General Plan designates Stanford lands as follows (see Map #3, attached): (1)"University Lands - Campus" (the area between E1 Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard) on which academic uses are allowed in a density that gives them an urban character; (2) (3) "University Lands - Academic Reserve and Open Space" (the Arboretum and the foothills lands south of Junipero Serra Boulevard) on which open space and low density academic uses are allowed; and "University Lands - Study Area" (three parcels along Quarry Road) for which land use designations are to be determined by the County through a cooperative effort of the County, the City of Pa!o Alto and the University. 3/13/90 -1- Revised Protocol for 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement Almost all Stanford land in Santa Clara County is zoned A1, "Residential and Agricultural" (the only exception is the residential area between Stanford Avenue and Page Mill Road, which is zoned R1E-10, "Residential-Estate"). In addition to specified agricultural and residential uses, the A1 zone allowsother uses pursuant to a use permit, such as the General Use Permit granted for Stanford lands. 4. General Use Permit a.The County General Use Permit for Stanford lands allows development that conforms with the County General Plan and the maps that are part of the permit. b.In addition to the standards and restrictions imposed by the County Genera! Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the General Use PenTfit contains limitations on four areas of Stanford land (see Map #4, attached). A separate use permit is required for projects in Areas A, B, C & D which exceed the following thresholds: Area A Uses which result in any building construction. Area B Uses which result in construction ofany building having more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. Area C Uses which result in construction of dwelling units, except for caretaker purposes in conjunction with permitted uses, or in construction of any building having more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. Area D Uses which result in any building construction. c.Any proposed changes relating to Area A, B, C or D are referred to the City Council by Palo Alto staff. 5. Referral of Applications. When Stanford appliesto Santa Clara County for building or roadway construction (other than normal roadway repairs), Stanford notifies the Planning Director of the City of Palo Alto in writing. Stanford also supplies the City with a copy of the application, including all materials fried with Santa Clara County. When Stanford applies for a small project exemption (see section 6.a.(4)(b)) one set ’ of plans (plot, elevation and floor) along with the letter of transmittal is delivered to the Palo Alto Planning Director. Within four days following the submittals, the Secretary of the Architectural and Site Approval Committee reviews the : University’s proposal and decides whether the small project exemption is appropriate. c.In any application, Stanford states whether or not it seeks municipal services or utilities from the City of Palo Alto for the proposed project. d.When the Santa Clara County Central Permit Office receives such an application from Stanford, it notifies the City of Palo Alto and forwards copies of the application for City review. e.Palo Alto may comment to Santa Clara County on a Stanford proposal pending before the County, within the time specified by the County. 3/13/90 -2- Revised Protocol for 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement Stanford cbnsiders carefully such comments as Palo Alto may make, and attempts, where feasible and appropriate in its judgment, to accommodate the City’s views. The City of Palo Alto advises a designated individual at Stanford University of all planning, land use, facilities, traffic and transportation matters before the City which may affect Stanford. The City supplies copies of any materials with respect to such matters which are also supplied to the Planning Commission, the City Council or other agencies of the City of Palo Alto. 6. County Review Procedure~ The procedure for County review of a specific Stanford development application is determined by the Director of Planning and Development or his/her designee, pursuant to County ordinances, policies and procedures. In general the -requirements are as follows: (1) Use Permits must be approved by the Planning Commission. (2)Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) shall be required for the following types of construction: (a)Any building construction occuring in Areas A, B, C or D or any driveway and/or roadway improvements occuring in Area C. Any building construction in areas A and D must get a Use Permit and Architecture and Site approval. (b)Cons{auction of new structures, including additions, which are greater than 2,000 square feet in total building area, or 35 feet or greater in height, or for which an environmental assessment is necessary, or which create additional demand for vehicle parking, or where removal of a significant amount of vegetation would be necessary. Reconstruction or remodeling of structures whose use will be altered to . another use, and relocation of structurts. (d)Construction of new parking lots or structures in the Central Campus area which are not in conjunction with a building project reviewed by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee. (e) (f) Construction of new road connections in the Stanford road system and all connections with the public road system, including lane additions when a new road bed is being added. .Construction of attached single family residences and multi-family residential structures, including dormitories, apartments, townhouses and condominiums. (3)Design Review shall be required in lieu of ASA for the following projects in the Central Campus Area: (a)Reconstruction or remodeling of a structure which alters its exterior appearance although the use remains the same or similar in nature. (b)Major types of exterior non-building structures which require issuance of a building permit, such as sculpture gardens and ornamental fences. 3/13/90 -3- (4) Revised Protocol for 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement Neither Architectural and Site Approval nor Design Review shall be required for the following, unless the Secretary of the Architectural and Site Approval Committee determines that the characteristics of the particular project merit further review: (a)Interior remodeling or reconstruction of an existing structure which will not alter the exterior appearance nor intensity of land use. (b) Small project exemptions within the Central Campus area. Structures which qualify for the small project exemption must: -be less than 2,000 square feet, -be less than 35 feet in height, -require no environmental assessment, -create a demand for less than 6 vehicular parking spaces, -require no major tree removal (defined as a single heritage tree or clumps of trees with 12 inch diameter or greater), - meet the design guidelines of Stanford University. Small project exemptions also apply to multiple additions to an existing structure which cumulatively do not total 2,000 square feet. (c)Repair or reconstruction of existing roads including restriping, intersection improvements, driveway additions and closure where there is no substantial tree removal and no addition of any travel lanes. (d) (e) Erection of street lighting, street signs, fences and gates, and c.urbing. Conversion of miner streets to limited access status, including restriction to public vehicles; conversion of streets to bike and pedestrian pathways. ¯ Minor road or driveway projects which are being constructed in conjunction with a structure being reviewed by the Architectural & Site Approval Committee are included in that review. (f)Construction of bike and pedestrian pathways including modifications to street intersections to accommodate them. (g)Erection of temporary signs and structures which have been approved under the County entertainment permit procedure. (h)Installation Of landscaping associated work which is not a part of a project being reviewed by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee or by the Design Review procedure. (i)Construction of detached single-family residences and their accessory structures, including modifications and additions in the Central Campus area. (j) installation of underground utility facilities. (5)A separate use permit is required for any conversion of existing residential to non=residential land use. 3/13/90 -4- Revised Protocol for 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement The Santa Clara County Zoning Adminis~ation Office provides public notice at least ten days in advance of a public hearing by the Planning Commission, Architectural and Site Approval Committee or Zoning Administrator on all Stanford applications in the following manner: (1) (2) A notice of public hearing is mailed to the applicant, the property owner, owners of all real property and owners of buildings on Stanford leaseholds within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the real property (assessor’s parcel number) on which the property is situated. A notice of public heating for each agenda item is published in a newspaper of local circulation (Sin Jose Post-Record). (3)A copy of the agenda is mailed to a list of interested individuals, organizations and jurisdictions. This list is annually updated by Stanford Planning Office staff, and ihcludes names such as planning directors of cities, Stanford Campus Homeowner’s Association, Sierra Club, editors of newspapers such as the Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto Times-Tribune, etc. (4)A display ad is run in the Times-Tribune. The ad is prepared and submitted by the County and billed to Stanford University. This procedure is limited to a new application for which an environmental assessment has been prepared. 7. Amending the Protocol The Protocol document can be amended according to section 4a. of the Policy Agreement by agreement of the planning staffs of Santa Clara County, Palo Alto and Stanford. The following signatures represent this agreement: Robert S. Sturdivant Date. .g Officer, Santa Clara County Date Secretary to the Architecture and Site Approval Committee, Santa Clara County Kenneth R. Schreiber D~tor of Planning and Community Philip ~ Williams 7?3DateO~~ Environment, Palo Alto Date Director of Planning, Stanford University 3/13/90 -5- Special Condition / /i Special Condition Areas .STATE OF: CALIF:ORNIA~BUSINL:SS, ’TRANSPORTATION ANO HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BO× 23660o~,~.Aso, c~, 9~-o~o Janua~ 22, 1997 ~oo (510) 28~54 PL Attachment 2 Ms. June Fleming City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Fleming:OFFICF. O~ ~ ~ [~IAflAGER Sand I~ill Road Improvement Project This letter addresses the request by the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University for Caltrans to execute a binding agreement relative to future traffic operations at the intersection of State Route 82 (El Camino Real) with Alma Avenue and the proposed Sand Hill Road in the City of Palo ]alto. Specifically, the agreement you seek would ask Caltrans to agree to maintain in p_e.rpetuity the planned traffic operations at this intersection which will preclude through access across State’Route 82. at this location unless there is a mutual agreement between Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto to institute a change. We understand the importance of the operational restriction to the City of Palo Alto and want to assure you that Caltrans will work with the City to accomplish your objective. While we believe that this objective can best be achieved through a written confirmation, Caltrans is amenable to including language restricting the operations of this intersection in the regular Maintenance Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans which will need to be updated in conjunction with the planned improvements to State Route 82 (El Camino Real) and Sand Hill Road. Sincerely, HARRY Y. YAHATA Interim District Director ERNIE SATOW District Division Chief Design West Q~ce of the Ciq/ Manager February 7, 1997 Mr. Harry Y. Yahata Interim Deputy Director California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623 Subject: Sand Hill Road Improvement Project Dear Mr. Yahata: Thank .you for your letter of January 16, 1997, regarding Palo Alto’s strong interest in having a binding agreement between Caitrans and the City of Palo Alto to maintain, in perpetuity, the planned traffic operations at the intersection of SR 82 (El Camino Real)/Alma Street/Sand Hill Road. Said agreement would preclude through access across El Camino Real at this location; unless there is a mutual agreement between Caltrans and the City to institute a change. We agree with your proposal to include language in the regular Maintenance Agreement between Caltrans and the City restricting the operations of this intersection, in conjunction with the other planned improvements at this intersection, and look forward to working together on this matter. I would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate that the planned traffic operations at this intersection are based upon long-standing, well-established City policy. In addition, current on going Planning Commission and Council review of an updated Comprehensive Plan for Palo Alto, reaffirms the importance of this policy. Review.of the Sand Hi!l Road extension project is currently in front of our City Council, and we anticipate that certification of the EIR and a decision on the extension project will occur in the near future. Findings established in the Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects include the following: All six intersections along SR 82 (El Camino Real) in Menlo Park will experience less delay with the project as proposed, than.without the project (Volume 3, Tables 4.4-18 and 4.4-19). The proposed project includes provision for making left turns from northbound El Camino Real at both Quarry Road and Sand Hill Road, neither of which can be done at the present time. This will provide drivers with more direct access to where they want to go, without having to make a u-turn at Cambridge or a left turn to travel P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 415.329.2.%3 415. 328. 3631 Fax Mr. Harry Y. Yahata. February 7, 1997 Page 2 through the neighborhood area along Cambridge and other streets. This additional left-turn capability, from northbound El Camino Real at both Quarry and Sand Hill, will also attract northbound traffic from Alma, which today is making u-turns and left turns at Cambridge. Information in the EIR establishes that for the Year 2000 the proposed projects will result in a reduction in the number of vehicles making u-turns and left turns at Cambridge, as compared to the situation without the proposed projects (Volume 6, Page 12-40 second and third paragraphs). Peak Hour Level of Service at the El Camino Real/Alma intersection would decline to E, if the through movements across El Camino Real were allowed (Volume 6, Page 12-66, first paragraph). Finally, the planned traffic operations at this intersection are the same as those that currently exist and have existed for decades, with the exception of the addition of a new fourth leg to the intersection. All of the traffic movements between El Camino Real and Alma Street will be exactly as they are now and have been for many years. We appreciate your willingness to work with us on this matter, other items related to this project, and other projects within Palo Alto. , cc: City Council Ernie Satow bcc:Will Kempton Bill Phillips Ken Schreiber Nancy Lytle Lori Topley Sue Case ATTACHMENT 3 ANALYSIS OF PAUSD INFORMATION School District Staff have been unable to provide additional information necessary to complete the analysis of PAUSD information submitted during the public hearing. The analysis will be provided to the Council as soon as it can be completed.