Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-08 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: February 8, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assingments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2.Update on the City's Effort to Update the Comprehensive Plan Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 689-693 Arastradero [16PLN-00228]: Recommendation to City Council for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, With Exceptions, to Merge Two Existing Parcels into One Parcel. The Exception Would Allow the Merged Parcel to Exceed the Maximum Lot Area. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated on January 19, 2017 for Public Review. Zoning District: R-1 (10,000) Zoning District. For More Information, Contact Claire Hodgkins at: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.1310 Bryant Street [16PLN-00258]: The Planning and Transportation Commission Will Hold a Public Scoping Meeting on the Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for the Castilleja School Expansion Project. Public Input is Encouraged. _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. For More Information, Please Visit the Webpage or Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 5.January 11, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment January 11, 2017 Draft Minutes _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair Michael Alcheck Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel Commissioner Przemek Gardias Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner Eric Rosenblum Commissioner Doria Summa Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7659) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 2/8/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assingments From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items:  PTC Meeting Schedule  PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)  Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments:  Attachmetn A 2-8-17 2017 PTC Meeting Schedule & Assignments (DOCX) Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2017 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 1/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED 2/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/22/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/10/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/31/2017 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular 6/14/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/28/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/09/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/30/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/08/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Subject to Cancellation 12/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED 2017 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Eric Rosenblum Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Eric Rosenblum July August September October November December Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Doria Summa Michael Alcheck Subcommittees Comp Plan CAC: Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting: February 22 Doc ID Short Title Placement 7660 3877 El Camino Real Site Design and Review Study Session Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 6748) Report Type: Meeting Date: 2/8/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Comprehensive Plan Update Title: Update on the City's Effort to Update the Comprehensive Plan From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation: Receive presentation and provide comments as appropriate. Background: The City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Transportation Commission has requested quarterly updates to stay informed about this community effort. The last update was provided on October 26, 2016; a video link to that discussion is available online at: https://youtu.be/TPrXjpjCc1Q?t=1293. An oral presentation will be provided; there are no attachments or documents to share at this time. No formal action will be taken at this meeting. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7619) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/8/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 689-693 Arastradero: Preliminary Map with Exceptions Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 689-693 Arastradero [16PLN-00228]: Recommendation to City Council for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, With Exceptions, to Merge Two Existing Parcels into One Parcel. The Exception Would Allow the Merged Parcel to Exceed the Maximum Lot Area. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated on January 19, 2017 for Public Review. Zoning District: R-1 (10,000) Zoning District. For More Information, Contact Claire Hodgkins at: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed preliminary parcel map application, with exceptions, to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval set forth in Attachment C. Report Summary The applicant requests approval of a preliminary parcel map, with exceptions, to merge a 24,688 square foot (sf) parcel located at 693 Arastradero Road with a 30,206 sf parcel located at 689 Arastradero Road. The resulting 54,894 sf parcel would exceed the maximum allowable lot size of 19,999 sf in the R-1 (10,000) Zoning District. The merged parcels would support an expansion to the Bowman International School located at 4000 Terman Drive, approximately 500 feet north of the subject parcel. Through separate approvals, the applicant proposes to construct a new school facility, which would include a gymnasium, an administration and classroom building, a lab space for art and wood shop and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 an outdoor learning circle amphitheater. The proposed art and wood shop areas would be below grade, leading to the lower portion of the amphitheater. There are two notable policy considerations the commission will want to consider that relate to the size of the parcel and the loss of residential housing units; both topics are expanded up on this report. However, on balance, staff finds the proposal in compliance with the comprehensive plan and recommends approval of the parcel map with exceptions. A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review on January 19, 2017. Background Project Information Owner: Bowman School International (693 Arastradero); Pierce Family Trust (689 Arastradero) Architect: Pacific Peninsula Architecture, Inc. Representative: Colleen Reilly Legal Counsel: None Property Information Address: 689-693 Arastradero Road Neighborhood: Green Acres adjacent Lot Dimensions & Area: 693 Arastradero; 24,688 sf 689 Arastradero; 30,206 sf Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, three protected oaks to remain Historic Resource(s): An Historic Resources Evaluation has been prepared; the existing structures are not eligible for the California Registry of Historical Resources Existing Improvement(s): Three single-story single-family homes: 689 Arastradero –house, detached garage, and accessory structure built circa 1948; 691 Arastradero – house built circa 1958, 693 Arastradero – house and detached garage built circa 1960 Existing Land Use(s): Single-family residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 (10000) Single-Family Residential zoning (Church) West: R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning (Single-family Residential) East: RM-30 Multi-family Residential Zoning (Multi-family Residential) South: Public Facility Zoning/Open Space (Palo Alto-Los Altos Bike Path) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Special Setbacks: Arastradero Road (24 ft. setback) Aerial Image: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1 (10000) Comp. Plan Designation: Single-family Context-Based Design: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, in a residential neighborhood Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 HRB: None ARB: 15PLN-00254 Preliminary Architectural Review 10/15/2015 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49416; 16PLN-00089 First formal as a study session 11/17/2016 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54708 Project Description The applicant requests approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, with exceptions, to merge two single-family residential parcels into one parcel that would subsequently be developed as a private school (Bowman School). A Location Map is included in Attachment A. The lots are 24,688 sf and 30,206 sf (respectively, APNs 167-04-011 and 167-04-012) and would result in a combined lot size of 54,894 sf. The maximum lot size in the R-1 (10000) Zoning District is 19,999 sf. The applicant is requesting an exception to exceed the maximum allowable lot size. The lots would continue to be accessed via Arastradero Road. The project request letter, also referred to below as the applicant’s petition, is included in Attachment B and the proposed Preliminary Parcel Map is included in Attachment G. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview:  Preliminary Parcel Map: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 21.12.100 requires that mergers be processed in the same fashion as a subdivision. The process for approval of a preliminary parcel map for a subdivision is outlined in PAMC Section 21.12.090. Although preliminary parcel maps may be reviewed and approved at a staff level, PAMC Section 21.32.020 requires the Commission to review preliminary parcels maps for which an exception is requested. The Commission reviews whether the amended subdivision (or in this case, merger) complies and is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State Law. The Commission’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. The findings to approve a Preliminary Parcel Map are provided in Attachment C. In accordance with PAMC 21.32, exceptions may be granted only by the City Council after recommendation by the PTC. Application for such an exception shall be made by petition of the applicant, stating fully the grounds of the application and the facts relied upon by the petitioner. Such petition shall be submitted with the tentative or preliminary parcel map for which the exception is requested and shall be reviewed and processed concurrent with said map. Additionally, the project as a whole will require approval for the following, which are not subject to PTC review: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5  Major Architectural Review: Major Architectural Review (AR) is required, as set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Development Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.  Conditional Use Permit (CUP): A CUP is required for a private educational facility in the Single-family Residential Zone District. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by the Planning and Community Environment Director. Action by the Director is appealable to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. CUPs are evaluated against specific findings set forth in PAMC 18.76.010. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.  Variance: A variance is required for the below grade amphitheater, which exceeds the maximum allowable area for excavated features in the Single-family Zone District; the code limits sunken areas adjacent to a basement to 200 sf and the project proposes 3,140 sf. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.070. Variance applications are reviewed by the Planning and Community Environment Director. Action by the Director is appealable to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. CUPs are evaluated against specific findings set forth in PAMC 18.76.030. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding required project redesign or denial. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located in a predominately residential neighborhood, containing a variety of uses. Properties to the northeast along Arastradero Road are zoned Single-family Residential (R- 1 [10,0000]) and include the Palo Alto Christian Reformed Church, single family homes on Ynigo Way and the existing Bowman School Terman site. Properties to the south and southeast of the site, zoned PF and R-E, include the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way/Pedestrian Trail and Alta Mesa Memorial Park. To the north of the site, across Arastradero, properties are zoned R-1 and are single-family residences. To the southwest there is multi-family housing, zoned RM-40, and Gunn High School. To the east of the site (rear) is the Terman Apartments, a multi-family 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 apartment complex in the RM-30 Zone District. Adjacent lot sizes range from approximately 122,000 sf (Terman Apartments to the east) and 189,000 sf (Hetch Hetchy right of way to the south) to approximately 43,000 sf (church to the north). Aside from the existing single-family residential uses west and further north of the site, all of the lots in this area exceed the allowable 20,000 sf. A variety of architectural styles are present in the neighborhood, including mid-century and more contemporary styles. The site would be constructed with smaller, single- story residential style buildings at the front of the property and the taller 26 foot gymnasium building would be located towards the rear of the site where it is less visible from the street. Parking would be located at the front of the property along Arastradero, consistent with the parking lot locations of the adjacent Palo Alto Christian Reformed Church and the existing Bowman School Terman site. Zoning Compliance2 The two existing properties exceed the maximum lot area for the subject R-1 (10,000) zoning district; the maximum lot size is 19,999 square feet. Additionally, one of the parcels includes two housing units, exceeding the permitted density for this district. The applicant proposes to merge the two parcels into one larger parcel to accommodate the proposed development. The resultant lot area would contain 54,894 square feet. There are instances in the code where lot mergers in excess of the maximum standard are permitted; however, it requires no net loss in housing units, or other criteria, which are not met by the proposed development. Accordingly, the applicant has filed for a parcel map exception to allow the parcel to exceed the maximum lot area. Except for the size of the parcel, the proposed parcel map would otherwise meet other applicable site development standards, such as lot depth and width. Attachment D provides a summary of the project’s compliance with the zoning standards. The purpose for restricting lot size in the R-1 district is to limit the potential for lot combinations to result in a net loss in the city’s housing stock and to ensure the resultant homes are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. In this instance, the proposed project would remove three homes, albeit one of those is nonconforming, and replace these structures with a new private school. The design of the school buildings and site layout are being reviewed by the ARB. Preliminary Parcel Map The necessary findings for approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map are contained in State law and incorporated into Title 21 of the Municipal Code. Under the Subdivision Map Act, the PTC and Council must make a series of “reverse” findings to justify approval. In particular, the PTC must recommend denying a Preliminary Parcel Map if it makes any of the findings provided in Government Code Section 66474 (see Attachment C). Parcel Map Exception PAMC Chapter 21 includes standards for reviewing parcel maps. Because the project includes deviations from the zoning standards for lot size, the applicant requests an exception to the 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 maximum lot size standard pursuant to PAMC 21.32. The maximum lot size of 19,999 sf in the R-1 (10,000) Zone District is established by PAMC 18.12.040. The project proposes one combined lot that is 54,894 sf. The standards applicable to a parcel map exemption are provided in PAMC 21.32.020, which is restated below, with the specific findings required to grant the exception listed in subsection (b): (a) Exceptions shall be granted only upon a finding that the approval will secure substantially the objectives of the regulations or requirements to which the exceptions are requested, shall protect the public health, safety, convenience, and the general welfare and shall be consistent with and implement the policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Any approval of exceptions may be made upon such conditions as are deemed necessary to secure such compliance. (b) Exceptions shall be granted only upon making the following findings: (1) There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. (2) The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. (3) The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. (4) The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. (c) In the event an exception is granted, any conditions necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, the comprehensive plan, or any provision of law shall be imposed. Included in Attachment C is staff’s analysis of the project to these findings. Staff’s conclusion in Attachment C summarizes that, due to the irregular (triangular) shape of the lot at 693 Arastradero, the height and FAR of development would be restricted by setback and daylight plane requirements toward the rear of the lot. The lot merger allows for better site planning; specifically, the location of the single taller building to be placed toward the rear of the property rather than at the front of the lot, where it would be more visible to adjacent single- family residential uses and less in character with the neighborhood. Without this exception Bowman School would be limited in the types of facilities that could be provided due to irregular shape of the lot. The granting of this exception would not be detrimental to the public welfare because many of the surrounding lots are much larger than the requested lot size and the majority of the immediately adjacent lots exceed 20,000 sf. In addition, the total number of students that may be enrolled between the two campuses would be consistent with the total number that is already approved to be enrolled at the existing campus. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Single-family Residential and is not subject to any area plans or specific guidelines. Allowed uses in the Single-family Residential Zoning District include one dwelling unit on each lot as well as conditional uses such as 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 churches and schools. With approval of a CUP, the proposed use for a private school would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2015-2023 Housing Element There are three existing housing units currently on the project site. One of the houses was previously rented and is currently vacant. Two of the houses were previously abandoned and remain vacant. The proposed project would remove the three housing units to allow for construction of the new school. One key policy consideration for the PTC to evaluate is the loss of three housing units to allow for the expansion of an existing private school. The proposed expansion is not for increased enrollment, but to provide additional breakout space for students at the Terman site. Students ages 3-5 would primarily be located at the new campus while older students would walk between the existing and proposed campus in order to utilize these breakout spaces. Policy H1.1 of the 2015-2023 Housing Element states “promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties using sustainable and energy conserving approaches.” Although removal of these housing units is not aligned with this policy, a policy consideration must be made in balancing the loss of these housing units and the project’s consistency with other goals of the Comprehensive Plan. For example, Goal H2 of the Housing Element focuses on encouraging the siting of housing and schools in close proximity. It states “support the construction of housing near schools, transit, parks, shopping, employment and cultural institutions.” In addition, the Land Use and Design element of the Comprehensive Plan includes L-12, which states “preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. In addition, Policy L-48 states “promote high quality creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.” In staff’s assessment of the proposal, the loss of residential housing warrants Commission discussion. The City specifically, and the region generally, has a significant housing shortage and the loss of even a few units requires review. In this particular instance, one of the three residences is nonconforming and would not be allowed under current zoning. The City’s zoning code seeks to have nonconforming uses abated and there is nothing in the City’s local regulations that would require the nonconforming home to remain. The loss of two or three single family housing units is noteworthy, but it is also de minimis in terms of overall housing production and for housing affordability. If the merger were denied, redevelopment of the site would likely include two new large single family homes that would likely be sold at prices not generally accessible to most home buyers. Additionally, the subject property is located at the edge of a residential neighborhood surrounded by Alta Mesa Memorial Park; a multi-family housing development; a church; and, across the street other single family residences under similar zoning. The City’s Comprehensive Plan also encourages locating schools and housing in close proximity. While there is an argument that this private school may not be as accessible as public schools to City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 neighborhood children, the importance of setting in establishing a school is also important and, given the close proximity to the school’s primary campus, the subject location seems like a beneficial location for families attending the school and the school’s academic pursuits. In addition, the proposed design seems compatible with the adjacent neighborhood and adjacent structures, focusing massing away from adjacent single-family residences, consistent with Policy L-12. The tallest building would be 26 feet, which is similar to the height of most two- story residences. Most buildings would be single-story. Based on the location of this property and the surrounding land uses, staff concludes that the proposed lot merger, to accommodate a new school, would not be detrimental to the public welfare, or more specifically, impact the residential neighborhood. The loss of housing units is unfortunate, but it does not, from staff’s perspective, outweigh the benefit of the proposed school expansion. Moreover, the current comprehensive plan does not contain any current policies that preclude the loss of housing units. The City Council in its review of the updated plan may consider policies to address this concern when they review that policy document later this year. Circulation With the proposed merger, access to and from the site would continue to be provided from Arastradero Road. As part of the applicant’s ARB application, a new one-way driveway and parking layout is proposed to be accessed by a right-turn only in driveway at the southwestern corner of the property and a right-turn only out driveway at the northeastern corner of the property. The right-turn only approach to the circulation pattern is necessitated by the City proposed median improvements for the portion of Arastradero Road fronting the property. The applicant reports that the proposed median improvements will prevent a left-turn in or out of the applicant’s property with the exception of bicycles utilizing the left turn bike lane. City staff is continuing its analysis of the on-site circulation plan to ensure it is efficiently designed and takes into consideration a variety of factors. The ARB will make a recommendation to the Director on the proposed circulation layout, which is provided to the PTC for informational purposes only. Bowman has stated that current enrollment at their Terman site is 237 students, where they have approvals for 300 students. With this application, Bowman is proposing that total enrollment at both sites would not exceed this currently permitted 300 students. Approval of the new and revised CUPs is not subject to PTC purview. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated for public review and comment on January 19, 2017. The public comment period is open through February 21, 2017 and a link to the IS/MND is provided in City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Attachment E. A focused Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared and a link to this analysis is provided in Attachment F. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 27, 2016, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 25, 2016, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. As of the writing of this report, one written public comment in opposition of the proposed project was received. This comment was provided in response to the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review. The commenter noted that changing zoning to convert a single family home at 693 Arastradero Road to a 60 student school structure would not be acceptable. They expressed concerns about the fact that there are several other schools nearby and that the portion of Arastradero between El Camino and Foothill is already impacted by congestion. This comment is being considered by the ARB as part of the application for these requests. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2679 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant Request Letter (PDF)  Attachment C: Draft RLUA, Findings and Conditions (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (DOCX)  Attachment F: Traffic Impact Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Ter m a n Par k Parki n g L o t Term a n Alta Mesa Memorial Park Gu n n H i g h S c h o o l Gunn High School Hetc h H e t c h y R i g h t o f W a y Rec o r d O v e r l a p Re s e a r c h e d 2 - 1 0 - 1 9 7 6 Hetch Hetchy Right of Way Alta Mesa Memorial Park Alta MesaMemorial Park Ter m a n M i d d l e S c h o o l Bow m a n I n t . Scho o l 24 24 24 24 60 3 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 30 Mausoleum #2 Mausoleum #1 Adobe CreekMausoleum Terman Middle School Aras t r a d e r o West Apar t m e n t s Student Activities Center QUAD Math & Sc i e n c e Office (MS - 6 ) World Language s &English- Social St u d i e s Offices LOCKER S Bowm a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l S c h o o l Science Arastrad e r o S t a t i o n 9 . 3 '1 0 . 9 '1 1 5 . 0 '7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 '7 0 . 0 ' 2 0 . 6 '2 1 . 4 '1 4 . 2 '1 1 0 . 2 ' 1 2 4 . 9 '1 1 6 . 8 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 1 ' 1 0 . 2 ' 6 1 . 8 ' 1 1 6 . 0 ' 3 1 . 3 ' 2 9 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 4 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 2 1 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 1 ' 6 4 . 0 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 3 7 . 5 ' 3 9 . 8 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 3 0 . 5 ' 8 1 . 4 ' 1 3 0 . 5 ' 5 0 . 5 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 8 2 . 3 ' 6 5 . 3 ' 1 4 2 . 3 ' 1 0 3 . 4 ' 1 3 8 . 6 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 3 8 . 6 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 6 4 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 3 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 2 2 . 1 ' 1 1 0 . 4 ' 6 1 . 4 ' 1 1 5 . 1 ' 8 3 . 0 ' 4 7 . 7 ' 1 3 3 . 7 ' 6 8 . 9 ' 3 3 . 5 ' 1 5 6 . 4 ' 4 2 . 0 ' 1 5 6 . 4 ' 1 4 . 7 ' 9 4 . 9 ' 1 2 6 . 3 ' 5 8 . 0 ' 1 2 6 . 3 ' 7 8 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 3 0 . 5 ' 4 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 3 ' 8 3 . 4 ' 1 2 3 . 6 ' 6 8 . 2 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 9 2 . 0 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 0 ' 9 2 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 0 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 3 ' 6 7 . 7 ' 1 1 5 . 3 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 5 ' 6 9 . 8 ' 1 2 2 . 5 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 1 4 2 . 3 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 1 4 5 . 0 ' 4 3 . 1 ' 3 2 . 1 ' 6 3 . 8 ' 1 0 5 . 8 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 1 1 . 0 ' 3 4 . 6 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 1 0 5 . 8 ' 9 5 . 0 ' 1 1 4 . 2 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 1 4 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 7 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 8 3 . 0 ' 4 . 2 ' 8 7 . 0 ' 3 4 . 6 ' 2 2 . 6 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 3 2 . 9 ' 1 1 6 . 7 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 7 0 1 . 1 ' 1 6 9 3 . 7 ' 9 9 . 9 ' 9 2 6 . 7 ' 2 3 3 . 7 ' 1 1 7 7 . 1 ' 5 2 3 . 1 ' 2 2 5 . 4 ' 1 3 . 7 ' 9 3 8 . 8 ' 1 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 7 1 . 3 ' 1 6 4 . 8 ' 5 6 7 . 8 ' 2 6 7 . 4 ' 3 1 . 1 ' 4 1 8 . 5 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 1 2 . 4 ' 5 7 . 8 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 '7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 '7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 6 . 2 ' 1 3 . 5 '9 7 . 1 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 5 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 1 ' 6 5 . 1 ' 8 5 . 9 ' 3 8 . 7 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 7 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 . 5 ' 1 1 4 . 2 ' 7 1 . 3 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 2 4 . 3 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 3 ' 9 . 0 '5 5 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 3 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 2 5 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 9 ' 5 4 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 9 ' 7 2 . 7 ' 4 2 . 0 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 2 7 . 8 ' 2 3 . 6 ' 9 . 4 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 1 0 2 . 2 ' 1 2 6 . 1 ' 5 2 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 8 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 6 4 . 4 ' 1 2 6 . 1 ' 9 1 . 6 ' 3 4 . 0 ' 1 2 8 . 3 ' 4 7 . 3 ' 1 3 4 . 3 ' 7 2 . 0 ' 1 3 2 . 5 ' 6 5 . 7 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 1 9 . 5 ' 6 5 . 4 ' 1 3 4 . 3 ' 4 5 . 0 ' 1 4 3 . 9 ' 5 9 . 3 ' 5 3 . 4 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 4 6 . 6 ' 1 1 2 . 8 ' 6 1 . 5 ' 1 8 . 0 ' 1 8 . 6 ' 1 4 3 . 9 ' 5 9 . 7 ' 1 2 8 . 3 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 1 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 8 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 1 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 5 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 8 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 5 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 1 . 7 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 1 . 7 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 3 . 1 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 4 ' 6 1 . 5 ' 9 . 6 ' 9 . 1 ' 1 1 3 . 3 ' 7 0 . 2 ' 1 1 3 . 1 ' 6 8 . 6 ' 1 6 . 4 ' 1 5 . 1 ' 7 7 . 6 ' 6 1 . 3 ' 1 1 3 . 3 ' 4 5 . 5 ' 5 8 . 0 ' 6 3 . 0 ' 3 3 . 7 ' 2 0 . 3 ' 8 . 4 ' 9 . 1 ' 5 . 0 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 5 8 . 0 ' 4 5 . 5 ' 5 . 0 ' 2 4 . 9 ' 3 6 . 8 ' 1 3 . 8 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 8 ' 7 . 0 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 4 3 . 5 ' 7 . 4 ' 1 1 5 . 8 ' 9 2 . 6 ' 9 7 . 1 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 3 0 . 5 ' 4 7 . 8 ' 8 0 . 2 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 2 ' 6 1 . 5 ' 1 0 2 . 4 ' 1 4 . 6 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 3 3 . 4 ' 4 9 . 4 ' 1 0 2 . 4 ' 7 3 . 3 ' 1 3 . 7 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 2 5 . 0 ' 3 6 . 5 ' 2 5 . 0 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 1 5 . 0 ' 1 2 8 . 3 ' 1 6 . 6 ' 1 5 . 3 ' 1 2 8 . 3 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 9 9 . 5 ' 3 2 . 7 ' 9 9 . 5 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 1 1 9 . 1 ' 3 8 . 9 ' 1 1 9 . 1 ' 5 9 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 1 1 4 . 6 ' 1 6 . 9 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 2 8 . 9 ' 1 1 4 . 6 ' 7 4 . 7 ' 1 2 0 . 4 ' 3 6 . 7 ' 1 2 0 . 4 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 9 9 . 6 ' 3 6 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 2 5 . 9 ' 3 3 . 7 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 2 . 8 ' 1 4 . 1 ' 2 6 . 0 ' 1 0 2 . 8 ' 9 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 1 2 . 3 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 7 0 . 7 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 5 8 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 1 ' 7 . 2 ' 6 2 . 2 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 2 . 0 ' 4 6 . 4 ' 3 1 . 1 ' 9 9 . 9 ' 2 2 . 1 ' 4 8 . 5 ' 1 0 . 0 ' 1 2 . 6 ' 7 . 8 ' 2 3 . 2 ' 1 1 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 3 ' 7 . 8 ' 7 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 7 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 1 2 1 . 7 ' 1 5 . 6 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 5 . 8 ' 3 1 . 5 ' 1 9 . 7 ' 9 9 . 9 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 9 8 . 4 ' 1 5 . 3 ' 2 0 . 8 ' 3 5 . 8 ' 3 4 . 2 ' 9 7 . 5 ' 1 1 1 . 1 ' 8 9 . 9 ' 8 0 . 8 ' 1 0 6 . 9 ' 1 5 0 . 6 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 6 2 . 4 ' 7 . 6 ' 1 0 6 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 1 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 5 7 . 0 ' 1 3 2 . 5 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 0 ' 1 3 7 . 1 ' 5 6 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 0 ' 3 9 . 0 ' 3 2 . 2 ' 1 2 1 . 7 ' 6 1 . 9 ' 1 3 7 . 1 ' 7 0 . 4 ' 5 8 . 5 ' 1 1 2 . 1 ' 2 8 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 4 ' 1 2 0 . 7 ' 3 0 . 2 ' 2 8 . 2 ' 1 1 6 . 0 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 9 3 . 6 ' 1 7 . 1 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 4 8 . 2 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 8 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 2 8 . 2 ' 4 1 . 8 ' 1 1 5 . 5 ' 1 2 . 2 ' 5 7 . 8 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 '1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 '1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 '1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 '1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 9 9 . 2 ' 1 5 . 5 ' 1 4 . 3 ' 5 1 . 6 ' 1 1 7 . 6 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 5 . 2 ' 4 . 8 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 6 4 . 0 ' 1 1 7 . 6 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 5 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 1 3 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 6 ' 3 1 . 6 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 5 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 8 7 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 2 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 8 2 . 8 ' 1 2 3 . 9 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 9 9 . 9 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 5 0 . 2 ' 1 2 3 . 9 ' 2 4 . 0 ' 2 6 . 3 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 9 8 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 3 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 4 9 . 0 ' 4 0 . 5 ' 1 1 3 . 9 ' 4 9 . 6 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 8 . 9 ' 1 1 0 . 6 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 3 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 3 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 9 ' 9 2 . 0 ' 1 2 4 . 2 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 6 ' 7 4 . 9 ' 1 2 6 . 8 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 5 0 . 2 ' 1 2 4 . 2 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 5 ' 5 4 . 5 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 3 4 . 2 ' 4 0 . 5 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 5 ' 5 0 . 3 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 9 8 . 0 ' 7 2 . 3 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 7 2 . 3 ' 1 1 1 . 4 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 5 0 . 2 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 9 3 . 0 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 1 4 . 2 ' 9 6 . 9 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 8 6 . 9 ' 1 5 . 7 ' 9 5 . 0 ' 3 2 . 4 ' 2 4 . 9 ' 4 0 . 7 ' 9 2 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 0 ' 9 6 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 2 8 . 2 '4 1 . 8 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 1 3 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 1 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 5 ' 1 0 9 . 6 ' 1 7 . 0 ' 5 0 . 5 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 6 9 . 5 ' 5 1 . 3 ' 1 0 8 . 9 ' 1 0 3 . 0 ' 1 5 5 . 2 ' 4 0 . 0 ' 1 5 5 . 2 ' 4 0 . 0 ' 1 0 7 . 2 ' 1 1 7 . 0 ' 3 4 . 1 ' 2 6 . 9 ' 1 1 7 . 0 ' 8 7 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 8 0 . 2 ' 5 2 . 2 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 8 5 . 0 ' 1 5 . 7 ' 8 6 . 9 ' 1 4 7 . 9 ' 3 0 . 7 ' 8 7 . 3 ' 9 7 . 5 ' 2 8 . 6 ' 4 9 . 9 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 3 9 . 2 ' 2 7 . 4 ' 2 6 . 8 ' 1 4 3 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 4 ' 2 5 . 7 ' 2 9 . 4 ' 6 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 7 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 4 1 . 9 ' 1 0 8 . 9 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 6 ' 2 2 . 1 ' 2 6 . 2 ' 1 1 . 1 ' 1 0 7 . 5 ' 9 9 . 8 ' 1 2 . 2 ' 2 0 . 8 ' 1 3 7 . 8 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 1 3 7 . 8 ' 1 4 3 . 3 ' 6 5 . 7 ' 7 4 . 0 ' 1 2 1 . 9 ' 8 5 . 0 ' 4 7 . 0 ' 9 2 . 2 ' 4 7 . 0 ' 8 5 . 0 ' 1 2 1 . 9 ' 7 4 . 0 ' 9 2 . 2 ' 1 2 8 . 5 ' 1 2 5 . 5 ' 2 4 4 . 7 ' 1 0 4 . 2 ' 7 1 . 6 ' 1 0 8 . 8 ' 3 6 . 6 ' 5 4 . 0 ' 2 1 . 0 ' 2 1 . 0 ' 1 7 7 . 7 ' 2 6 3 . 5 ' 2 6 . 0 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 2 3 9 . 2 ' 1 5 7 . 7 ' 2 5 6 . 9 ' 1 2 5 . 5 ' 1 5 4 . 5 ' 2 6 3 . 5 ' 2 5 . 0 ' 7 7 4 . 4 ' 2 4 7 . 9 ' 8 3 . 8 ' 5 8 . 7 ' 7 1 . 1 ' 1 3 3 . 8 ' 7 0 . 3 ' 6 1 . 4 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 3 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 2 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 3 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 3 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 4 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 3 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 5 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 4 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 2 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 1 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 6 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 5 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 7 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 6 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 7 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 7 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 8 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 7 ' 2 9 . 2 ' 4 5 . 9 ' 1 2 7 . 3 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 8 ' 6 0 . 6 ' 1 4 . 9 ' 1 3 5 . 8 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 7 . 3 ' 1 4 2 . 5 ' 8 9 . 9 ' 4 6 . 5 ' 9 7 . 3 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 9 2 . 1 ' 2 8 . 5 ' 6 6 . 5 ' 9 . 6 ' 1 4 2 . 5 ' 7 0 . 8 ' 7 6 . 1 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 5 6 . 1 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 3 9 . 6 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 1 4 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 5 1 . 1 ' 1 3 4 . 4 ' 5 4 . 3 ' 1 1 3 . 1 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 4 0 . 6 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 2 2 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 1 0 9 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 4 ' 3 2 . 0 ' 5 4 . 9 ' 1 1 8 . 7 ' 7 3 . 0 ' 1 6 3 . 3 ' 3 8 . 4 ' 8 2 . 3 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 9 3 . 0 ' 1 1 8 . 7 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 5 6 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 1 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 1 9 . 7 ' 4 0 . 8 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 5 2 . 9 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 5 7 . 5 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 4 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 6 ' 1 4 0 . 4 ' 1 3 5 . 5 ' 3 2 . 9 ' 6 5 . 7 ' 9 8 . 6 ' 3 2 . 9 ' 1 3 5 . 5 ' 1 0 7 . 5 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 5 7 . 5 ' 2 8 . 1 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 6 9 . 0 ' 9 2 . 5 ' 1 5 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 '8 6 . 2 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 9 0 . 0 '1 0 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 5 4 . 5 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 9 6 . 3 ' 7 4 . 7 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 9 6 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 9 6 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 9 0 . 0 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 8 9 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 8 9 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 9 0 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 '7 0 . 2 ' 1 3 5 . 0 '7 0 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 7 0 . 4 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 7 0 . 2 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 '1 1 8 . 3 ' 1 2 . 9 '5 4 . 8 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 4 2 . 7 ' 6 5 . 3 ' 2 7 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 8 . 7 ' 5 2 . 1 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 1 2 9 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 3 6 . 1 ' 5 4 . 6 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 6 9 . 3 '1 4 0 . 0 ' 3 4 . 9 ' 8 3 . 9 ' 4 5 . 3 ' 3 4 . 8 '7 4 . 0 '1 2 7 . 0 ' 7 4 . 0 '1 2 7 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 4 '4 1 . 0 '8 4 . 2 ' 1 3 4 . 0 '1 2 1 . 1 ' 7 4 . 0 '1 2 7 . 0 ' 7 4 . 0 '1 2 7 . 0 ' 1 2 4 . 8 ' 4 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 7 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 7 6 . 6 ' 9 8 . 3 ' 8 3 . 2 ' 7 4 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 8 7 . 8 ' 2 6 . 4 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 3 5 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 4 0 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 8 5 . 8 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 1 6 6 . 3 ' 5 4 . 8 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 6 1 . 0 ' 4 6 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 7 7 . 9 ' 8 5 . 1 ' 6 3 . 4 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 4 . 9 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 6 7 . 3 ' 1 5 5 7 . 2 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 1 4 5 1 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 3 0 0 . 0 ' 1 2 4 . 8 ' 4 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 7 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 7 6 . 6 ' 9 8 . 3 ' 8 3 . 2 ' 7 4 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 8 7 . 8 ' 2 6 . 4 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 3 5 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 4 0 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 8 5 . 8 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 1 6 6 . 3 ' 5 4 . 8 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 6 1 . 0 ' 4 6 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 7 7 . 9 ' 8 5 . 1 ' 6 3 . 4 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 4 . 9 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 6 7 . 3 ' 1 5 5 7 . 2 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 1 4 5 1 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 3 0 0 . 0 ' 1 2 4 . 8 ' 4 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 7 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 7 6 . 6 ' 9 8 . 3 ' 8 3 . 2 ' 7 4 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 8 7 . 8 ' 2 6 . 4 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 3 5 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 4 0 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 8 5 . 8 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 1 6 6 . 3 ' 5 4 . 8 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 6 1 . 0 ' 4 6 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 7 7 . 9 ' 8 5 . 1 ' 6 3 . 4 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 4 . 9 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 6 7 . 3 ' 1 5 5 7 . 2 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 1 4 5 1 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 3 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 9 ' . 3 ' . 3 ' . 2 ' 6 2 . 1 ' 4 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 7 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 7 6 . 6 ' 9 8 . 3 ' 8 3 . 2 ' 7 4 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 8 7 . 8 ' 2 6 . 4 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 3 5 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 4 0 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 8 5 . 8 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 1 6 6 . 3 ' 5 4 . 8 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 6 1 . 0 ' 4 6 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 7 7 . 9 ' 8 5 . 1 ' 6 3 . 4 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 4 . 9 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 6 7 . 3 ' 1 5 5 7 . 2 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 1 4 5 1 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 3 0 0 . 0 ' 1 2 4 . 8 ' 4 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 7 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 7 6 . 6 ' 9 8 . 3 ' 8 3 . 2 ' 7 4 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 8 7 . 8 ' 2 6 . 4 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 3 5 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 4 0 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 8 5 . 8 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 1 6 6 . 3 ' 5 4 . 8 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 6 1 . 0 ' 4 6 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 7 7 . 9 ' 8 5 . 1 ' 6 3 . 4 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 4 . 9 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 6 7 . 3 ' 1 5 5 7 . 2 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 1 4 5 1 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 3 0 0 . 0 ' 3 1 4 . 5 ' 2 7 . 1 ' 2 4 3 . 9 ' 1 4 6 . 4 ' 1 4 3 . 2 ' 2 2 6 . 5 ' 2 2 6 . 1 ' 2 4 0 . 0 ' 9 5 . 1 ' 3 0 5 . 2 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 2 7 2 . 3 ' 4 3 7 . 6 ' 5 1 5 . 4 ' 1 0 1 . 8 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 1 0 2 . 4 ' 9 7 . 6 ' 1 9 3 . 4 ' 3 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 7 ' 1 4 7 . 8 ' 1 3 1 . 0 '2 3 . 1 ' 1 3 5 . 7 ' 1 5 . 0 ' 1 8 6 . 6 ' 1 9 0 . 3 ' 4 5 . 0 ' 3 4 0 . 6 ' 1 0 2 . 4 ' 1 4 7 . 8 ' 1 3 0 . 7 ' 1 1 4 . 2 ' 1 8 6 . 7 ' 1 1 4 . 3 ' 1 8 6 . 6 ' 1 3 8 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 5 ' 1 3 8 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 5 ' 4 8 . 5 ' 2 2 6 . 3 ' 9 3 . 5 ' 1 5 0 . 2 ' 4 5 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 1 6 9 . 6 ' 2 4 2 . 7 ' 7 . 9 ' 8 . 2 ' 1 5 0 . 8 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 2 5 2 . 4 ' 4 1 2 . 8 ' 2 3 9 . 1 ' 3 5 1 . 3 ' 2 7 6 . 0 ' 2 8 3 . 8 ' 4 5 0 . 0 ' 2 1 2 . 0 ' 2 8 3 . 8 ' 4 9 4 . 1 ' 2 2 6 . 1 ' 6 9 2 . 6 ' 3 5 1 . 3 ' 2 7 6 . 0 ' 2 1 2 . 0 ' 4 5 0 . 0 ' 2 4 0 . 0 ' 1 3 5 7 . 5 ' 4 8 . 7 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 3 9 . 0 ' 5 3 . 1 ' 1 9 3 . 4 ' 2 2 4 . 3 ' 2 6 8 . 9 ' 1 3 0 . 0 ' 1 5 2 . 2 ' 1 5 . 2 ' 5 . 6 ' 5 . 1 ' 1 4 . 4 ' 1 4 . 0 ' 3 3 . 2 ' 2 1 . 8 ' 1 0 . 1 ' 3 . 8 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 4 . 9 ' 8 0 . 1 ' 1 5 8 . 3 ' 1 6 . 7 ' 1 5 . 8 ' 1 5 2 . 2 ' 1 5 . 7 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 1 4 7 . 9 ' 8 3 . 3 ' 1 5 8 . 3 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 7 . 3 ' 3 2 . 1 ' 1 . 2 ' 1 . 9 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 1 1 . 5 ' 1 0 . 5 ' 6 4 . 5 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 2 . 1 ' 1 . 0 ' 3 5 . 7 ' 3 . 1 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 3 . 1 ' 2 8 . 4 ' 3 . 4 ' 3 2 . 3 ' 1 4 . 2 ' 1 8 1 . 5 ' 4 4 . 2 ' 5 3 . 1 ' 7 . 4 ' 8 . 5 ' 9 . 4 ' 1 0 . 9 ' 3 3 . 7 ' 1 7 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 8 7 . 5 ' 9 3 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 6 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 8 1 . 4 ' 4 7 . 9 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 9 ' 5 2 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 4 7 . 9 ' 4 9 . 0 ' 3 1 . 1 ' 1 4 . 1 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 2 ' 4 1 . 0 ' 2 6 . 9 ' 3 0 9 . 0 ' 3 0 7 . 9 ' 1 3 9 . 5 ' 1 4 0 . 1 ' 2 6 4 . 4 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 9 9 . 6 ' 9 9 . 6 ' 4 4 . 4 ' 4 3 . 9 ' 2 6 4 . 0 ' 3 0 8 . 8 ' 6 8 . 8 ' 5 4 . 6 ' 2 6 5 . 0 ' 9 9 . 5 ' 1 8 9 . 5 ' 2 6 5 . 0 ' 3 2 7 . 6 ' 9 2 . 2 ' 4 0 . 7 ' 2 4 . 9 ' 3 2 . 4 ' 9 6 . 9 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 9 6 . 9 ' 9 5 . 0 ' 3 0 7 . 3 ' 5 3 6 . 0 ' 4 3 8 . 4 ' 4 3 8 . 4 ' 2 9 1 . 5 ' 7 . 6 ' 4 4 7 . 9 ' 2 0 4 . 1 ' 3 0 9 . 0 ' 3 5 8 . 9 ' 3 1 1 . 0 ' 2 0 3 . 2 ' 6 5 . 8 ' 1 4 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 5 4 . 2 ' 1 3 9 . 2 ' 1 1 9 . 4 ' 6 6 . 3 ' 6 6 . 8 ' 1 1 9 . 1 ' 1 3 . 0 ' 9 0 . 8 ' 2 0 9 . 9 ' 1 1 9 . 1 ' 6 6 . 3 ' 8 0 . 1 ' 5 4 . 1 ' 5 4 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 2 ' 5 4 . 2 ' 5 4 . 1 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 5 6 . 3 ' 6 3 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 5 ' 5 1 . 1 ' 9 4 . 7 '6 7 . 1 ' 9 2 . 5 ' 5 2 . 2 ' 4 0 . 1 ' 6 0 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 9 4 . 8 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 5 6 . 2 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 3 2 . 5 ' 3 8 . 0 ' 4 9 . 8 ' 4 9 . 8 ' 1 0 . 2 ' 1 0 . 2 ' 7 7 . 8 ' 7 7 . 8 ' 6 3 . 5 ' 5 6 . 1 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 3 2 . 5 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 9 4 . 1 '1 0 1 . 7 ' 1 0 1 . 7 ' 6 5 . 5 ' 6 5 . 5 ' 6 6 . 1 ' 1 0 1 . 9 ' 3 3 . 1 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 2 ' 3 0 . 2 ' 3 0 . 2 ' 6 0 . 8 ' 6 0 . 8 ' 4 9 . 2 ' 4 9 . 2 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 4 7 . 9 ' 1 1 0 . 6 '1 1 0 . 6 '9 7 . 4 ' 1 7 2 . 1 ' 2 0 2 . 7 ' 3 1 . 0 ' 2 2 . 7 '6 1 . 5 '6 1 . 2 ' 1 2 6 . 3 '1 2 6 . 3 ' 5 9 . 6 ' 1 1 . 5 ' 3 5 . 2 ' 7 8 . 8 ' 9 2 . 3 ' 3 6 . 2 ' 7 8 . 8 ' 1 0 0 . 9 ' 3 2 . 9 ' 1 0 3 . 4 ' 5 9 . 0 ' 1 5 2 . 4 ' 1 0 0 . 9 ' 1 1 . 5 ' 1 2 8 . 2 ' 1 2 8 . 2 ' 8 1 . 0 ' 7 6 . 3 ' 2 2 . 7 ' 7 1 . 1 ' 1 4 6 . 7 '1 4 6 . 7 ' 1 3 9 . 8 ' 2 1 . 1 ' 3 5 . 0 ' 3 2 . 2 ' 1 1 5 . 5 ' 9 0 . 2 ' 9 . 9 ' 2 2 . 5 ' 1 3 . 5 ' 1 7 . 0 ' 2 3 . 2 ' 2 6 . 0 ' 7 . 8 ' 8 . 3 ' 5 . 0 ' 5 . 1 ' 9 . 4 ' 2 7 . 4 ' 1 3 9 . 8 ' 9 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 '6 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 1 1 4 . 8 ' 1 1 4 . 8 ' 6 0 . 2 ' 1 1 4 . 4 ' 1 1 4 . 4 ' 7 2 . 9 ' 8 9 . 9 ' 9 4 . 6 ' 2 8 . 9 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 4124 652 669 671 675 680 674 672 670 668 666 664 662 660 656 654 673 686 684 4152 682 1099 644 650 648 646 10921090 41901065 1091 419 6 4198 415 1 4143 4152 416 2 4157415 3 687 685 4142 4138 683 681 679 4155 4149 4154 4162 4164 416 14157415 3414 9 414 6 415 0 415 6 414 2 4150 4132 677 4145 4139 4135 4131 4127 4120 4100 667 665 663 4120 4125 4128 4114 4108 4126 41934191 418 9 4195 4192418 84184418 0 676 418 7 417 5 416 9 416 5 4172 4176 4168 4160 4159 416 6 416 3 4167 417 1 417 3 4187 4177 419 0 4194 41864182417 8 417 0 682 680 4165 416 9 416 0 416 4 418 44176 417 0 419 2 417 7 4181 418 5 4173 4182 416 6 683 681 421 0 687 416 1 4129 4133 4137 4141 4168 698 4147 4152 4148 4140 4171 417 74167 418 5 4181 4189 41944188 4184 4178 4174 679 681 68368 5 4151 687 665 651 653 4156 669 4134 4190 4192 675 6734130 4162 4168 674 4211 4218 4225 4260 4250 4240 4206 4218 4228 4234 4238 4246 4250 4256 4260 4270 4280 666 660 4287 4277 4267 4257 4280 42 5 6 4200 685 655 4191 4196 4155 4161 4175 4183 4193 4167 4198 4197 4198 4194 419041864182647B 645 649 650 653 4211 4207 654 658 660 4227 4237 4247 641 657 651 647 4244 4248 4217 646 640 639 4272 4266 426 2 4252 4228 4234 4238 4220638 4158 75 0 4156 4168 4170 4160 4170 4186 4180 4182 41754179 4183 4169 73 0 72 4 78 0 693 689 4270 417 4 417 6 4172 4178 4180 695 4176 79 7 677 4192 4160 4230 4161 4000 694 72 6 74 0 465 475 476 466 460 461 459 45 5 456 815 845 873885 888 876 811 465 459 473 49 3 499501 519 520 516 506 494 48 4 472 816 832 848 847 833 815 800 788 829 837 76 0 691 MAYBELL AVENUE DONALD DRIVE WILLMAR DRIVE ARA S T R A D E R O R O A D YNIG O W A Y HUBBARTT DRIVE GEORGIA AVEN U E ARASTRADERO ROAD ARA S T R A D E R O R O A D POM O N A A V E N U E LOS PALOS AVENUE POMO N A A V E N U E ARASTR A D E R O R O A D MIR A N D A A V E N U E DONALD DRIVE WILL M A R D R I V E GE O R G I A A V E N U E HUBBARTT DRIVE CRO S B Y P L A C E GE O R G I A A V E N U E ARASTR A D E R O R O A D MAN U E L A A V E N U E FO O T H I L L E X P R E S S W A Y FO O T H I L L E X P R E S S W A Y FAI R M E D E A V E N U E DR I S C O L L C T WAL L I S C O U R T LOS PALOS P L A C E CHE RRY OAKS PLAC E KI NG AR THURS C T T E R M A N D R I V E GE O R G I A A V E N U E DONALD D R I V E A R A S T R A D E R O R O AD M A N U E L A A V E N U E LOSROBL E S A V E N U E A d o b e C r e e k A d o b e C r e e k R-2 PC-2 6 6 6 PC-2 6 6 6 RE RM-40 RM-30 R-1(10000) R-1 PF This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Park School Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 689 - 693 Arastradero Road (Project Site) 0'337' 689 - 693 Arastradero Road16PLN-00089 Location Map CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R AT E D C ALIFOR NI A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto vhernan2, 2016-09-08 11:54:07Location Map 693 Arastradero (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\vhernan2.mdb) APPROVAL NO. __ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 689-693 ARASTRADERO DRIVE: PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP APPLICATION [16PLN-00228] On ______, 2017, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto considered and approved the Preliminary Parcel Map for the development of a two lot merger with exceptions, making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On June 23, 2016, Mary Ricks of Bowman School, on behalf of Bowman International School and the Pierce Family Trust, applied for a Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for the development of a 54,894 square foot (sf) parcel (“The Project”). B. The project site is comprised of two lots (APN 167-04-012 and APN 167-04-011) that are 24,688 and 30,206 sf, respectively. The site contains three residential structures, an accessory structure, and two detached garages. Single-family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lot to the north, south, east and west. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval on ______, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review on January 19, 2017. The public comment period ends on February 21, 2017. SECTION 3. Preliminary Parcel Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: California Government Code Section 65451 outlines required information for a specific plan. The site does not lie within a specific plan area as specified in Section 65451. It is consistent, on the whole, with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages schools to be sited near homes and identifies schools as a conditionally permitted land use. The proposed merger would allow better site planning that is more in context with the neighborhood, consistent with the plan goals. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and goal: a. Policy L-12: Preserve the character residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. b. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. c. Goal H2: Support the construction of housing near schools, transit, parks, shopping, employment and cultural institutions. Surrounding uses at the site include a memorial park to the south, multi-family residential uses to the east, the existing Bowman School and a church to the north, and single-family residential uses to the west across a major arterial road. The proposed structures would be single-story buildings along the Arastradero Road frontage, where the site is located closest to single-family residences and the tallest building is similar in height to existing two-story residences. These proposed structures are consistent with the mass and scale of the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The location of this satellite school allows for students to walk between the existing Bowman campus and the new buildings, providing additional hands-on indoor and outdoor learning spaces for students at the existing Bowman campus. Given the site’s proximity to the existing Bowman campus as well as a park and existing residential uses, the proposed design and improvements at this site are consistent with the goals and policies outlined above in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The site, with approval of the exception to the maximum lot size, is well suited for the proposed school. The proposed school would replace three existing single-family homes, an accessory unit and two detached garages. Three of the houses are currently vacant and two are abandoned. Schools are a conditionally permitted use in the R-1 zoning district and the comprehensive plan encourages the siting of housing and schools in close proximity. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: While the project needs an exception to the maximum lot area, it would be in conformance with all other zoning regulations including the maximum floor area ratio. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: The project site is located in an urbanized area of Palo Alto, and has been developed with residential buildings and landscaping consisting primarily of non-native grasses and shrubs and a mix of native and non-native ornamental trees. The project site does not contain substantial areas of native vegetation or biological resources suitable to provide habitat for sensitive or special status species, such as riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The nearest water features are Adobe Creek, located over 1,000 feet east of the project site and Baron Creek located over 1,500 feet west of the project site. Removal of up to six trees could impact avian species. However, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project requires Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds. With implementation of this Mitigation Measure the project would not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The merging of two parcels to create one combined parcel for a school will not cause serious public health problems because the site is designated for such conditionally permitted uses. The use of the site for a school would not generate public health problems in the area because this use would not emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. There are no known recognized environmental conditions at the site. The main source of noise at the site would continue to be traffic noise along Arastradero Road. The noise level is not anticipated to increase, as discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. There is one known Pacific Gas and Electric easement on the property, which is located in the southwestern corner of the site. There are no known plans for use of this easement. The easement would be vacated, quitclaimed, or equivalent prior to issuance of the building permit, as required in accordance with the conditions of approval and as noted on the preliminary parcel map. The merging of these two parcels would not affect any other public easements on or adjacent to the project site. Access to the site would continue to be provided from Arastradero Road. Therefore, the proposed preliminary parcel map will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the subdivision. SECTION 4. Exception Findings The project proposes the following exception to the zoning standards as depicted on Preliminary Parcel Map:  Exceeds Maximum Lot Size of 19,999 square feet. 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Due to the irregular (triangular) shape of the lot at 693 Arastradero, the height and FAR of development would be unusually restricted by setback and daylight plane requirements. The lot merger allows for better site planning of a school facility; specifically, this merger would allow the single taller building to be placed toward the rear of the property, rather than at the front of the lot where it would be more visible to the adjacent single-family residential uses and less in character with the neighborhood. Therefore, without this exception, Bowman School would be limited in the types of facilities that could be provided due to the irregular shape of the lot. 2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. Schools are allowed in the R-1 districts with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In order to build a school with the proposed amenities, sufficient space is required to meet FAR requirements and to maintain appropriate indoor and outdoor space for the children to learn and play. The proposed merger would reduce restrictions on the academic interests that the school wishes to pursue on behalf of its students. If an exception is not granted to allow for a larger lot size, Bowman School would be limited in the ability to provide the requested facilities for classroom learning as well as other breakout space that would be shared with the existing Bowman School. The granting of this exception is necessary to preserve Bowman’s right to build a school on the site, subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. 3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The purpose of the maximum lot size in the R-1 District is to prevent lot combinations that would allow homes that would be out of scale with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. This exception would allow for an expansion of Bowman’s existing school just down the street. There are several schools within this area; therefore, this school use is similar to other school uses within the site vicinity. In addition, this site is located close to single-family residences but not immediately adjacent, which reduces potential for noise impacts on single-family residences. The existing Conditional Use Permit for the Bowman School on 4000 Terman Drive allows for up to 300 students and was determined to not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. With the addition of the new school annex, the total number of students enrolled at the Bowman School site at 4000 Terman (500 feet from the subject property) and the new school would remain at 300 students total. Therefore the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.12.010, the purposes of the single family zoning district are to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children’s play. The granting of the exception will permit the construction of the school, which could not otherwise be built and which does not result in a home that is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. The school, although not an attached dwelling unit, provides for a strong presence of nature with open space affording opportunities for children to play and learn. The proposed development includes outdoor learning areas, including a learning circle, science Garden a, play and exploration yards, patios and walkways. The above, coupled with the residential style and design of the proposed development, do not detract from the purposes for this residential district and would not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. SECTION 5. Preliminary Parcel Map Approval Granted. Preliminary Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. SECTION 6. Tentative Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by McLeod and Associates, “Vesting Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions For Lot Merger Purposes 689 & 693 Arastradero Road”, consisting of two lots, dated December 15, 2016, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of this plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Parcel Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. Planning Division 1. The applicant shall confirm the location all existing features of the site, including protected and non-protected trees, wells, structures, utilities, and easements to the satisfaction of Public Works, the Planning Division, and any other agency that would have an interest in those features. 2. The owner or designee, prior to issuance of any building permit, shall pay the applicable Development Impact fees. 3. The owner or designee prior to building permit issuance shall submit for review and approval a construction traffic plan and construction phasing plan for development to the City. 4. The existing private utility easement along the northwest lot line as well as the existing Pacific Gas and Electric easement in the southwest corner of the site will be quitclaimed, vacated, or equivalent prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. 6. The applicant is hereby notified, as required by Government Code § 66020, that the approved plans, these conditions of approval, and the adopted City fee schedule set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan constitute written notice of the description of the dedications, reservations, amount of fees and other exactions related to the project. As of the date of project approval, the 90 day period has begun in which the applicant may protest any dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions imposed by the City. Failure to file a protest in compliance with all of the requirements of Government Code § 66020 will result in a legal bar to challenging the dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions. 7. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant’s expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. Public Works Engineering Department PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP SUBMITTAL 1. A digital copy of all the documents must be submitted for the reviewing of the Parcel Map, see comment C-1. 2. The Parcel Map shall include CITY ENGINEER STATEMENT, CITY SURVEYOR STATEMENT and DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT. PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP RECORDATION. 1. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor we have retained the services of Siegfried Engineering to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. Siegfried will be reviewing, signing and stamping the Parcel Map associated with your project. In effort to employ the services of Siegfried Engineering, and as part of the City’s cost recovery measures, the applicant is required to provide payment to cover the cost of Siegfried Engineering’s review. Our intent is to forward your Parcel Map to Siegfried for an initial preliminary review of the documents. Siegfried will then provide a review cost amount based on the complexity of the project and the information shown on the document. We will share this information with you once we receive it and ask that you return a copy acknowledging the amount. You may then provide a check for this amount as payment for the review cost. The City must receive payment prior to beginning the final review process. 2. Submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the Parcel Map to the Public Works for signature. Map shall be signed by Owner, Notary and Surveyor prior to formal submittal. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 1. Parcel Map shall be recorded with County Recorder. Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Department The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. 1. Any water service, gas service, or wastewater lateral not in use must be disconnected and abandoned. 2. Each unit shall have its own water and gas meter. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service, and wastewater lateral connection. 3. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 689-693 Arastradero Drive 5. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water, gas, or wastewater mains except by expressed permission of the WGW utilities inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 6. Only City forces can work on the City gas distribution system. 7. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. SECTION 8. Term of Approval. 1. Preliminary Parcel Map. All conditions of approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map shall be fulfilled prior to map recordation (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Tentative Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two- year period from the date of Preliminary Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Preliminary Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: 10 ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by McLeod and Associates titled “Vesting Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions For Lot Merger Purposes 689 & 693 Arastradero Road”, consisting of one page, dated December 15, 2016. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 683-693 Arastradero Drive / File No. 16PLN-00288 Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.12.040 (R-1 [10,000] DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Conformance Minimum Site Specifications Lot Size 6,000 sf 54,894 sf Project Conforms Site Width 60 ft 231 ft Project Conforms Site Depth 100 ft 309 ft (north side) and 327 ft (south side) Project Conforms Maximum Lot Size 19,999 sf 54,894 sf *Project Conforms with exception findings Attachment E CEQA A printed copy of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review the IS/MND online: 1. Go to: The City of Palo Planning and Community Environment website 2. Go to: Development Proposals 3. Search for “693 Arastradero Road” under “Commercial Projects” 4. Review the record details and click on the address for more details 5. Click on the “Environmental Analysis” link A direct link to the analysis is also provided here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55551 Attachment F Traffic Impact Analysis A printed copy of the Traffic Impact Analysis is available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review the Traffic Impact Analysis online: 1. Go to: The City of Palo Planning and Community Environment website 2. Go to: Development Proposals 3. Search for “693 Arastradero Road” under “Commercial Projects” 4. Review the record details and click on the address for more details 5. Click on the “Traffic Impact Analysis” link Attachment G Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Planning and Transportation Commissioners. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning Search for “693 Arastradero” and open the record by clicking on the green dot Review the record details and open the “more details” option (make sure the details option shows Application #16PLN-00288 at the top) Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” Open the attachment named “2016-1215 Final Submitted Plans.” Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7316) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/8/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Castilleja EIR Scoping Meeting Title: 1310 Bryant Street [16PLN-00258]: The Planning and Transportation Commission Will Hold a Public Scoping Meeting on the Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for the Castilleja School Expansion Project. Public Input is Encouraged. For More Information, Please Visit the Webpage or Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a meeting to allow the public to participate in an Environmental Review Scoping Meeting for the Castilleja School Expansion project. Report Summary Castilleja School is a private, all-girls school in Palo Alto. The school seeks city approval to expand its enrollment and for a major phased renovation of the school property. As currently proposed, different aspects of this project will require review by the PTC, the Architectural Review Board, and ultimately, a decision by the City Council. As part of the review process, the City is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate potential environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff and its consultants have identified several environmental issues that warrant further analysis and review. This preliminary review, an Initial Study (IS), is attached to this report as Attachment B. The purpose of this public meeting is to provide interested persons an opportunity to comment on environmental issues they think the city should examine or study in the EIR. This type of City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 meeting is referred to as a scoping meeting in CEQA and is required for certain projects. While not legally required for this project, having an opportunity like this for early public consultation can be helpful to all parties. The PTC’s role in this meeting is to provide an opportunity for public comment and to offer its own perspective about issues that should be studied. Importantly, this meeting is not intended to serve as a forum for dialogue about the merits of the project. In fact, the PTC’s own purview on the project is limited to the anticipated parcel map. There will be future, noticed, public hearings that will provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposed project. Background Project Information Owner: Castilleja School Architect: Steinberg Representative: Kathy Layendecker Legal Counsel: Mindie Romanowski Property Information Address: 1310 Bryant Street, and 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street (all owned by Castilleja and located within R-1 (10,000) Zone District) Neighborhood: Seale Addition (located south of Embarcadero Rd west of Alma St) Lot Dimensions & Area: Project site is 286,783 sf comprised of three parcels.  APN 124-12-034 (1310 Bryant, school site) frontages: 500’ on Kellogg Av; 406.6’ on Bryant St; 429.4’ on Embarcadero Rd.; 430’ on Emerson St.  Project site includes two additional parcels, 100 feet deep adding 180’ of frontage to Emerson St. for Castilleja School (site’s total frontage on Emerson would be 610’): o APN 124-12-031 (1235 Emerson, “Emerson House” aka ‘Lockey/Alumnae House’, 75’ on Emerson St, a rental housing unit on a nonconforming 7,500 sf lot) o APN 124-12-033 (1263 Emerson, “Head’s House’, 105’ on Emerson St, no longer used as a housing unit). Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Yes. The administration building and former chapel are listed historic resources (Category 3) on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. Other buildings on Castilleja property are more than 45 years but are not listed on any inventory. Attachment E provides a brief summary of the campus’ development history. Existing Improvement(s): Approximately 105,700 square feet of floor area above grade, plus basement area below grade; buildings are one, two and three City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 stories; established at current address in 1910 Existing Land Use(s): Private all-girls school and housing Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: single family residential; R-1(10,000) i.e. 10,000 sf min lot size West: Single family residential; R-1 i.e. 6,000 sf minimum lot size East: single family residential (R-1 10,000) South: single family residential (R-1 10,000) Special Setbacks: Embarcadero Road 24 feet Aerial View of Property: Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1 (10,000), Single Family Residential with 10,000 sf min. lot size Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Context-Based Design: Not Applicable in R-1 Zoning Code Regulations Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, residences on project site and across all bounding streets Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 City Council: None. PTC: None. HRB: None. ARB: None. Prior projects on campus were reviewed by the ARB. Other: Code Enforcement Case related to exceeding student enrollment cap of CUP issued in 2000; Penalties were paid for exceeding the cap; submittal of CUP revision application required for City to consider allowing enrollment exceeding the cap. Project Description The Castilleja School has been located at its current site in a single family R-1(10,000) zoning district for over 106 years. It currently serves grades six through 12. A brief summary of the history of the campus and City approvals is provided as Attachment E to this report. Under the current zoning code, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for the establishment and amendment of private school use in the R-1 zones. The applicant, Castilleja School Foundation, requests an increase in student enrollment from the current CUP cap of 415 students (and current enrollment of 438 students) to a maximum of 540 students over the course of a phased implementation plan requiring Architectural Review approval. The applicant’s narrative about the project, as of June 2016, is attached to this report (Attachment F). Castilleja School Foundation (CSF) proposes to increase enrollment by 27 students each year and make the increases contingent on strict transportation demand measures such as a “cap” on student trips by automobile, as well as on specific physical improvements to the site. There would be no change to the amount of above-grade floor area that exists on the site, however there would be an increase of approximately 26,700 sf below-grade academic space and a below-grade parking structure. The existing above-grade floor area is approximately 105,700 square feet (sf). The building coverage is proposed to be reduced on the site by approximately 1,200 sf. The school’s facilities include an administrative building, a maintenance facility, a chapel theater, classrooms, a gymnasium, pool, above ground parking areas, athletic fields, and a dining hall. The project proposal is to demolish two homes on adjacent Castilleja-owned parcels (at 1235 and 1263 Bryant) and merge the two parcels into the Castilleja campus parcel to create a below grade garage. In a future phase, Castilleja would demolish four existing buildings and replace them with a single building. The applicant seeks to expand enrollment and redevelop the existing campus in three construction phases: 1. Construct a below-grade parking structure under the merged parcels to accommodate 130 vehicles, re-route drop-off and pick-up through the garage, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 490 students; City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 2. Relocate the existing pool, complete bikeway station on Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 520 students; and 3. Relocate deliveries and waste pick-ups further from the street and below grade, reduce number of food service deliveries by 10%, implement a sustainability plan, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 540 students. The applicant also proposes to increase the number of off-street parking spaces from 73 to 170; 130 spaces would be located below ground and 40 spaces would be in surface parking lots. The amount of open space would also increase by 6,182 square feet. Finally, the project includes a Transportation Demand Management Plan to offset transportation impacts and a proposal for no net new automobile trips, as well as a Sustainability Program. These submittals are found on the website. The following discretionary applications would be subject to Council review and decision in conjunction with a decision on the EIR:  Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variance: The process for evaluating a CUP amendment application and a Variance request is set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.77. Variance and CUP applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. The CUP is a request to expand enrollment in phases associated with future Architectural Review processes. In response to the Notice of Incomplete, the applicant communicated to staff that an application for a Variance will be submitted to request setback encroachments for the proposed below-grade parking garage.  Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions: In response to the Notice of Incomplete, the applicant indicated a proposal to submit an application for a Parcel Map with Exception. The exception would be to allow the R-1 (10,000) zoned lot supporting the school, already greater than the maximum residential lot size of 10,000 sf, to be increased in size to add the two Emerson Street fronting parcels. The maximum lot size in the R-1 (10,000) Zone is 19,999 square feet. The map would also enable the consolidation of small lots underlying the existing campus site. The proposal is to remove the rental housing unit at 1235 Emerson and the former housing unit at 1263 Emerson (in use for other school functions for the past six years) in order to place a below-grade parking garage beneath the existing school site parcel and the two Emerson Street parcels. While 1235 Emerson is smaller than the minimum lot size for the R-1(10,000) zone district, 1263 Emerson (at 10,500 sf) exceeds the minimum lot size for the zone district.  Architectural Review (AR): The process would include review and recommendation by the ARB to Council of the Phase 1 proposal and concepts for a phased development Master Plan prior to PTC review of the draft EIR. The HRB would also conduct reviews of the project, since Castilleja School is a listed historic resource on the City’s inventory of City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 historic resources. The ARB’s formal review of the conceptual master plan and underground garage plan would focus on a first phase to: (1) remove two residential buildings at 1235 Emerson Street (rental home) and 1263 Emerson Street (“Emerson House” on GIST map), or as noted on plans, Lockey Alumnae House and Existing Head's House, and (2) construct a below-grade garage of approximately 50,500 sf for 130 parking spaces below contiguous Castilleja-owned parcels, in order to increase on- site parking by 133%, and re-route circulation, and enable an associated enrollment cap of 490 students. Additional AR phases would be associated with requested student enrollment caps of 520 and 540, which would be contingent upon approval of these future AR applications. For the purposes of Environmental Review, while the AR application is focused on the more detailed first phase, the concepts for future phases that constitute the “master plan” are also being studied and reviewed at the same time; the ‘totality’ of the project must be considered at this time as related to the requested increase in enrollment. Environmental Review As noted, the purpose of this PTC meeting is to conduct a Scoping Session to “kick-off” the environmental impact report preparation process. Attachment D is provided as a primer on the environmental review report process for this project. The subject project has been preliminarily assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Scoping Session is the first stage in the environmental review process when the Lead Agency has determined an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for the project. The attached Draft Initial Study (IS, Attachment B) and Notice of Preparation (Attachment C) were circulated to the State Clearinghouse and notice was provided as per CEQA guidelines. Initial Study The attached IS does not provide any analysis or substantial evidence for the topics that will be evaluated in the EIR. The IS notes the project has the potential to result in significant impacts and that it could meet specific conditions set forth in CEQA (as further described in Attachment D), necessitating detailed analysis. It is possible that sufficient mitigation measures could be developed to reduce impacts to ‘less than significant’ levels. It is also possible that mitigation measures would not reduce impacts and that Council could consider adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Draft IS identifies several topic areas needing further study, and several potential adverse impacts upon the environment; it was published on January 23, 2017. The IS notes the project as having potentially significant impacts in the following categories: Aesthetics, Air Quality, City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The City’s consultant is having separate technical studies prepared by subject matter experts. These include a historic resources evaluation and a traffic study. The scope for the traffic study is attached to this report (Attachment K). The applicant is also preparing a geotechnical study for the City’s review and use as a source document for the Draft EIR. The applicant is studying the potential for relocation of the Emerson access ramp to align with Melville Avenue, which would likely result in reconfiguration of below-grade parking spaces. The applicant is also preparing revisions to the plans to describe the revised proposal for the Circle. These proposals would be analyzed by the City and City’s consultant, with potential for revisions to the technical studies. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Historic Resources Board (HRB) will also review the IS and project and will have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The recommendations of the ARB, HRB, and PTC will be forwarded to Council, who will be the decision-making body for the project and will make the final determination with respect to the EIR and project. The Council may approve or deny the project. If the Council approves the project, the Council may adopt mitigation measures to lessen the identified environmental effects; Council may also consider making a statement of overriding considerations related to impacts that are not mitigated to “less than significant” status. Notification, Outreach & Comments Notice of the scoping meeting for the EIR this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 20, 2017 which is 19 or more days in advance of the meeting. The City’s webpage provided an announcement as well, and postcards were mailed January 23, 2017, which is 17 days in advance of the meeting. In response to a request for extension of the comment period, staff issued a revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) to extend the comment period to March 15, 2017. The original NOP was forwarded to the State Clearinghouse allowing a 30-day comment period (Attachment M). The applicant provided information about the multiple outreach meetings Castilleja has conducted over the past several years. A summary of outreach efforts prior to submittal of the application is found on the City’s website for this project: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school.asp. Additional outreach meetings have taken place since the application was submitted. Staff has also met with neighbors separately and initial neighbor comments (Attachment I) were shared with the applicant. The neighbors had also presented concerns to Council in early 2016 (Attachment J). These neighbor comments are linked to the website. Additionally, staff attended one meeting Castilleja School held in on campus in advance of the removal of an on-site Redwood Tree. The date of that meeting was October 18, 2016. Prior to the meeting, a tree removal permit was filed and approved, based on the applicant’s arborist report of September 2016 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54272). Following the community meeting, a second arborist report was prepared for a neighbor to City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 further study the tree; the study is found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54449. Finally, many public comments on the project collected prior to the printing of this staff report are attached (Attachments N and 0). Comments submitted at a later time will be provided at PTC members’ places and the public table in the Council Chambers. Any comments on the IS and scope of the EIR received by staff up until March 15, 2017 will be forwarded to the City’s consultant for consideration during preparation of the draft EIR. Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2679 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Initial Study (PDF)  Attachment C: Notice of Preparation (DOCX)  Attachment D: A CEQA Process Summary for PTC Scoping Session on Castilleja (DOCX)  Attachment E: History of Campus Development and CUPs (DOCX)  Attachment F: Applicant Narrative June 2016 (PDF)  Attachment G: Applicant Letter August 2016 Regarding Enrollment and Applicant Email 1-31-17 (PDF)  Attachment H: Scanned Project Plans (PDF)  Attachment I: Neighbors Submittal July 25, 2016 (PDF)  Attachment J: Statement to Council Members 3.10.16 TS City Council Letter Sept 11 2016 (PDF)  Attachment K: W-Trans Scope 10-21-16 (PDF)  Attachment L: Neighbors' Attorney's Letter to French. January 30 2017 and Response to Neighbors Attorney's Letter January 31, 2017 (PDF)  Attachment M: Filing with State Clearinghouse (PDF)  Attachment N: Castilleja Support Emails as of February 1, 2017 (PDF)  Attachment O: Neighbor Emails as of February 1, 2017 (PDF)  Attachment P: Castilleja NOP Jan 2017 revised (PDF)  Attachment Q: Stan Shore February 1 email (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 24 24 24 24 2 4 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 2 4 24 EmersonHouse Rhoades Hall Arrillaga Family Campus Center Seipp-Wallace Pavillion Gymnasium Elizabeth Hughes Chapel 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0'105.0' ' 05.0 105.0 90.0' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 55.0' 105.0' 55.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 115.0' 100.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0'190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50 90.0' 50.0' 190.0'50.0' 0 50 100.0' 100.0'100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 2 200.0' 60.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0'60.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 86.3' 150.0' 86.3' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0'100.0'150.0' 177.0' 176.8'83.6' 150.1' 1 56.0' 14.5' 94.0'94.0' 14.5' 56.0' .1' 207.0' 60.4'125.0'140.0'95.0' 83.3'95.0' 83.3' 95.0' 83.3'95.0' 83.3' 190.0' 73.2' 190.0' 73.2' 90.0' 129.0' 88.7' 121.0' 15.0' 150.0' 13.7' 100.0' 143.1' 124.8'77.0' 105.9' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 48.5' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 75.0' 50.0'75.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 150.0' 100.0'150.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 117.8'66.2' 100.0'128.5' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 127.5' 58.9' 96.4' 50.0' 146.4' 76.5' 193.5' 50.0'64.8' 40.0' 135.3' 12.3' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 430.0' 100.0' 180.0' 5.9' 77.0' 429.4' 63.7' 406.6' 500.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 90.0' 50.0'90.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 63.0' 150.0' 63.0' 50.0' 200.0' 88.0' 150.0' 100.0'150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 86.5' 100.0' 72.8' 23.8' 13.8' 76.2' 63.5' 76.2' 13.8'23.8' 77.2' 100.0' 105.0' 100.0'105.0' 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 75.0' 105.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 67.2' 112.5' 67.2' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 30.0' 11.1' 70.0'71.1' 100.0' 61.7' 112.5' 61.7' 112.5' 87.5' 105.0' 87.5' 105.0' 0' 47.5' 50.0' 112.5' .5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 90.0' 73.9' 42.6' 67.5' 110.0' 180.3' 141.4' 105.5' 120.0' 155.0' 120.0' 35.0' 15.0' 120.0' 105.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 140.5' 88.4' 93.8' 75.0' 123.8' 123.7'58.3' 105.0' 120.0' 30.0'30.0' 105.0' 90.0' 135.0' 148.3' 70.7' 110.9' 60.0' 110.9' 165.0' 23.7' 140.0' 190.0' 100.0' 190.0' 100.0' 126.7' 150.0' 126.7' 150.0' 63.3' 150.0' 63.3' 150.0' 100.0' 70.0'100.0' 70.0' 65.0' 105.0' 65.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 87.5' 105.0' 87.5' 105.0' 40.0' 105.0' 40.0' 105.0'50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 80.0' 105.0' 80.0' 105.0' 2 200.0' 2 200.0' 2 200.0' 2 200.0' 2 200.0' 2 200.0' 2 200.0' 2 200.0' 2 200.0' 2 200.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 80.0' 100.0' 80.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 150.0' 100.0'150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 94.0' 50.0' 94.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 90.0' 150.0' 90.0' 46.0' 131.0' 46.0' 131.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 46.0'16.0' 54.0' 85.0'100.0' 69.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 150.0' 150.0' 150.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 72.0' 100.0' 72.0' 100.0' 78.0' 100.0' 78.0' 100.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 150.0' 150.0' 150.0' 150.0' 15 150.0' 75.0' 75.0' 100.0' 100.0' 200.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'25.0' 150.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 130.0' 100.0'130.0' 100.0' 32.0' 58.0' 118.0' 52.0' 150.0' 110.0' 54.0' 115.0' 54.0' 115.0' 150.0' 150.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 140.1' 79.1' 59.9' 300.0' 50.0' 150 65.0' 55.0' 135.0' 95.0' 135.0' 95.0' 135.0' 150.0' 173.0' 150.0' 173.1' 200.0' 118.0' 58.0' 118.0' 58.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 30.0' 50.0' 40.0' 100.0' 70.0' 150.0' 80.0' 78.6'80.0' 78.6' 50.0' 120.0' 71.4'80.0' 21.4' 40.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 64.8' 118.5' 55.0' 152.7' 58.9' 128.8' 50.0' 159.8' 58.9' 109.8' 50.0' 140.9' 90.9' 100.0'148.1' 8.1' 108.2' 190.0' 5.8' 52.0' 162.7' 50.0'190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0'190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 190.0' 93.5' 190.0' 93.5' 106.4' 199.0' 186.0' 141.2' 65.0' 106.4' 60.8' 225.3' 162.7' 141.2' 115.6' 97.7' 50.0' 128.8' 58.9' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 164.0' 17.0' 36.0' 118.0' 200.0' 135.0' 70.0' 182.0' 36.0' 17.0' 54.0' 97.1' 70.0' 130.0' 70.0' 97.1'110.0' 165.0' 103.7' 88.0' 54.8' 98.3' 92.2' 83.5' 144.1' 95.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 95.0' 55.0'95.0' 55.0' 72.4' 144.1' 61.5' 182.4' 87.4' 50.0' 118.5' 58.9' 88.7' 21.1' 101.0' 73.9' 121.0' 83.6' 117.7'36.2' 101.0' 125.0' 50.0' 100.0' 69 114.5' 100.0' 5.5' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 60.0' 50.0'60.0' 50.0' 70.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0'50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 50.0' 56.0'100.0' 6.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 50.0' 101.0' 50 101.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0'200.0' 100.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 150.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 99.0' 50.0' 99.0'55.0' 55.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 50.0' 70.0' 70.0' 50.0' 460.0' 88.0' 190.2' 124.5' 30.0' 111.1' 154.5' 134.0' 25.0' 12.5' 28.9' 112.5' 124.5' 35.0' 63.9' 13.0' 360 325 335 103 102 118-122 151 128 136 144 144A 166 1200 1210 1230 1234 1246 159 104 114 116 120-124 107 109 111 113 127-131 133 135 1235 1245 1247 112 114 150 152 158 160 1235 140 144 103 1347 1327-1343 106 1260 1300 1310 1326 152 1336 159 151 135 123 119117 1263 130 134 158 160 1047 1057 251 1111 1121 1129 1116 1112 1106 1102 1174 1176 1134 1128 155 157 210 1101 1121 1135 1143 319 303 200 235222 223 252 1250 1200 262 2511133 1135 1103 1115 1125 1139 1147 257 1160 11481140 1130 1116 1106 1100 1215 221 11561132 1344 1352 1360 220 221 235 255 1510 160 180 1492 159 151 145 140 144 143 133 126 138 118 136 160 1402 168 1420 215 227 1485 1429 1421 1401 228 230 240 242 244 1444 1440 256 270 1404 1433 150 152 14641452 1436 1448 110 114 231 235 237 241 225 259 1536 236 237 250 260 1520 1500 1505 1521 224 251 1450 263 320 1525 1501 305 1551 1310 1345 333 305 343 339 13251321 13191301 364 356 334 334A 1201 1225 305 315 321 334 325 335 353 363 1240 1248 330 359 340 340 330 320 350 355 354 1400 345 1303 1321 1329 1331 425 427 360 1450 369 342 330 1445 335 1415 105 111 1445 119 135 112 102 1425 127 129 215 1520 1536 1564 1550 150 140 1570 159 151 141 136 181 127 1191555 15451525 1551 1549 200 1610186 166 154 1628 1636 144 1 135 133 120 128 1327 357 85 373 375 1155 1427-1431 1435 1437 1249 1251 1237 12391241 1243 132 118 1446 99 1251 201 311 1407 195 1103 132 1559 101 ALMA STREET ALME EMERSON STREET ENUE EMERSON ST KINGSLEY AVENUE ALMA STREET N AVENUE RAMONA STREET EM ERSON STREET MELVILLE AVENUE EMERSON STREET KELLOGG AVENUE EM ERSON STREET KELLOGG AVENUE CHURCHILL AVENUE CHURCHILL AVENUE BRYANT STREET BRYANT STRE COLERIDGE AVENUE CHURCHILL AVENU WAVERLEY STREE T KELLOGG AVENUE BRYANT STREET EMBARCADERO ROAD EMBARCADERO ROAD ET MELVILLE AVENUE EMBARCADERO ROAD EMERSON STREET KINGSLEY AVENUE BRYANT STREET BRYANT STREET KINGSLEY AVENU LANE 59 EAST WHITMAN COURT ALMA STREET PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD R-2 R-2 R M-15 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-1(10000) R-1 K ello g g Par k Castilleja School This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Park School 1310 Bryant St. (Project Site) Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels Tree 0'250' 1310 Bryant St.Castilleja School(Project Site)with Zoning DistrictsArea Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2017-01-09 13:46:361310 Bryant Castilleja LocationMap (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) R-1 Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Initial Study Prepared for: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, California 94301 Contact: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Prepared by: 853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208 Auburn, California 95603 Contact: Katherine Waugh JANUARY 2017 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 i January 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... II 1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ......................................................................................1 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .............................................................................................5 2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................... 5 2.2 Environmental Determination ................................................................................. 5 3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................................ 8 3.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 9 3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 12 3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 16 3.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 17 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 18 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................ 19 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 23 3.10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 27 3.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 28 3.12 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 28 3.13 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 30 3.14 Public Services ...................................................................................................... 31 3.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 32 3.16 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................................... 33 3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 34 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................ 35 3.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 38 4 REFERENCES AND PREPARERS ..............................................................................40 4.1 References Cited ................................................................................................... 40 4.2 List of Preparers .................................................................................................... 41 FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location ..................................................................................................43 Figure 2 Site and Vicinity ....................................................................................................45 Figure 3 Aerial Map .............................................................................................................47 Figure 4 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations .....................................................49 Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 ii January 2017 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym/Abbreviation Definition ACM Asbestos containing material APN Assessor’s Parcel Number BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMP Best management practices CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report LCM Lead-containing materials NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System O3 Ozone PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls PM10 Coarse particulate matter PM2.5 Fine particulate matter RWCQB Regional Water Quality Control Board TDM Transportation Demand Management Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 1 January 2017 1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental effects that would result from the proposed remodeling of the Castilleja School. This Initial Study has been prepared to satisfy the environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applicable to the City of Palo Alto consideration of the proposed project. 1. Project title: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, California 94301 3. Contact person and phone number: Amy French, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 4. Project location: 1310 Bryant Street and 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Project site is 286,783 square feet comprised of three parcels: (1) APN 124-12-034 (1310 Bryant, school site), (2) APN 124-12-031 (1235 Emerson, “Emerson House” aka ‘Lockey/Alumnae House’, 75’ on Emerson St), and (3) APN 124-12-033 (1263 Emerson, “Head’s House’, 105’ on Emerson St). 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Castilleja School Foundation Kathleen Layendecker 1310 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 6. General plan designation: Single Family Residential Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 2 January 2017 7. Zoning: R-1(10,000) 8. Description of project: Location: The proposed project will occur at the existing Castilleja school in Palo Alto, California, as shown in Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Site and Vicinity. Construction and operation educational facilities is allowed under the project site’s single-family residential land use designation and R-1(10,000) zoning designation. Objectives: 1. Increase parking on-site. 2. Improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access for students and staff. 3. Reduce the number of service deliveries and relocate deliveries within the campus to decrease nuisance effects to neighbors. 4. Provide new structures that integrate state-of-the-art technology and teaching practices and retain flexibility to adapt to unanticipated changes. 5. Achieve better architectural compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods and improve site aesthetics through landscaping. 6. Increase student enrollment from 438 to 540 students (the City Manager authorized enrollment of 438 students in excess of the 2000 Conditional Use Permit cap of 415 students, based upon (1) successful TDM/trip reduction and (2) entering into the Conditional Use Permit amendment process) 7. Ensure no increase in vehicle trips to and from the campus during AM and PM peak hours relative to existing (baseline) traffic volumes. 8. Improve the campus’s sustainability and energy efficiency. Description: Castilleja School is an all-girls private school in Palo Alto that has been educating 6th to 12th grade girls since 1907 and has been located at the current site since 1910. As shown in Figure 3, Existing Site, the school’s facilities include administrative buildings, chapel theater, classrooms, a gymnasium, pool, above ground parking area, playing area, and Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 3 January 2017 track. The project proposal is to demolish two homes on adjacent Castilleja-owned parcels (at 1235 and 1263 Bryant) and merge the two parcels into the Castilleja campus parcel via Parcel Map with Exception, and demolish four existing buildings within the current campus and replace them with a single building. The applicant seeks to expand enrollment and redevelop the existing campus in three construction phases: 1. Construct a below-grade parking structure under the merged parcels to accommodate 130 vehicles, re-route drop-off and pick-up through the garage, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 490 students; 2. Relocate the existing pool, complete bikeway station on Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 520 students; and 3. Relocate deliveries and waste pick-ups further from the street and below grade, reduce number of food service deliveries by 10%, implement sustainability plan, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 540 students. In order to accomplish the proposed project, Castilleja School Foundation has submitted an application to amend the school’s existing Conditional Use Permit and an Architectural Review application. Including future phase construction of a new campus building, the project would result in an increase in the total building square footage within the campus by 26,700 square feet, all of which would be below grade - above grade the square footage would remain the same. The applicant also proposes to increase the number of off-street parking spaces from 73 to 170. Of these, 130 would be below ground and 40 of which would be in surface parking lots. This would reduce the number of above ground spaces by 33 spaces. The amount of open space would also increase by 6,182 square feet. Finally, the school has proposed to meet a “no new AM or PM Peak hour trips” standard as a condition of project approval and the project includes a Transportation Demand Management Plan to achieve this. The project also includes implementation of a Sustainability Program at the school. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings): The project site is surrounded by residential land uses, predominantly single-family residences. Embarcadero Road, a residential arterial, forms the northern boundary of the project site. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 4 January 2017 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The proposed project would not require discretionary approvals from any agency other than the City of Palo Alto. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?: No tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area have requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 20180.3.1. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 5 January 2017 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected This Initial Study considers the environmental issues identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Where impacts have the potential to be significant, those impacts will be analyzed within the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 2.2 Environmental Determination As shown in the Initial Study, the proposed project has the potential to have some significant impacts. Therefore, in the areas identified below, an EIR is appropriate to evaluate the potentially significant impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 7 January 2017 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 3.1 Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts and thus Aesthetics will be analyzed in the project EIR. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 8 January 2017 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The proposed project site is located in an urban area and is currently developed. The site is not identified as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance and the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2014). It is designated Single Family Residential in the City’s General Plan. The site is not planned for or used for any agricultural purposes and there are no agricultural uses in the vicinity. The Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 9 January 2017 proposed modifications to the existing facility on the project site would not result in the conversion of any agricultural land, conflict with any agricultural use, or conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site is not zoned as forest land, does not contain forest land or forest resources, and does not support any forest uses. The proposed modifications to the existing facility on the project site would not result in the conversion of any forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The site is located an in urban area and does not support any farmland, agricultural, or forest uses. The proposed modifications to the existing facility on the project site would not result in conversion of any farm, agricultural, or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. 3.3 Air Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 10 January 2017 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The project site is located within the Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. The BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010), which are the applicable air quality plans for the region. These plans account for air quality emissions based on the land uses and zoning designated by the City. The uses on the project site are consistent with the designated land use and zoning and the project would not change the land use on the project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with these plans and the impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 11 January 2017 d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The San Francisco Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) standard, and is attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour coarse particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The BAAQMD has adopted CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2011) that establish air pollutant emissions thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed project would expand existing school capacity by 102 students and would implement Transportation Demand Management measures to ensure that traffic volumes associated with the school would not increase. The school capacity screening size established by the BAAQMD for operational impacts is 2,460 students for a junior high and 2,390 students for a high school. The proposed project would accommodate many fewer students than the screening size, and thus would have a less than significant impact on air quality during project operation. However, it is possible that the project would exceed air quality standards during construction, resulting in potentially significant impacts. Thus, the air quality impacts of project construction will be analyzed in the project EIR. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The project is not considered an odor generating facility as described in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2011). The project would not generate odors that could affect a substantial number of people and there would be no impact during project operation. However project construction could generate objectionable odors that could affect the residential and commercial neighbors of the project site. The potential construction odor impacts of the project will be analyzed in the project EIR. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 12 January 2017 3.4 Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site has been developed and operated as a school since the early 1900s. The project site does not contain any habitats or biological resources with the potential to support any plant or wildlife species that are designated as threatened or endangered; however, there is potential for nesting birds to be present in trees on site that are proposed for removal or may be trimmed or otherwise affected by construction and there is potential for roosting bats to be present within the existing building. Many species of Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 13 January 2017 migratory birds are considered to have special-status under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act while bats are protected under the California Fish and Game Code. If the proposed tree removal results in take of any migratory bird (as defined in federal code 50 CFR 10.13.), the effect would be considered a significant impact. In conformance with the California State Fish and Game Code and the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the project shall implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring surveys by a qualified technician to evaluate the potential presence of nesting birds prior to tree removal and requiring protection of any active bird nest during construction. If the proposed building demolition resulted in the removal or disturbance of roosting, this would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires the project applicant to complete a bat survey prior to demolition, and identifies protocols to be followed to ensure that impacts to bats are avoided. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the project’s potential impacts to special status species would be less than significant. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The project site was originally developed in 1910. The project site does not contain any riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the migration of animals. Habitat linkages are small patches that join larger blocks of habitat and help reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation; they may be continuous habitat or discrete habitat islands that function as stepping stones for wildlife dispersal. Because the project site is surrounded by existing roads and Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 14 January 2017 development, it does not function as a potential wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. Therefore, the project will have a less-than-significant impact. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The project would require removal of trees regulated under the City’s Tree Ordinance. The project’s impact on tree resources is potentially significant and will be analyzed in the project EIR. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans within the City of Palo Alto. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to conflict with the provisions of such plans. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, vegetation on the project site shall be removed outside of the bird-nesting season. If the start of site clearing, tree removal, or building demolition occurs between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify the location of nests in active use that were established prior to the start of project implementation activities. The pre-construction survey shall take place no more than 7 days prior to initiation of construction. All trees and shrubs on the site and on adjacent properties shall be surveyed, with particular attention to any trees or shrubs that would be removed or directly disturbed. If an active nest of a protected bird is found on site, the biologist shall, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), determine whether construction work would affect the active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior. Criteria used for this evaluation shall include presence of visual screening between the nest and construction activities, and behavior of adult birds in response to the surveyors or other ambient human activity. If construction could affect the nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, the biologist shall, in consultation with CDFW, determine an appropriate construction-free buffer zone around the nest to remain in place until the young have fledged or other appropriate protective measures are taken to ensure no take of protected species occurs. If it is determined that construction will affect an active raptor nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance is the only mitigation available. Construction shall Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 15 January 2017 not be permitted within 300 feet of such a nest until a qualified biologist determines that the subject nests are no longer active. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or tree removal permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-construction surveys have been conducted within 10 days of the proposed start of demolition. If active bird nests are present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted and either determined that construction will not affect an active bird nest or that appropriate construction-free buffer zones have been established or other appropriate protective measures have been taken. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: No earlier than 30 days prior to initiation of demolition activities, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist holding a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW allowing the biologist to handle bats) to determine if active bat roosts or maternal colonies are present on or within 300 feet of the demolition area. Should an active maternity roost be identified, the roost shall not be disturbed and demolition and construction within 300 feet of the maternity roost shall be postponed or halted until the juveniles have fledged and the roost is vacated, as determined by a qualified biologist. Consultation with CDFW shall also be initiated. Under no circumstance shall an active roost be directly disturbed. If nonbreeding bat hibernacula are found on the project site, the individuals shall be safely evicted under the direction of a qualified bat biologist and with consultation with CDFW. These actions shall allow bats to leave during nighttime hours, thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight. If it is determined that demolition or construction will not affect roosting behavior or disrupt a maternal colony, demolition or construction may proceed without any restriction or mitigation measure. If it is determined that demolition or construction will affect an active bat roost or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance is the only mitigation available. Under no circumstance shall an active roost be directly disturbed. Demolition or construction within 300 feet shall be postponed or halted until the roost is naturally vacated as determined by a qualified biologist. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-construction surveys have been conducted within 30 days of the proposed start of demolition. If bats are present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted and Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 16 January 2017 either determined that construction will not affect an active bat roost or disrupt a maternal colony, or that individuals in a nonbreeding bat hibernacula have been safely evicted. Due to regulations from the California Health Department, direct contact by construction workers with any bat is not allowed. 3.5 Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? a-d) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? a-d) The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts and thus Cultural Resources will be analyzed in the project EIR. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 17 January 2017 3.6 Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a-d) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 18 January 2017 iv) Landslides? Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? a-d) The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts and thus Geology and Soils will be analyzed in the project EIR. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The project site is currently operated as a school and relies on the City’s sewer system in order to manage its waste water. There is no septic tanks on the project site nor would the proposed project require the use of alternative waste water disposal systems; therefore, the project would have no impact. 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a) )Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Although the project would not increase the total square footage of the school buildings, it would accommodate an increase in enrollment of 102 students. The project would Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 19 January 2017 reduce energy use at the campus by replacing four buildings with a new, more energy efficient, building. Additionally the project would implement Transportation Demand Management measures to ensure there is no increase in traffic over existing conditions. These factors would limit the potential for the project to result in increased greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the BAAQMD screening sizes for operational impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions is 46,000 square feet for junior high schools and 49,000 square feet for high schools. The proposed project is below these screening sizes. Operation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. However, the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions during construction and these potential impacts will be analyzed in the project EIR. 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 20 January 2017 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The project involves demolition of four existing buildings and the replacement of which by one singular building. The above ground square footage of the project is expected to remain the same while the below ground square footage would increase by 26,700. During construction, there is the potential for short-term use of hazardous materials and fuels including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants. These hazardous materials would be handled, transported and disposed of in compliance with all existing local, state and federal regulations. Operation of the proposed project would not require the routine, use, transport or disposal of hazardous waste other than typical household materials, such as cleaning supplies. The types and quantities of these common household materials stored, used, and disposed of on-site would not increase substantially and would not pose a health risk to those utilizing the project site or adjacent users. The original main buildings present on the project site were constructed in 1910. Due its early date of construction, the buildings may contain asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paints. Demolition of the existing buildings could result in hazards related to the release or disposal of these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require surveys and proper disposal methods to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? As the school was originally built in 1910, there is a potential for ACMs, lead-based paints or other hazardous building materials to be present on the project site. Improper disposal of these hazardous materials during construction could lead to an accident causing the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measure Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 21 January 2017 HAZ-1 requires proper disposal methods, which would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant. Operation of the school does not include activities that could result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The project site is a private school serving grades 6 through 12. The nearest off-site school is Palo Alto High School, approximately a quarter mile to the east. Additionally Stanford University is located just over a third of a mile away from the project site. Operation of the proposed project would not require the use of acutely hazardous materials beyond common household materials, such as cleaning supplies, used currently. During construction, there is a potential for hazardous building materials to be encountered, which could be released into the air and would require proper transportation and disposal off-site. Transportation and disposal of these materials would be required to comply with all local, state and federal regulations, some of which are expressed in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. With implementation of this mitigation measure, which would ensure that appropriate measures are used to control the hazardous materials such that they are not released into the environment, students at the project site and nearby schools would not be exposed to hazardous materials, substances, or waste and this impact would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The project site and surrounding sites are not on the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor list; thus, it is not expected that the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (DTSC, 2016). Therefore, the project will have no impact related to being located on or adjacent to a known hazardous materials site. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site and the site is not identified within a safety zone in the Palo Alto Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Palo Alto Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 22 January 2017 Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles east of the project site. Therefore, no impact related to safety hazards associated with aircrafts would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The nearest private airstrip to the project site is a helipad on the Stanford Medical building approximately 1.33 miles west of the project site. The helipad is for use by emergency helicopters only. The proposed project would increase the number of students at the project site but would not change the existing land use of the site, which has served as a school since 1910. Therefore, impacts related to hazards associated with a private airstrip are less than significant. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed project involves modifications to the existing school facilities at the project site. The project would increase the school’s capacity but would implement Transportation Demand Management measures to ensure that the volume of AM and PM peak hour traffic trips accessing the site would not increase relative to existing conditions. The project would also alter vehicular access to the site, including access points for delivery trucks. This change in traffic patterns could interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, this potential impact will be evaluated in the Transportation and Traffic section of the project EIR. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project site is located in an urban area that is not identified as a high or medium fire hazard on the map in Section 18.4.2.2.3 in the Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan (Santa Clara County, 2012). Therefore, no impact related to fire risks would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 23 January 2017 (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of properly. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 24 January 2017 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The project site is fully developed and the proposed project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on the project site. The project site consists of 148,000 square feet of buildings and 73 surface parking stalls. The project is proposing to add 26,700 square feet of interior space (all below grade), as well as reducing surface parking to 40 surface parking stalls (while providing 130 new below grade parking stalls) and increasing open space by 6,182 square feet. This translates to a 0.06% increase of permeable surfaces. The project would not alter existing grades in the area and would not change the drainage patterns on the site or lead to increased erosion or sedimentation. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates Stormwater runoff water quality to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water discharge. The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit (Regional Permit). The Regional Permit for the City identifies minimum standards required for new development and redevelopment within the City limits. Additionally, the City’s standard conditions of approval include requirements for projects to develop and implement best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion during construction and permanent features to treat stormwater during project operation. The project would be required to comply with all city, state and federal standards pertaining to stormwater runoff and water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 25 January 2017 b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? As stated above in item (a), the project would slightly decrease impervious surface area, which would not substantially change the area available for groundwater recharge. The project would not rely on groundwater for its water. Therefore, the project would have no impact on groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? The project site is completely developed and there are no streams or rivers located on or adjacent to the project site that would be altered during project construction. The project proposes to slightly reduce the square footage of impervious surface area to the project site. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. This incremental change in impervious surface area would not substantially alter the rate or amount of runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-site or increase erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The project would have a less than significant impact related to alteration of the existing drainage pattern, increases in surface runoff, and potential to contribute to flooding. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The proposed project would slightly decrease impervious surface area and increase open space on the project site. This minor decrease in impervious surface area would allow for a slight decrease in the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from the site. The project would have no impact related to exceeding the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 26 January 2017 g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? The project does not propose to construct housing and is not located within a 100-year flood hazard zone (FEMA 2014). There would be no impact related to placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area in the map in Section 18.4.2.2.7 in the Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan (Santa Clara County, 2012). The project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and would have no impact related to placing structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The project site is not located near a levee or dam and is not within an area identified as a dam failure inundation area on the map in Section 18.4.2.2.7 in the Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan (Santa Clara County, 2012). The project site is not subject to flooding and construction of the project would result in no impact associated with exposure of people to flood-related hazards. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site is located in Palo Alto on relatively flat ground and is not within close proximity to an open body of water or a hillside; therefore, there is no risk for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazards. No impacts related to these hazards would result from implementation of the proposed project. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 27 January 2017 3.10 Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Would the project physically divide an established community? b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Figure 4 identifies the Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning designations for the project site and surrounding properties. The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts related to compatibility with neighboring land uses and thus land use impacts will be analyzed in the project EIR. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans within the City of Palo Alto. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to conflict with the provisions of such plans. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 28 January 2017 3.11 Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a)Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The project site is designated Single Family Residential by the Palo Alto General Plan and has been used as the site for the Castilleja girls’ school since 1910. There are no known mineral resources within the project site and no mineral recovery activities have been known to occur on site. The proposed modifications to the existing facilities on the project site would not adversely affect any mineral resources of value to the state or region. The project would have no impact related to mineral resources. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. 3.12 Noise Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 29 January 2017 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. NOISE – Would the project result in: c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The proposed project has the potential to have significant noise impacts and thus noise impacts will be analyzed in the project EIR. e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 30 January 2017 The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airport/airstrip, other than the emergency helipad at the Stanford Medical building approximately 1.33 miles from the project site. The proposed modifications to the existing facility at the project site would result in no impacts associated with exposure to noise from airports and airstrips. 3.13 Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed project would increase the school’s student capacity and is expected to require a slight increase in school staff. However, the project would not construct new housing, would not generate a substantial number of new jobs, and would not extend new roads or infrastructure to the site or any adjacent undeveloped or underdeveloped areas. Thus, the project would be unable to encourage further growth, neither directly nor indirectly. Thus, the project would have no impact. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project does not involve the demolition of housing and thus will not displace people or housing. Thus, the project will have no impact. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 31 January 2017 3.14 Public Services Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? The project site currently operates as a private school and receives services from the City Fire and Police Departments. The project would add approximately 26,700 square feet to the project site and increase enrollment by 102 students but would not cause a substantial increase in the population that would demand additional service. The project would have a less than significant impact on the provision of fire protection and police services. Schools? The project would expand an existing school but would not generate a new population that would increase the demand for local schools; in fact, the proposed expansion of the school would allow for an increase in enrollment at the campus of 102 new students. Therefore, the project would have no impact on other schools in the area. Parks? The project would not generate a new population that would increase the demand for local parks. Expanding the school would allow the facility to increase enrollment by 102 students. This would not cause a substantial increase in the population that would require parks. Furthermore, the school provides its own range of recreational and open space Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 32 January 2017 services for its students. The City’s standard conditions of approval require fees to address any increased need for parks. Payment of the development fees for parks would ensure that the project’s impact is less than significant. Other public facilities? The project would not generate a new population that would increase the demand for other public facilities. The City’s standard conditions of approval require fees to address any increased need for community facilities. Payment of development fees for community facilities and libraries would ensure that the project’s impact on these services is less than significant. 3.15 Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project includes its own recreation areas to support the students living and attending the school. The reconfiguration of the campus and recreational facilities is included in the proposed project and the environmental impacts associated with this reconfiguration are discussed in the corresponding sections of this Initial Study and will be addressed in the individual chapters of the project EIR. As the school would provide its own recreation areas, there would be no impact on existing neighborhood and regional parks. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 33 January 2017 3.16 Transportation and Traffic Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 34 January 2017 c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts and thus Traffic and Transportation impacts will be analyzed in the project EIR. 3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of public resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 35 January 2017 a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resources determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of public resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Although no Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area have requested notification from the City of Palo Alto regarding proposed projects, analysis of the potential for the project to have significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources will be analyzed in the project EIR. 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 36 January 2017 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Wastewater from the project site is treated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant owned and operated by the City. The Regional Water Quality Control Plant is permitted under NPDES permit No. CA0037834. Wastewater flows on the project site are treated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant in accordance with the NPDES permit. The project would expand the existing school, allowing for enrollment of an additional 102 students. The project would also replace four existing buildings with one new structure. The new building would include water-efficient toilets and faucets to help reduce on-site water consumption and wastewater generation. The expanded school would connect to existing wastewater infrastructure and all flows would be directed to the Regional Water Treatment Plant. The project applicant would be required to submit calculations prepared by a registered engineer to show that the on-site and off-site sewer systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties, prior to issuance of building permits. This would ensure that sufficient wastewater infrastructure and capacity exists to serve the projected demand and this impact would be less than significant. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 37 January 2017 c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The expansion of the existing school would not require additional stormwater infrastructure. The project would decrease impervious surface area on the project site by 0.06 percent, which would result in a slight reduction in the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. The project would not require construction or expansion of existing facilities. The project would be adequately served by existing infrastructure and the impact would be less than significant. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Expanding the existing school would slightly increase water demand at the project site. The project would replace older fixtures with newer water efficient fixtures, which would reduce the project’s water demand. Additionally, standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off-site water systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. This would ensure that sufficient water supply is available to serve the project site and the impact would be less than significant. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? The expansion of the existing school would not generate an additional population that would generate additional solid waste. Waste generated in the City is sent to the Sunnyvale Material Recovery Transfer station and ultimately the Kirby Canyon Landfill (Permit 43-AN-0008). The Kirby Canyon Landfill can accept 2,600 tons per day and has a remaining capacity of 16,191,600 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2015). The project’s current solid waste generation is adequately served by the landfill and the project’s solid waste generation is not expected to change substantially as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The project would be required to comply with the green building requirements set forth in the Green Building programs required by the State of California and the City of Palo Alto. The project is proposed to attain a LEED Silver certification. This would ensure that water conservation and solid waste reduction measures are included in the project Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 38 January 2017 and that the project meets all local, state and federal regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts as identified throughout this Initial Study. These potentially significant impacts will be analyzed in Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 39 January 2017 the project EIR. Cumulative impacts will be discussed within the appropriate chapters; all impact discussions will include both direct and indirect effects. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 40 January 2017 4 REFERENCES AND PREPARERS 4.1 References Cited 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Vol. 1. Final. Adopted January 4, 2006. Accessed January 2016. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/ Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2005%20Ozone%20Strategy/ adoptedfinal_vol1.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. Accessed January 2016. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2010-clean-air-plan/ cap-volume-i-appendices.pdf?la=en. BAAQMD. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2011. CDC (California Department of Conservation). 2014. “Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2012” [map]. 1:100,000. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. June 2013. Accessed December 2016. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2012/scl12.pdf. California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185. Metallic Discards Act of 1991. CalRecycle 2017. Solid Waste Facility Listing: Kirby Canyon Recycle and Disposal Facility. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/43-AN-0008/Detail/ Accessed January 2017. City of Palo Alto 2011. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map updated 3/11/2011 DTSC, 2017. EnviroStor database. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ Accessed January 2017. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2014. “National Flood Hazard Layer kmz files” [Google Earth data]. April 2014. Santa Clara County, 2012. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 41 January 2017 4.2 List of Preparers DUDEK 853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208 Auburn, California 95603 Katherine Waugh, AICP, Senior Project Manager Kimberly Asbury, Environmental Analyst Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 42 January 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Milpitas SanJose MountainView PaloAlto Gilroy Campbell LosBanos Atwater Turlock Modesto Salida Oakdale Ceres SanRamon BlackhawkDanville Moraga Town Alamo DiscoveryBay Orinda Lafayette WalnutCreek Clayton Brentwood PleasantHill OakleyConcord Carmel ValleyVillage DelMonteForestMontereySeaside Marina PrunedaleElkhorn Salinas Hollister AptosHills-Larkin Valley Interlaken SantaCruz SoquelAptos Corralitos Felton Day Valley ScottsValley BenLomond BoulderCreek MorganHill Lexington Hills SanJose LosGatos Saratoga Cupertino LosAltosHills LosAltos SantaClaraSunnyvale PortolaValley Woodside Atherton SanCarlosHalfMoonBay MenloPark BelmontEl Granada RedwoodCity Montara Hillsborough SanMateo FosterCity Burlingame San Bruno Pacifica South SanFrancisco SanFrancisco NewarkFremont Union City Hayward PleasantonFairview Livermore DublinSanLeandroCastroValley Alameda Oakland Berkeley Antioch VineHill Richmond BethelIslandMartinezPittsburg WestPittsburg Pinole Rodeo Hercules Manteca Linden Stockton Lodi Lockeford Tracy Lathrop Mill Valley SanRafael Lagunitas-ForestKnolls Lucas Valley-Marinwood Inverness Novato Benicia Vallejo Santa C r u z County Santa Clara County Merce d C o u n t y San MateoCounty San Francisco County MarinCounty Co n t r a C o s t a Co u n t y St a n i s l a u s C o u n t y Contra Costa C o u n t y Sacramento County Fresn o C o u n t y Mo Sa n Be San B e n i t o C o u n t y Merc e d C o u n t y as C o u n t y Cal a v e r a s C o u n t y Merced C o u n t y Me r c e d C o u n t y Montere y County San Benito County Santa C l a r a C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y Santa C r u z C o u n t y Santa Clara County Stanislau s C o u n t y Sta St a n i s l a u s C o u n t y aq u i n C o u n t y San J o a q u i n C o u n t y Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y Stanis l a u s C o u n t y Santa CruzCounty San Mateo County Alameda Coun t y Alameda County Ala m e d a C o u n t y Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y Pacific Ocean 35 165 219 49 183 185 237 160 129 88 108 9 99 68 130 156 12 84 92 26 120 140 33 25 152 4 132 1 101 880 280 205 238 5 680 580 Regional Map FIGURE 1 Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Initial Study Da t e : 1 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 7 - L a s t s a v e d b y : t f r i e s e n - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 0 5 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e _ 1 _ R e g i o n a l . m x d Project Site 02010Miles Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 44 January 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 82 101 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Initial Study SOURCE: ESRI 2015 Da t e : 1 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 7 - L a s t s a v e d b y : t f r i e s e n - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 0 5 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e _ 2 _ V i c i n i t y . m x d 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Site Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 46 January 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Aerial Map Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Initial Study SOURCE: Bing Maps 2015 Da t e : 1 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 7 - L a s t s a v e d b y : t f r i e s e n - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 0 5 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e _ 3 _ A e r i a l M a p . m x d 0 200100Feet Project Site Boundary Figure 3 Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 48 January 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK R-1 R-1 RM-15 RM-15 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-1 R-1 (10000) PF PF R-1 CD-S(P) AMF DHS RT-35 R-2 CC HI G H S T CHA N N I N G A V E W A V E R L E Y S T TEN N Y S O N A V E EMBARC A D E R O R D CHU R C H I L L A V E AL M A S T B R Y A N T S T E M E R S O N S T MEL V I L L E A V E LIN C O L N A V E KING S L E Y A V E C O W P E R S T R A M O N A S T W E B S T E R S T LA N E A TA S S O S T COL E R I D G E A V E LA N E 5 9 LA N E D LA N E B U N N A M E D S T R E E T LOW E L L A V E KEL L O G G A V E WHIT M A N C T B Y R O N S T Land Use and Zoning Designations Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Initial Study SOURCE: City of Palo Alto Da t e : 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 7 - L a s t s a v e d b y : t f r i e s e n - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 0 5 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e _ 4 _ C o m p r e h e n s i v e _ P l a n _ Z o n i n g.m x d 0 410205Feet Project Site Boundary Zoning Designations Land Use Designations Single Family Residential Village Residential Mixed Use/Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) Regional/Community Commercial Major Institution/Special Facility School District Lands Public Park Figure 4 Castilleja School Initial Study 10056 50 January 2017 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 City of Palo Alto Development of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: Responsible and Trustee Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties FROM: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Contact: Amy French, Chief Planning Official SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Master Plan, Parcel Map with Exception and a Variance to allow the pedestrian access and vehicle ramp into the subterranean garage to encroach into the Embarcadero Road special setback and the Emerson Street side setback, and some subterranean parking to encroach into the Embarcadero Road and side setbacks. AGENCIES: The City of Palo Alto requests that public agencies provide comments regarding the scope and content of the EIR as it relates to an agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b). ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERESTED PARTIES: The City of Palo Alto requests comments and concerns from organizations and interested parties regarding the environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Castilleja School PROJECT LOCATION: 1310 Bryant Street and 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Project site is 286,783 sf comprised of three parcels: (1) APN 124-12-034 (1310 Bryant, school site), (2) APN 124-12-031 (1235 Emerson, “Emerson House” aka ‘Lockey/Alumnae House’, 75’ on Emerson St), and (3) APN 124-12-033 (1263 Emerson, “Head’s House’, 105’ on Emerson St). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Castilleja School is an all-girls private school in Palo Alto that has been operating since 1907. Currently, the school serves grades 6 through 12. The school’s Notice of Preparation of an EIR Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan 2 facilities include an administrative building, a maintenance facility, a chapel theater, classrooms, a gymnasium, pool, above ground parking areas, athletic fields, and a dining hall. The project proposal is to demolish two homes on adjacent Castilleja-owned parcels (at 1235 and 1263 Bryant) and merge the two parcels into the Castilleja campus parcel via Parcel Map with Exception, and demolish four existing buildings and replace them with a single building. The applicant seeks to expand enrollment and redevelop the existing campus in three construction phases: 1. Construct a below-grade parking structure under the merged parcels to accommodate 130 vehicles, re-route drop-off and pick-up through the garage, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 490 students; 2. Relocate the existing pool, complete bikeway station on Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 520 students; and 3. Relocate deliveries and waste pick-ups further from the street and below grade, reduce number of food service deliveries by 10%, implement sustainability plan, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 540 students. In order to accomplish the proposed project, Castilleja School Foundation has submitted an application to amend the school’s existing Conditional Use Permit and an Architectural Review application. Including future phase construction of a new campus building, the project would result in an increase in the total building square footage within the campus by 26,700 square feet, all of which would be below grade - above grade the square footage would remain the same. The applicant also proposes to increase the number of off-street parking spaces from 73 to 170. Of these, 130 would be below ground and 40 of which would be in surface parking lots. This would reduce the number of above ground spaces by 33 spaces. The amount of open space would also increase by 6,182 square feet. Finally, the project includes a Transportation Demand Management Plan to offset transportation impacts and a proposal for no net new automobile trips, as well as a Sustainability Program. Additional project details and figures are provided in the Initial Study, which is available for review at the City of Palo Alto website for this project: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school.asp POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: As documented in the Initial Study, the following areas of potentially significant environmental impact will be analyzed in the Draft EIR: Air Quality (project construction only), Biological Resources (trees and migratory birds), Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Potential cumulative impacts and potential for growth inducement will be addressed; alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, will be evaluated. SCOPING MEETING: The City of Palo Alto will hold a scoping meeting as part of the Planning and Transportation Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on February 8, 2017. Notice of Preparation of an EIR Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan 3 The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. and will be held at the City of Palo Alto Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 250 E. Hamilton Avenue. The meeting agenda will be posted to the City’s website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. Interested parties are welcome to attend and present environmental information or concerns that you believe should be addressed in the EIR. This NOP and Initial Study as well as future CEQA documents for this project will be available for review at the City’s website for this project: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school.asp If you require additional project information, please contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: This NOP is available for public review and comment pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b), for 30 days. The comment period for the NOP begins January 23, 2017 and ends on February 22, 2017. Due to the limits mandated by state law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. RESPONSES AND COMMENTS: Please indicate a contact person for your agency and send your responses and comments to: Amy French, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto PCE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment D: Summary for Castilleja School Environmental Review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Qualified Professional Retained The determination of whether the Castilleja School project may have a significant effect on the environment is a critical step in the CEQA process, and one that requires professional knowledge and judgment, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 found here: http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/art5.html The determination should be based on information in the record and, to the extent feasible, on scientific and factual data. Generally, an environmental professional with specific training in a particular area of environmental review can make this determination. This determination is made prior to and separate from the development of mitigation measures for the project. The City, as the “Lead Agency” for the environmental review, has retained the professional firm Dudek to prepare an Initial Study (IS) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Environmental Review Process – Initial Study Preparation of an Initial Study is not a requirement for a project determined to require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Draft IS was prepared as a communication tool for the public to understand what will be studied in the EIR. It should be noted that an IS is neither intended nor required to include the level of detail included in an EIR1. The purpose of the Castilleja School Initial Study is to focus the EIR on the effects determined to be significant and identify and explain the effects determined not to be significant2 (an example in the case of Castilleja School is the topic of Agriculture). The purpose of the IS is also to enable the applicant to modify the project to mitigate adverse impacts that require preparation of an EIR. The IS format is a standard checklist, which Dudek used in this case; the checklist notes the following categories as having potentially significant impacts:  Aesthetics,  Air Quality (construction only),  Cultural Resources,  Geology and Soils,  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (construction only),  Land Use and Planning,  Noise,  Transportation and Traffic, and  Tribal Cultural Resources. 1 CEQA Guidelines Article 5 Section 15063 item a.3 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 c.3. Palo Alto required the applicant to submit data and information to enable preparation of the initial study3. Any person may submit data and information in any form to assist the Lead Agency in the preparation of the Initial Study. Staff forwards to the consultant data and information as appropriate. During or immediately after preparation of an Initial Study, staff may consult with the applicant to determine if the applicant is willing to modify the project or reduce or avoid the significant effects identified in the initial study.4 Staff met with the applicant on January 12, 2017 to discuss several design changes the applicant is exploring. Determination of Potential Environmental Effects If there is substantial evidence the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must prepare an EIR5. This determination is to be based to the extent possible on scientific or factual data. The significance of an activity can vary with its setting (eg. an activity that may not be significant in an urban area may be considered significant in a rural area, or residential neighborhood in this case.) There are also “thresholds of significance”6; the City has developed these thresholds to assist the staff and decision-makers to determine the potential effects caused by projects. Mandatory Findings of Significance There are “Mandatory Findings of Significance”7. If any of the specific conditions would result from a proposed project, the project is considered to have a significant effect on the environment. The conditions are identified on the CEQA Appendix G checklist: (1) The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife population, cause a fish or wildlife species to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, significantly reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. (2) The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html). (3) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 3 CEQA Guidelines 15063 e 4 CEQA Guidelines 15063 g 5 CEQA Guidelines 15064 a1 6 CEQA Guidelines 15064.7 7 CEQA Guidelines 15065 The Draft Initial Study finds the project has the potential to result in significant impacts and that it could meet the above conditions, and thus detailed analysis is needed. It is possible the City could find sufficient mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels and in the end, the City Council could support findings that none of the above conditions are met. Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation (NOP) CEQA Guidelines Article 7 describes the EIR process. The decision to prepare an EIR usually is made at the conclusion of the Initial Study. Because the City has decided to prepare an EIR, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared, describing probable environmental effects of the project; the NOP was filed with the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Within 30 days of receiving the notice of preparation, responsible agencies are required to provide responses regarding significant impacts and reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures. There is no other agency that has discretionary approval authority over the project. There are agencies that may review the documents for this project, including the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), regional transportation agencies, Caltrans and Caltrain, and the Air Quality Board. EIR Scoping Session – Goals and Proposed EIR Contents This public meeting is a scoping session to ‘kick-off’ the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. The goals of the scoping session include: (a) inform the public what potential impacts the project may have on the environment, (b) identify what the City proposes to study related to those potential impacts, and (c) hear public testimony as to the topic areas for further study and potentially resolve concerns of interested parties on environmental grounds. Early public consultation and a scoping session is advisable where people are concerned about a project’s environmental effects8 and the session can allow these persons to help the City identify a range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR. The scoping session also allows the City to identify which detailed study issues have been deemed not important to study for the particular project, such as Agriculture. EIR Contents CEQA Guidelines Article 9 prescribes the contents of EIRs. The City has requested that the applicant provide information beyond what was submitted at the time of application, to clarify the project and help with the preparation of the draft EIR. The city requested additional information in the “notice of incomplete (NOI)” provided to the applicant after the application was submitted, and in the addendum to the NOI. Examples of studies the applicant is preparing are the geotechnical study and the noise study. The applicant had previously submitted an Arborist Report and other studies and reports. The Arborist Report submitted with the application caused the Urban Forestry staff to request an additional study of Redwood tree 8 CEQA 15083 item 1 #112; the additional study determined the tree was hazardous, and would need to be removed prior to an event that could cause serious damage. In addition to these studies the applicant prepared and is preparing to assist with preparation of the draft EIR, the City’s consultant is preparing technical studies including a traffic analysis report and a historic evaluation of the two homes on the site that are proposed to be removed to make way for an underground parking garage. Next Steps in EIR Process The City will work with the consultant to ensure the draft EIR is thorough and accurate. The Notice of Availability of the draft EIR will be posted on the City’s website and the draft EIR would be distributed to the local libraries and made available at the Development Center and City Hall Planning offices. The City would provide notification that documents are available for review so that interested parties may comment. Public hearings would be held to allow discussion of and comments to be made regarding the document’s studies and findings, along with review of the project applications. Evaluation of Comments and Responses As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City evaluates comments on environmental issues and prepares written responses to comments received during the noticed comment period, or as may be extended. When comments are received from public agencies, the City is required by CEQA to provide responses to those agencies at least ten days prior to EIR certification. Recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added to an EIR after notice of the draft EIR is given and before certification. Information can include changes to project, environmental setting, additional data or other information. New information is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or feasible way to mitigate or avoid such effect that the applicant has declined to implement. There are tests for “significant new information” set forth in the CEQA guidelines. Clarification or amplification of an EIR would not require recirculation of an EIR. Final EIR and Certification Before City Council can approve the project, it must certify the Final EIR as completed in compliance with CEQA and as reflecting the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis. The Council, in approving a project following certification of an EIR, would need to approve a monitoring program for any mitigation measures identified in the EIR. If the Council finds there will be remaining significant and unavoidable effects (after mitigation measures are applied) on the environment, the Council may decide these are acceptable effects due to ‘overriding concerns’. The Council must then make a statement of overriding considerations in that case, and these must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Finally, a notice of determination must be filed following the Council’s decision on the project. ATTACHMENT E: History of Castilleja Campus and Enrollment Castilleja Campus Today Original Campus Castilleja School first opened August 1907; the original location was 1121 Bryant Street. In August 2010, the school moved to 1310 Bryant Street, into four new structures; a three-story dormitory, a recitation building, a domestic science building and a gymnasium. Images of the original campus plan and floor plans of the original dormitory and gym are provided below.1 1920’s through 1950’s In the 1920’s, the pool and chapel were added, along with a science lab, the Orchard House, and an auditorium. Enrollment declined during the Great Depression and war years; by 1947, 1 Photos captured from the book “Castilleja, Celebrating a Century” by Sara Croll and Heather Allen Pang, available at the Palo Alto Historical Association). the enrollment for Kindergarten through 12th grade was 235 students. In 1958, the lower grades (first through fourth) were dropped from the program; it became more of a college preparatory program and the program was restricted to 7th through 12th grades by 1962, and more buildings were added. 1960’s In the 1960’s, a classroom and dormitory building fronting Kellogg Ave. was approved and built; called the Arrillaga Family Campus Center, and completed in 1962; the dormitory housed 90 students. In 1965, a classroom/dormitory building (fronting Kellogg Avenue and Bryant Street) was built to connect the administration building to the Kellogg-fronting dormitory, as pictured below. In 1967, the school built a new library and Rhoades Hall, containing 20 classrooms to accommodate a projected enrollment of 300 students. The above street view shows the 1965 classroom/dormitory building at the corner; Rhoades hall connects the 1965 building to the administration building. Below is a site plan from 1967. 1970s In 1974, the school proposed a building for the visual, performing and physical arts. At that time, Melville Avenue still crossed Emerson, tennis courts were located between Melville Avenue and Embarcadero Road; Melville Avenue provided 30 on-street parking spaces (as seen in below image). In 1977, the school built the gymnasium (the Seipp-Wallace Pavilion) and in 1978, the school requested permits for a Fine Arts building and attached Performing Arts Building. 1980s In 1980, the school built the Ely Fine Arts Center. An image of the approved fine arts building is below: Also in 1980, the school renovated the Chapel to become an auditorium and where the performing arts building had been planned, a parking lot for 28 spaces was installed instead. History of Conditional Use Permits The first CUP (file #60-UP-3) was issued by the City’s Zoning Administrator in 1960, along with a Variance (file #60-V-3) for the three-story dormitory that violated the height limit. The permits allowed classrooms, administrative offices, auditorium, library, dorm kitchen and dining room, social room, gymnasium, swimming pool, tennis courts, caretaker’s quarters, shop and garage, and the 41’ tall dormitory. The City issued another CUP in 1965. CUPs in the 1970s The 1974 CUP was conditioned to go to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and included these conditions of approval (COA):  COA#3: Every effort shall be made to minimize traffic and prevent on-street parking congestion.  COA# 4: All construction and development shall comply with all applicable codes and ordinances and with the requirements of the Fire Chief. The City issued a third CUP in 1979 CUP for a building addition to the chapel, with requirements for providing 52 parking spaces, screened as approved by the ARB, designated student pick-up and delivery areas, and compliance with prior CUP conditions. CUPs in the 1990s In the early 1990’s, sixth grade class was added back into the program. In 1991-92, the City abandoned the Melville Avenue right-of-way between Emerson and Bryant Streets, and approved a fourth CUP for Castilleja to use the abandoned area subject to the establishment of a 28-space parking lot. The City also approved a Tentative Map to merge five parcels with the abandoned Melville right-of-way, and a fence height Variance. The City also approved a softball field on the new area; the 1992 plan showed redwood screen trees as a buffer for the homes on Emerson Street. The 1992 CUP also included a condition related to Transportation Demand Management (TDM): The City issued a fifth CUP in 1995 (file #95-UP-47) that allowed Castilleja to convert the dormitory into a library, classrooms and offices for a maximum of 385 students (approximately 154 middle school and 231 high school by the year 2000) through 1999. The 1995 CUP noted an amendment would be needed to exceed 385 students. In 1999, still with 385 students and 90 staff members, Castilleja requested to increase enrollment by 30 middle schoolers, from 385 to 425 students in total. CUPs of the 2000s The City issued the sixth CUP (file #00-UP-23), allowing 415 students, subject to implementation of a TDM program. Then in 2007, the school added basement area below the physical arts building, with no adjustment to the CUP. The City also issued additional CUPs for temporary events (such as graduations) over several decades. 1 French, Amy From:Mindie S. Romanowsky <msr@jsmf.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:04 PM To:French, Amy Subject:Castilleja Dear Amy‐  On behalf of Castilleja School, based on the notice of incomplete for the Castilleja project‐ and the feedback  contained therein‐ it has become clear that in addition to Castilleja's application for a CUP and Master Plan,  we also need to include additional  application requests for the project, as follows:        Parcel Map with Exception.  This is in response to comments from Public Works whereby we cannot  build across property lines and we need to merge existing lots to accommodate the proposed site  plan.   Variance  to allow pedestrian access and vehicle ramp into the subterranean garage to encroach into  the Embarcadero Road special set back and the Emerson street side setback and some subterranean  parking to encroach into the Embarcadero Road and side setbacks.  This request is in response to  comments from the Planning Department related to the proposed location and configuration (i.e.  Parking space locations)  of the proposed subterranean garage and access thereto.   Of important note, the above requests were included in the Notice of Preparation for the Environmental  Impact Report and will be reviewed pursuant to CEQA, accordingly.    Castilleja  intends to provide further application materials and findings in support of the above listed  application items,  in the forthcoming weeks.     Thank you.   Mindie Romanowsky.    Mindie S. Romanowsky Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph: 650-324-9300 Fx: 650-324-0227 Email: msr@jsmf.com Proposed Castilleja School Expansion of 125 Students Summary Statement for City Council Prepared by Neighbors March 10, 2016 Situation: Castilleja recently announced a proposal to increase enrollment to 540 students – 125 more than the current CUP max of 415 students, amounting to a 30% increase, the largest ever proposed. Neighborhood Goal: Seeking Council’s attention to neighbors’ stated interest in restricting Castilleja’s current and future negative impacts. While we appreciate Castilleja’s mission to deliver a top notch education to young women, we ask the council to deny approval of an enrollment increase beyond the current cap of 415 for the following reasons: 1. Traffic congestion, on-street parking: Castilleja juniors, seniors, staff, visiting parents, sports participants, test- takers, lecture attendees, etc. drive to school and park on neighborhood streets not just 5 days, but 7 days a week, with events occurring mornings, afternoons, evenings, weekends and throughout the summer. 73% of Castilleja’s enrollment comes from outside Palo Alto, so the majority of this traffic is externally generated. The neighborhood bears all the impact of the school’s traffic, busses, parking, deliveries, events – and is now facing spillover parking from those in downtown/Professorville seeking parking outside the permit zone. These streets are corridors for local residents walking to public schools (Addison, Paly, Walter Hayes, Jordan), as well as a major bike boulevard (Bryant Street). Neighbors hear brakes squeal and horns honk every day; the situation has become unsafe for local children and adults. 2. Comparison: Other private schools in Palo Alto are held to stricter standards. The CUP for Stratford School at Garland, operating on 10 acres, allows a max of 482 students (48 students/acre), hours are 8am–4pm, evening activities are NOT permitted, street parking is not allowed. Castilleja is currently at 73 students/acre, no limit on evening/weekend events. It is seeking to increase to 90 students/acre. Paly HS is approx 64 students/acre. Castilleja, a middle school and a high school, is already too large for its 6 acre, one-block parcel. No other middle & high school campus on the Peninsula operates on this small of a plot. In Palo Alto, middle schools are on 20+ acres and high schools are on 30+ acres, with parking. 3. City’s prior directive: In 2000, traffic and parking congestion were already beyond intolerable. Palo Alto Planning Director John Lusardi was forceful in his CUP approval letter to Castilleja: “The approved Conditional Use Permit does not provide for any increase in students over 415, and any subsequent request for additional students will not be favorably looked upon by the City.” 4. Palo Alto Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan: Castilleja’s use no longer satisfies the City’s definition of an R-1 conditional use. Per the PAMC, a CUP will “not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience (in the vicinity)” and it shall “be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” The Comp Plan states that the city “seeks to promote community /commercial uses but not at the expense and quality of the residential neighborhoods.” 5. Continuous Violation - Castilleja has exceeded the existing CUP enrollment cap of 415 for the last 16 years, and to this day continues in violation with its current 438 students. At $42,000 tuition per student, the school has collected some $20 million in revenue from over-enrollment in the past 16 years. The school ignored many other current CUP requirements - until it sought another amended CUP. Neighbors have had no viable enforcement leverage. Neighbors have no confidence that future CUP conditions will be met, nor that conditions can be sustained or improved with 125 additional students being delivered to this small section of Palo Alto. If the school needs to expand to meet demands we suggest that, like many others, it consider dividing into two appropriately-sized campuses. Many thanks for your time and attention to this matter. – Neighbors of Castilleja 3/10/16 September 12, 2016 Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, We write to you as a group of concerned neighbors (homeowners and renters) residing near the Castilleja School. Some of us have spoken several times now before the Council regarding the negative impact on the neighborhood and our quality of life if Castilleja proceeds with a proposed enrollment increase (of 30%), campus development and expansion. While we are consistent in the message we present to the Council, we intend not simply to repeat points we have made, but to inform you of steps Castilleja is now taking as it prepares to submit a more complete CUP application to the City. We also make a public request for more complete information than we are currently receiving from City officials regarding Castilleja’s actions. We list below the seven points that we believe will lead to a more harmonious co-existence between Castilleja and the neighborhood, and that will help to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. 1. It is critical that Castilleja be held to account and roll back its enrollment to 415 students in compliance with the 2000 CUP. In a letter from December 2013 to Castilleja, then Advance Planning Manager Steven Turner requested an enrollment reduction plan from the school, recommending strategies such as attrition to reduce enrollment. (We might note that Mr. Turner first communicated with Castilleja regarding over-enrollment in 2002, fourteen years ago!) In February of 2014, Mr. Turner established that the reduction plan allowed for 444 students in 2014-15, and a further reduction to 438 for 2015-16. By the end of the 2015-16 academic year, Castilleja was to submit a new CUP application, at which time the City (and residents in the public hearings) could fully consider the enrollment matter. Castilleja did submit an application in June 2016; the City deemed it incomplete in various respects. In a November 2015 letter to Castilleja, City Manager James Keene implicitly allowed the school to keep its enrollment at 438 for 2016-17, and at the moment beyond, while Castilleja conducted their analyses for a CUP application. We would like to see the City request a more robust enrollment reduction plan – to 415, the enrollment number established by law -- for 2017-18 and beyond as Castilleja works on their new CUP application. That request should be communicated in the autumn of 2016, before the school admits its new class for 2017. If the City does not make that request, we would like to know how precisely the City makes the decision to allow Castilleja to violate the legal CUP limit on enrollment. 2. We are adamantly against Castilleja constructing an underground garage with an entrance on Bryant and an exit on Emerson, directly across from the homes of long time residents. If current peak period traffic sees over 400 car trips (from 7 to 8 am, for example), a 30% enrollment increase would increase the amount of traffic to even more unacceptable levels. N.b. The underground garage and tree removal comprise Phase 1 of Castilleja’s proposed development. 3. Prevent the loss of up to 168 trees (per Castilla’s initial CUP application), including matured oaks and redwoods (one over 120 feet tall), that Castilleja wants to remove in order to construct the underground garage. This issue merits some urgent attention from the City, since Castilleja has already begun the process of trenching at the perimeter of the school (presumably for analysis needed to outline in more detail Phase 1 tree removal plans). We remain unclear on whether this work received official authorization. We are also greatly concerned that the work is being done improperly and unprofessionally. On day one of the trenching operation, a neighbor observed that the trench was left unfilled and unwatered with tree roots exposed. It took this neighbor one week of persistent communication with the City to get the trench filled and watered (unfortunately, not consistently); we will wait to see how much, if any, root damage has occurred. The trees’ roots are vital to their survival, providing nutrients, storage of energy, and anchoring the trees in place. The trees themselves provide obvious aesthetic and environmental benefits. 4. We need a mandatory Environmental Impact Report, paid for by Castilleja. We believe Amy French and her office are in the planning phase for this. Attention to the water table as well as tree scape will be crucial to any underground construction plans. 5. We need a “true” traffic study, monitoring traffic not just during certain hours of the day, but 24/7, including evenings and weekends for school events, as well as those events that bring parents to the school. Traffic cameras should be part of this traffic monitoring. School traffic already puts bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles at risk. Palo Alto students walk or bike the Embarcadero and Bryant corridors (part of the Palo Alto School Commute Corridor Network) and should be ensured that they can do so in safety. While Castilleja parents, who are arriving from various places on the Peninsula, are currently being asked to drive around the block and return if lines are forming in the current drop off spots, this cannot be a long term solution (having parents drive round the block in bad weather, for example, adds to the risk of accident and injury). The proposed underground garage, with its exit on Emerson and immediate right turn onto Embarcadero fails to square with a recent proposal for better bicycle lanes on Embarcadero, and will certainly add to already dense and slow traffic on that street. 6. Castilleja’s multi-phase development and expansion plans will bring years of construction noise and pollution, heavy-duty machinery and vehicles, and additional traffic and parking woes to our residential neighborhood. This brings absolutely no improvement to the neighborhood and significantly impacts our quality of life. We would like to see the City discuss limits to development, expansion and remodeling on the school’s grounds, given the neighborhood’s R1 status. 7. The neighbors impacted by Castilleja’s proposed plans need more and better access to decisions made by City officials and to communications, whether formal or informal, between the City, Castilleja and other relevant parties. Amy French’s office has reported to us that they lack the staff for making all documents regarding the Catilleja project available online. We believe that City offices in innovative and tech savvy Palo Alto should have the resources to provide residents with information, including all correspondence, in an up-to-date 21st century manner, with the appropriate links on the office’s website. Amy French’s letter to Castilleja regarding the incomplete application is an example of what we think should be available to the public on line. We also need public transparency, which we currently do not have, from our City officials regarding their decision-making. How was the decision made to allow Castilleja to enroll 438 students again for the 2016-17 academic year? Who authorizes and oversees the trenching activity on the Castilleja perimeter? While City officials answer our initial questions, we sometimes find that we are not getting adequate (or any) explanation to further questioning on our part, especially about the legality of Castilleja’s actions. We intend to keep the City Council informed of Castilleja’s ongoing actions in relation to their CUP application preparation, insofar as those actions negatively affect our neighborhood and the natural environment. We recognize the importance of living in a society where we can have an open and ongoing dialogue with those charged with making decisions about Palo Alto’s future. We appreciate your attention to our message. Respectfully submitted by, Names and signatures of concerned neighbors follow: 9/12/16 Letter to Palo City Council re: Castilleja Names and signatures, continued 475 14th Street, Suite 290 Oakland, CA 94612 510.444.2600 w-trans.com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND • SAN JOSE October 21, 2016 Ms. Katherine Waugh, AICP Senior Project Manager Dudek 853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208 Auburn, CA 95603 Proposal for a Transportation Impact Analysis of the Castilleja School project in Palo Alto Dear Ms. Waugh; W-Trans is pleased to provide this proposal to prepare a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the Castilleja School project in Palo Alto. Our proposal is based on the Request for Proposal from Amy French of the City of Palo Alto and the project description contained therein, as well as, our understanding of the project issues and experience with similar school projects in the Bay Area. The objective of the traffic study is to evaluate the probable traffic impacts that the proposed project would have on the adjacent roadway network, and to make recommendations to mitigate any significant impacts to the roadway network. The proposed project is an evaluation of the potential impacts of the school expanding its enrollment from 438 to 540 students. We will confirm with City of Palo Alto staff the nearby approved projects, trip generation estimate, trip reduction factors associated with transportation demand management (TDM), and trip distribution patterns prior to evaluating intersection level of service. In addition, the TIA will address project-specific issues. Scope of Services Task 1: Traffic Impact Analysis Field Reconnaissance W-Trans will conduct field reconnaissance visits for this site during the a.m. (drop-off) and mid-afternoon (pick-up) peak periods on a typical school day (Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday with no special event, field trips, assemblies, etc.). The purpose of this task is to confirm available data and information. We will observe and note the following:  Drop-off and pick-up operations  On-site circulation, access and parking  Multimodal access (bicycles, pedestrians, and transit)  Roadway cross-section  Intersection lane geometry and configuration  Traffic control devices  Surrounding land uses  Sight distance  Existing traffic operations’ consistency with the LOS analysis calculated for this project for existing conditions Ms. Katherine Waugh Page 2 January 20, 2017 Trip Generation and Land Use Inventory W-Trans will estimate the number of net new daily, a.m. peak hour and mid-afternoon peak hour trips that the project will add to the study area based on a three-step process; trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. The proposed development’s trip generation for the weekday daily, a.m. and mid-afternoon peak hours will be calculated based on a site-specific trip generation survey. The survey will include vehicle counts on two typical school days (no field trips or special events, and when nearby PAUSD schools are in session). The surveys will be conducted between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to establish the a.m. and mid-afternoon peak period of generator. To capture on-site trip generation, the surveys will be conducted via video cameras placed in strategic locations to capture all school access points (for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists) on Bryant Avenue, Kellogg Avenue, Emerson Street and Embarcadero Road. To count the off-site drop-off and pick up activity, we will also set up cameras to monitor both sides of the follow street segments: 1. Embarcadero between Emerson Street and Bryant Street 2. Emerson Street (Embarcadero to Melville, Melville to Kellogg, and Kellogg to Churchill) 3. Melville Avenue (Alma Street to Emerson Street) 4. Kellogg Avenue (Alma Street to Emerson Street, Emerson Street to Bryant Street, Bryant Street to Waverly Street) 5. Bryant Street (Embarcadero to Kellogg Avenue, and Kellogg Avenue to Churchill Avenue) The survey data will be compared to standard trip generation rates for a K-8 private school published in the latest edition of ITE’s Trip Generation, and then a recommended trip generation rate will be reviewed with City staff prior to analysis. Trip distribution will be based on the school attendance area and zip code data if made available. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and Surveys We will review the school’s current TDM program, and assess its effectiveness via any prior monitoring surveys, the current trip generation survey, and a new mode choice survey of the school students, faculty and staff that we will administer twice on two typical school days. The TDM surveys will be done via a paper survey in order to gain a higher response rate compared to an electronic survey. W-Trans will work with school staff to administer the survey in classrooms, which we will prepare, deliver, and collect from the school prior to processing. Results of the two TDM surveys will inform or confirm any potential trip deductions (note that any current trip deductions will be built into the trip generation rate calculated form the trip generation survey; the TDM surveys will be used to verify the trip totals from the trip generation survey). Ms. Katherine Waugh Page 3 January 20, 2017 Study Intersections The TIA will include analysis of the following intersections: 1. Embarcadero Road/Alma Street 2. Kingsley Avenue/Alma Street 3. Embarcadero Road/Emerson Street 4. Embarcadero Road/Bryant Street 5. Churchill Avenue /Alma Street 6. El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road 7. Middlefield Road/Embarcadero Road Turning Movement Counts Intersection turning movement data will be collected for all study intersections during a.m. (7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.) and mid-afternoon (2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.) and p.m. (4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.) peak periods, including vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle counts. Note that school trips are only anticipated for the a.m. and mid-afternoon peak periods. Auto Level of Service Analysis The analysis time periods for this study will be the weekday a.m. and mid-afternoon peak hours. The level of service (LOS) analysis will be based on the VTA 2003 Traffic LOS Analysis Guidelines. The analysis of study intersections will be conducted using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies and Traffix Analysis Software using the VTA default database. The LOS results will be compiled in a table format. Comparison LOS tables will be included showing all of the LOS results for the various analysis scenarios. The traffic study will include the following traffic study scenarios with the existing intersection controls and configurations: 1. Existing Conditions 2. Existing Conditions plus Project Trips 3. Background Conditions (Existing Conditions plus Approved Project Trips) 4. Project (Background plus Project Trips) 5. Cumulative 6. Cumulative plus Project For those intersections operating at LOS E or F under the project conditions scenario a separate LOS analysis will be conducted using mitigated conditions in order to compare the no mitigation scenario to the mitigated conditions scenario. A LOS table will be prepared showing operating conditions of all study intersections for each of the study scenarios, along with "Project plus mitigated conditions" (if mitigations required). Project Specific Issues For each of the scenarios listed above, W-Trans will evaluate the drop-off and pick-up circulation in and around the school campus. Also, changes (if any) to the multimodal access (bicycles, pedestrians and transit) will be evaluated and circulation will be evaluated. Sight distance at project driveways and parking adequacy (Code, demand and supply comparison) will be evaluated. The potential for neighborhood parking issues will be qualitatively discussed in the TIA. Ms. Katherine Waugh Page 4 January 20, 2017 Ms. Katherine Waugh Page 5 January 20, 2017 Residential Streets (TIRE) Analysis We will prepare a TIRE analysis to evaluate increases in vehicle trips on local residential streets. The following adjacent residential streets will be analyzed: 1. Waverley Street (Lincoln to Kingsley, Kingsley to Whitman, Whitman to Melville, Melville to Embarcadero, Embarcadero to Kellogg, Kellogg to Churchill) 2. Bryant Street (Lincoln to Kingsley, Kingsley to Whitman, Whitman to Embarcadero, Embarcadero to Kellogg, and Kellogg to Churchill) 3. Emerson Street (Lincoln to Kingsley, Kingsley to Embarcadero, Embarcadero to Melville, Melville to Kellogg, and Kellogg to Churchill) 4. Churchill Avenue (Waverly to Bryant, Bryant to Emerson, Emerson to Alma) 5. Alma Street (Lincoln to Embarcadero, Embarcadero to Kingsley, Kingsley to Melville, Melville to Kellogg, and Kellogg to Churchill) 6. Lincoln Avenue (Waverly to Bryant, Bryant to Ramona, Ramona to Emerson, Emerson to High, High to Alma) 7. Kingsley Avenue (Waverly to Bryant, Bryant to Ramona, Ramona to Emerson, Emerson to High, High to Alma) 8. High Street (Lincoln to Embarcadero) 9. Ramona Street (Lincoln to Kingsley) To conduct the TIRE analysis, 24-hour traffic counts will be taken on each of the street segments noted above. The TIRE analysis will be conducted for each project scenario. Bike Boulevard Analysis We will assess Bryant Street as it is an established bicycle boulevard and principle north-south city bike corridor. The TIA shall include a qualitative and quantitative assessment of potential impacts to the bicycle boulevard, as follows: 1. We will observe and summarize interactions between motorized vehicles and cyclists on Bryant Street during the site reconnaissance periods and provide qualitative assessments of the existing and existing plus project conditions based on bike boulevard guidelines. 2. We will provide quantitative speed and volume (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian) analysis for the existing scenario, and volume analysis for the existing plus project scenario (speed prediction for existing plus project scenario is assumed not to change). We will compare the findings to established bike boulevard speed and volume thresholds. The focus of the analysis will be on Bryant Street between Embarcadero Kellogg, and also from Kellogg to Churchill. 3. We will summarize our findings in the TIA and include potential off-site improvements to address potential project-generated impacts associated with motorized vehicle speed and/or volumes. Special Events We will note the potential for increases in special events at the school, including their frequency and event size. This will be a qualitative narrative analysis that includes the potential increases in traffic and parking demand. If needed we will recommend adjustments to the school’s TDM program to address special events. Ms. Katherine Waugh Page 6 January 20, 2017 Ms. Katherine Waugh Page 7 January 20, 2017 Task 2: TIA for Administrative Draft EIR W-Trans will prepare one Administrative Draft TIA report, including text, tables, figures and technical appendices. Task 3: Respond to Agency Comments and Preparation of TIA for Draft EIR W-Trans will respond to one set of consolidated non-contradictory comments on the Administrative Draft TIA and prepare a TIA for the DEIR. Task 4: Respond to Public Comments and Preparation of Final EIR W-Trans will respond in writing to comments received on the Draft EIR Transportation/Circulation Chapter. We have assumed preparation of comment responses as well as revisions to the responses based on City staff review, up to the allocated budget resources for this task. Task 5: Project Administration and Meetings (5) This work scope includes up to five meetings related to this project. These could be with project team members, public hearings, or other formal meetings. Exclusions Any services not explicitly identified above in Tasks 1-5 are excluded. Should any additional time be necessary to prepare the Final EIR beyond the budgeted hours (as it is unknown how many comments or the level of effort that will be required to respond to Draft EIR comments) we will request additional budget at that time, and proceed only after receiving written authorization for additional services; Schedule The Administrative Draft TIA report will be completed approximately twelve weeks after completion of data collection and receipt of all required project materials. Budget W-Trans will provide services on a time and materials basis at our current standard billing rates. The estimated maximum fee is $90,500. Thank you for considering W-Trans for this project. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Mark Spencer, PE Principal mspencer@w-trans.com Ms. Katherine Waugh Page 8 January 20, 2017 MES/PAL015.P1-4 LAW OFFICES VENERUSO & MONCHARSH DONNA M. VENERUSO (d.’09) 5707 REDWOOD ROAD, SUITE 10 LEILA H. MONCHARSH OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619 TELEPHONE (510) 482-0390 FACSIMILE (510) 482-0391 January 30, 2017 Amy French, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja School Expansion Plans Dear Ms. French: I represent a group of neighbors living in the vicinity of Castilleja School. This is to request that you continue the upcoming scoping session hearing date and the due date for written comments. The hearing date of February 8, 2017 and a comment cutoff date of February 22, 2017 do not allow sufficient time for the public to review the relevant documents, obtain expert review where necessary, and provide full comments. The scoping session is important to my clients due to the negative impacts presented by Castilleja’s expansion plans. The project, if approved, will destroy many characteristics of the surrounding residential neighborhood because it essentially encroaches an institutional use into the surrounding single-family neighborhood. The current setting is one of single family homes, at least some of which appear to be historic resources, ample trees throughout the neighborhood and streets, minor traffic uses during non-school or school event hours, quietude, and narrow streets. The proposed changes would involve removal or attempted transplanting of an enormous number of established trees, installation of an underground garage and entry to it that are consistent with a downtown or industrial location, demolition of houses to be replaced by institutional uses, increased noise during school hours and events, increased student and employee traffic, and a very long three-year construction period. These changes are very consistent with institutions that are located on large, many-acre parcels and very inconsistent with a typical school, located in a residential neighborhood. The Notice of Preparation and subsequent documents were issued, despite that the application for development was incomplete. The documents that you requested from Castilleja in July 2016 are just now starting to trickle in, with thus far only two of them released to the public. Please see the Public Records Act request we submitted in hopes that the public will receive access to the rest of the ones you requested over five months ago. The Initial Study, which is the seminal document for the public to understand the potential scope of the EIR was not released until January 23, 2017 and is 54 pages long. The geo-tech report is nearly 100 pages long and was just released by your office on January 26, 2017. Yet, we have a hearing date of February 8, 2017, less than two-weeks from now, when my clients would like to fully participate with the decision-makers in commenting orally on the scope of the EIR. None of the rest of the documents that were requested by your department in July 2016 appear to have been provided by the institution. Amy French, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja Project January 30, 2017 Page 2 We also notice that there is no Identification Number on the Initial Study or any other document that was released after the Notice of Preparation was issued. Under CEQA Guideline section 15082, subdivision (e), the Identification Number should have been available shortly after you served the State Clearinghouse. This also causes concern as to whether other relevant agencies have been notified of the scoping session and comment period dates, and whether they have had, or will have, sufficient time to provide comments. Furthermore, under Guidelines section 15082, subdivision (a)(1)(C), as the lead agency the City was required to provide the “probable environmental effects of the project” in the Notice of Preparation to responsible agencies and the Office of Planning and Research so that other agencies could “make a meaningful response.” The one paragraph in the Notice of Preparation constitutes a woefully inadequate description of the probable environmental impacts. The document with those impacts from this project is the Initial Study. However, it is unclear how other agencies are expected to participate in the scoping process when the Initial Study was not even available until six days ago. Therefore, the Initial Study and a revised notice of the scoping session for later dates (hearing and written comments), with the Identification Number should be provided to the Clearinghouse and the public. In reviewing your timeline for the EIR process posted on the City’s website, it appears that the City’s position is that this project should be rushed through the CEQA process within a matter of a very few months. In my experience of over 20 years handling land use matters, that is either an unrealistic timetable or one that evidences an interest by the City in doing an inadequate job informing decision-makers and the public that holds them accountable regarding the environmental impacts of the project. An inadequate, rushed EIR that does not meet the informational requirements of CEQA is simply a recipe for a similar rush into litigation over those inadequacies. For example, I see that the institution’s geo-tech report apparently does not contemplate dewatering and contends that the project will not intrude deeply enough to involve the water table. The City’s engineer discusses all of the possible needs for dewatering and methods the City generally requires. An EIR needs to thoroughly vet this issue lest it turns out that dewatering was needed and no effort was made to quantify the amount of water coming out of the project site. The EIR also needs to provide the solution to the eventuality of the pumping system wearing out or becoming non-operable. The work done thus far on the historic resources topic is also highly problematic. In quickly reviewing your file, it contains a hodge-podge of addresses and rating sheets. One of the sheets was filled out by Michael Corbett, a well-known architectural historian here in Berkeley. As the current Vice-President of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, I am very familiar with Michael’s work and what I see in the file is incredibly inadequate, and not at all Amy French, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja Project January 30, 2017 Page 3 consistent with a properly drafted historic report. There is also a memo that appears to state that certain structures surrounding the school are not historic resources because they are not on a registry. The law in California has been contrary to that position for many years – the issue is whether a structure is “eligible” for inclusion in a registry. (See, League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896.) The environmental issue is also not restricted to the houses slated for demolition, but also involves the potential negative impact of the project on nearby historic resources. From walking around the neighborhood, it appears that it has already been incrementally damaged by Castilleja’s expanding institutional uses. Several of the houses have been converted into either institutional uses or rentals, instead of home ownership. These conversions of needed housing, if allowed to continue, will no doubt fuel more demolitions in the future as the incremental encroachments into the residential area continue. The housing, streetscape, and history suggest that the housing and at least one major structure on the Castilleja property have historic value, both due to at least locally important architects and former residents. Yet, the City appears to be on the brink of allowing this neighborhood to become “salvage” for a private institution that only minimally serves its citizens. Under Guideline section 15083, the City should seriously consider the benefits of a full scoping process. That section states, “Many public agencies have found that early consultation solves many potential problems that would arise in more serious forms later in the review process.” Based on my experience with CEQA, that statement rings true. Please continue the scoping session and comment due dates. Very truly yours, Leila H. Moncharsh Leila H. Moncharsh, J.D., M.U.P. Veneruso & Moncharsh LHM:lm cc: Clients Hillary Gitelman Planning and Transportation Commission City Manager Mayor Vice-Mayor City Council Historic Resources board 1 Cervantes, Yolanda From:Wileta Burch <wiletaburch@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:50 PM To:French, Amy Subject:FW: Castilleja   ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message  From: Wileta Burch <wiletaburch@gmail.com>  Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:01:42 ‐0700  To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Conversation: Castilleja  Subject: Castilleja    Dear council members,    It is my understanding that Castilleja girls school will meet with you to discuss future plans which will include expansion  and will also address the neighbors complaints of parking and noise.    Please give these plans a strong support as Castilleja is one of the most recognized schools in the country for it's  academic excellence, diversity of enrollment, opportunities for the girls to give community service,  travel abroad, and  unparalleled preparation for a meaningful contribution beyond high school.     Since my grand daughter attended Castilleja and my daughter‐in‐law has been on Staff there for 20 years, my husband  Jim and I were able to experience the school many times. We visited classrooms, plays, graduations, toured the facility,  and met with the Chef to discuss school gardens.  The excellence we saw was inspiring.    Since this school is one of Palo Alto's treasures, I hope you will support its opportunity to not only continue the current  excellence but to expand it to even more girls.    Thank you.   Wileta Burch                       177 Hemlock Court                       Palo Alto, CA  94306    ‐‐‐‐‐‐ End of Forwarded Message        1 Cervantes, Yolanda From:Barbara Lindsay <blindsay@pausd.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:40 PM To:French, Amy Cc:Barbara Lindsay Subject:Support for Castilleja     From: Barbara Lindsay  Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 8:28 PM  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: Barbara Lindsay  Subject: Support for Castilleja      Dear City Council members,    I am writing to you in support of Castilleja School's plans for the future.   As a long‐time resident of Palo Alto and a veteran PAUSD teacher, I believe Castilleja is acting in good faith by  working very hard on plans to minimize impact on its neighbors.   My niece attended Castilleja, and I have had many former students attend as well, but I would love to see  more girls have the opportunity through the school's plan to increase enrollment and revitalize its facilities.     Castilleja is a very important part of Palo Alto's history and unique in its vision of education of girls and young  women. Our city government needs to respond in good faith to allow Castilleja to take its vision into the  future. I urge you to support their plans to do so.     Sincerely,    Barbara Lindsay  Dear Ms French,August 17, 2016    As a long time resident of Palo Alto and having raised my two children  here, I am writing to lend my support to the CUP Castilleja has proposed.    Palo Alto is a community that values education and I believe it is important  that we have multiple options for learning. Having sent my children to  Ohlone and Paly, I value the excellent public school education they had.  However, I also know the value of an independent school education. I am  supporting Castilleja for the girls in our community that need the kind of  educational environment that Casti has to offer. As the former Director of  Admission at The Girls' Middle School, I see Castilleja as more than one of  the best elite independent girls school in the country. I see it as a ​much  needed​ option for many adolescent girls.    Palo Alto has grown and I encourage you to please allow the valuable  experience of a Castilleja education to the many girls who would benefit.    Thank you for considering my opinion,    Megan R Miller  2530 South Court  Palo Alto, 94301  650­269­7710  August 18, 2016 Dear Ms. French/To Whom It May Concern, I am writing in support of the expansion of Castilleja School. Castilleja is a revolutionary institution. It is a place of learning, growing, and connecting. It is a place that fosters positive change and development of girls and young women. In this world we live in, there will never be too much effort put forth to uplifting women, never enough platform upon which they may share their voice, never too many glass ceilings broken. I am a woman who grew up in Palo Alto. I struggled in school with my diagnosed dyslexia and was reserved, not confident. I did not share much in class or believe in myself academically. My parents had the desire and the financial means to help me by providing me tutoring that allowed me to succeed and I recently completed a Master of Arts in Applied Behavior Analysis with an emphasis in autism. I have worked in Palo Alto at the elementary level and loved giving back to students who struggled. I was especially satisfied when I knew I was helping a young girl find her strength and voice, confidence and love of learning. Castilleja does this for so many girls of many backgrounds. It is a place that allows girls to not only survive school, but thrive. My Women’s Studies background tuned me into the need to educate girls and do it well. Castilleja has done this and will continue to do so, reaching girls from many ethnic, socio-economic, and culturally diverse backgrounds. If Castilleja is granted permission for expansion, I believe the greater community will benefit. Thank you for your time in reading this letter. Sincerely, Kristina K. Lindsay Madriz 1 Cervantes, Yolanda From:DavidandGlowe Chang <davidandglowe@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 27, 2016 7:20 AM To:French, Amy Cc:Nancy Tuck Subject:Castilleja Building application Dear Amy, Please add my name to the mailing list regarding Pro-Castilleja information. I am a current neighbor at 1345 Bryant St. All the efforts by Castilleja have resulted in a much calmer and controlled traffic management. It has been so disappointing to find so many neighbors opposed to what Castilleja represents. California education needs all the help it can get. I applaud Nanci Kaufman's attempt to placate those neighbors concerned with the normal noise patterns of a bustling school. However, I feel it is an extraordinary burden for the school to have to remodel the property for noise control. As a school for young women, the noise level is immediately reduced as there is no football games and rallies and minimal dances. The hours of business are truly within any normal business entity. It is not the same as an eating establishment or entertainment endeavor. I am in favor of school expansion without the herculean efforts of lowering a pool or the central campus. This money could be better spent elsewhere--even as a donation to the greater communityh/PAUSD for their improvements. Regards, Glowe Chang 1345 Bryant St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 davidandglowe@yahoo.com From:Stan Shore To:French, Amy Subject:4 -5 year construction project; using CUP process to escape rezoning process. Date:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:42:04 AM Hello Amy, This email deals specifically with Castilleja's 4 -5 year construction time table and should thisbe a rezoning instead of a CUP issue. Please include this email in the February 8, 2017 Palo Alto scoping meeting. This email has also been sent to many other Palo Alto residents. I will be attending the February 8, 2016 meeting and would like time to speak to the Planning and Transportation Commission. STATEMENT: Palo Alto residents have been watching new fifty foot tall buildings, being constructed inmany of Palo Alto commercial areas. Almost all of these 50 foot construction projects have been completed in two years or even less. Castilleja, in a quiet residential neighborhood, proposes a two story (above ground) project that will take FOUR, FIVE and possibly SIX years to complete. Four to five or six years ishorrific. Every where else in the city, construction crews complete much larger projects, in two years or less. But, Castilleja in a quiet residential neighborhood wants the community tolive with four, five or even six years of cement trucks, jack hammering, cranes, excavators, bulldozers and never ending stream of trucks, an unknown number of construction crewsand not to mention NOISE! NOISE! NOISE!. And most importantly four to potentially six years of construction in a quite R1 residential neighborhood. This project is insanity for aquiet residential neighborhood. This massive construction project does NOT belong in a quiet R1 zoned area. If this project must be forced on this neighborhood, the city must demand that the entire project be completed in two years. This neighborhood is 100% opposed to four - six yearsof construction. CUP vs REZONINGA project of this scale with this intensive land use, with never ending student enrollment increases, no longer falls within the CUP process. This is really a land use rezoning issue; nota CUP issue. Castilleja is using the CUP process as a loophole to bypass the rezoning process. City council should require Castilleja to role back enrollment to 415 students as setforth in the current CUP. The city should instruct Castilleja to apply for rezoning of there 6± acre parcel. The scale, intensity and impact on the community and on Palo Alto of thisproject is not a minor CUP change. This is a blatant re-zoning of a six acre± parcel that is being paraded to the Palo Alto community as a CUP issue. To avoid litigation, City Councilneeds to ask the City Attorney whether the Castilleja proposal is in fact a change in zoning. Remember the old saying, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like aduck, then it probably is a duck. Sincerely, Stan Shore Palo Alto, CA TO: THE PALO ALTO COMMUNITY: If you would like to be removed from this database, please send me an email requesting to be removed. If you know of other residents concerned about the Castilleja expansion, please forward this email to them. From:French, Amy To:"Tom Shannon" Cc:akcooper@pacbell.net; mcleod.bruce@gmail.com; carlab@cb-pr.com Subject:RE: Notice of Scoping Meeting for Preparation of an EIR for Castilleja Date:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:58:00 AM The notice in the Palo Alto Weekly newspaper and the city’s webpage for Castilleja project, with all its followers, noted the regular start time of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting. PTC meetings always start at 6 pm. The mailed cards are a courtesy, not a requirement for scoping meeting - so the lack of a statement about 6 pm general PTC meeting start time on the notice card is not a reason to not have the scoping meeting that evening. I cannot pinpoint exactly what time the scoping meeting will begin - there is another item on the agenda before Castilleja scoping meeting that will start at 6 pm and I don’t know how long that item will go. From: Tom Shannon [mailto:tshannon2@cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:30 AMTo: French, AmyCc: akcooper@pacbell.net; mcleod.bruce@gmail.com; carlab@cb-pr.comSubject: Notice of Scoping Meeting for Preparation of an EIR for Castilleja Hi Amy, I received the above referenced Notice in the USPS mail on January 25, 2017. There is no time listed in the Notice mailed to us. It only has the date of February 8, 2017 and the location. I went to the city's website and found out that the meeting starts at 6 pm. However, I'm wondering if the Notice should have shown a time to adequately inform neighbors? Tom Shannon 256 Kellogg Ave From:French, Amy To:"Tom Shannon" Cc:akcooper@pacbell.net; mcleod.bruce@gmail.com; carlab@cb-pr.com Subject:RE: Castilleja Expansion - Traffic Counts Date:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:30:00 AM Thank you for your input. I forwarded your below email on the scope for Wtrans to Dudek to share with Wtrans (and asked her to be prepared to respond at or prior to the PTC scoping meeting next week). I also copied transportation staff. From: Tom Shannon [mailto:tshannon2@cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:16 AMTo: French, AmyCc: akcooper@pacbell.net; mcleod.bruce@gmail.com; carlab@cb-pr.comSubject: Castilleja Expansion - Traffic Counts Hi Amy, Thanks for the email updating us on scoping info. One comment on the Transportation Sub-Consultant's Scope ... in addition to the traffic counts outlined in the scope, the traffic consultant needs to measure trips on days when Castilleja is CLOSED and not holding any functions at the school while Palo Alto HS is in session. Castilleja represents that some of the traffic on our streets is related to Palo Alto HS. Yet, on days when Castilleja is CLOSED and Palo Alto HS is in session, our neighborhood streets (especially Kellogg Ave.) are very quiet. Thus, we can conclude that 90% of our neighborhood traffic comes almost entirely from Castilleja's operations. I have video recordings of what the traffic looks like on days when Castilleja is closed and Palo Alto is in session. There is no traffic to speak of on Kellogg and very little at the intersection of Kellogg and Bryant. However, I realize that traffic counts and videos from neighbors don't hold much water so I'd like to request that the traffic engineers measure the traffic impact when Castilleja is CLOSED and not holding any functions while Palo Alto HS is in session. You can find these opportunities when the school's take their breaks. Paly and Castilleja are on different "break" schedules. Please make sure Castilleja is not holding any functions on the days that the traffic engineers make the counts. Thanks, Tom Shannon 256 Kellogg Ave. -----Original Message----- From: Castilleja Expansion <Castilleja.Expansion@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Castilleja Expansion <Castilleja.Expansion@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 10:06 am Subject: Castilleja School Project Update - Multiple Documents Uploaded Hello, You are receiving this email because you are subscribed to the Castilleja School Project Update email list. Multiple documents have been uploaded to the Castilleja School web page on the City’s website. The documents are outlined below:   Castilleja School CUP Application Submittal Items Geotechnical Report prepared by Applicant’s Consultant City Staff and Consultant Documents for Castilleja School CUP Review Transportation Sub-Consultant’s Scope Thank you, City of Palo Alto From:French, Amy To:"Andie Reed" Subject:RE: NOP received Jan 20, 2017 Date:Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:16:00 AM I forwarded your comments to Katherine Waugh of Dudek, and I am attaching your email to the staff report to the Commission for the packet. There is not going to be a revised NOP or revised Initial Study. The NOP is specifically to alert agencies through the State Clearinghouse circulation process, and the public via newspaper notice, that the City intends to prepare an EIR for the project. It allows interested parties to provide input on the scope of the study ahead. I prepared a “primer” on CEQA process for the Commission report I hope will be helpful. Since the City has decided to do a Draft EIR, technically an initial study is not required to be published/circulated – and certainly not revised - it is only as a courtesy to communicate – then we take your comments and suggestions about what you feel the City should study and put that into the mix with all of the other comments and suggestions. We will explain this at the Commission hearing February 8. The meeting begins at 6 pm but there is also another item going first that night. The draft EIR will be the next time to comment on what was actually studied over the next several months. From: Andie Reed [mailto:andiezreed@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:14 AMTo: French, AmyCc: Nelson Ng; Kimberley Wong; Mary; Jim Poppy; Hank Sousa; neva yarkin; Rob Levitsky; Jacqueline Taylor; Steven M. Levitan; Polina LevitanSubject: NOP received Jan 20, 2017 Dear Amy, Thank you for posting the NOP for the Castilleja project. Upon review of the Notice, and to ensure that there will be a full EIR, we are hereby requesting additional areas of potentially significant environment impact be analyzed (your Pg 2, bottom third) including but not limited to: 1. Aesthetics: Although this is not included in your NOP, we do see this in the Initial Study which we received this week, so we assume this has been added. 2. Air quality: Needs to be studied for potential impacts after completion of this project if it were to be approved, not just during construction, as is currently stated. 3. Hydrology & water quality: Effects of potential underground water depletion, impacts to the integrity of surrounding buildings, impermeability of garage roof and impacts of run-off, substantially altering existing drainage pattern. 4. Population and housing: We disagree with Dudek's Initial Study on this issue. 1235 Emerson and 1263 Emerson are slated to be demolished. These beautiful old homes represent 30% of the total residences in that short block of Emerson, and thus their demise would leave a substantial void and decimate the residential feel of the block. 5. Traffic/Transportation: It is important that 24 hour/7 days a week car counts are conducted, not just "peak periods". Weekends and nights are very busy with school activities, far in excess of any comparable schools. We assume any traffic consultant will install automatic car counters and study total impact to the Single Family R1 neighborhood compared to surrounding streets. 6. Where can we see study of Staging Area of heavy construction equipment and mitigation plan for the 5+ years of construction for gas emissions, noise and traffic? Please confirm back to me that these additional items will be included in the final NOP and Initial Study prior to the scoping meeting on February 8. Thank you, Andie Reed 160 Melville Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809 ph From:French, Amy To:"Levitan, Steven M." Cc:"Nelson Ng"; roblevitsky@yahoo.com Subject:RE: Castilleja: traffic counting devices Date:Thursday, January 26, 2017 3:54:00 PM Attachments:W-Trans Scope 10-21-16.pdf Yes, Steven, here is the explanation. And I am copying Nelson and Rob, who have recently emailed me with concerns regarding the project. We are aware of the use of traffic counting devices for gathering traffic data. They were placed by the City’s environmental consultant’s sub-consultant to perform traffic counts. The consultant is paid by the City as an independent consultant hired to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. This traffic counting activity was identified by the Transportation Division staff as necessary to inform the environmental review process associated with Castilleja School Foundation’s application. The consultant is proceeding with the scope of work. Steven, et al, you can continue to be assured that the consultant contract is directly with the City, and not with Castilleja. The scope of work for the sub-consultant (W-trans), overseen by the City’s consultant, is attached to the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report that will be published in the Commission’s packet. I am attaching the scope for your information. From: Levitan, Steven M. [mailto:steve.levitan@hoganlovells.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:23 PMTo: French, AmySubject: Castilleja: traffic counting devices Amy, I’ve become aware of traffic counting devices being placed on Emerson Street (12-1300 block) on both the street itself (a rubber strip) and on utility poles. Was this approved by thecity? When we met in person last year with you, Hilary Gitelman, and others, you and Hilary assured us that any traffic studies would be performed by an independent consultant (workingat the city’s direction -- not one selected and supervised by Castilleja), with an advance opportunity for full input by the neighbors as to the nature and scope of the study, and how itwould be performed. This is critically important, from the neighbors’ perspective, to ensure that the data is both objective and complete. I trust that we can continue to rely on theassurances that were provided. If so, I am at a loss to understand why these devices were installed (without any notice or explanation to the Castilleja neighbors), at whose directionthey were installed, and to what end? Are you able to explain? Thank you, Steve Levitan About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see www.hoganlovells.com. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed; it may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system. From:French, AmyTo:Passmore, Walter; Kathy Layendecker (klayendecker@castilleja.org)Cc:Stephens, JamesSubject:RE: Trenching by large redwood tree on spieker field. Please explain?Date:Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:46:00 PM Thanks Walter. From: Passmore, Walter Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:37 PMTo: Kathy Layendecker (klayendecker@castilleja.org)Cc: French, Amy; Stephens, JamesSubject: FW: Trenching by large redwood tree on spieker field. Please explain? Kathy,Will you please insure that this trench is recovered by the end of today. An Urban Forestry inspector visited the site and found that no roots have been damaged, but damage will occur if there is lengthy exposure to air. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Walter Passmore, Urban ForesterPublic Works Department, Public Services Division3201 E. Bayshore RoadPalo Alto, CA 94303(650) 496-5986“Trees Work”www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees From: French, Amy Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:53 AMTo: sheepgirl1@yahoo.com; Dockter, Dave; Passmore, WalterCc: Mary; Jacqueline Taylor; Rob Levitsky; Poppy, Jim; Steven M. Levitan; Nelson NgSubject: RE: Trenching by large redwood tree on spieker field. Please explain? Thank you for your email, Kimberley. I am sending this to Urban Forestry for their review and response. From: sheepgirl1@yahoo.com [mailto:sheepgirl1@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:25 AMTo: French, AmyCc: Mary; Jacqueline Taylor; Rob Levitsky; Poppy, Jim; Steven M. Levitan; Nelson NgSubject: Trenching by large redwood tree on spieker field. Please explain? Amy, I am troubled to see that a huge trench is being dug alongside a large redwood tree and alongside Embarcadero avenue on Spieker field at Castilleja. This has been going on for the 15 mins I have been home and possible for much longer. If you would please look into why they are doing that and possibly endangering the root system of this tree and others around it, we'd be grateful for your attention to this. As we have shown with community support, not another tree should be endangered or sickened by illegal trenching or other actions by Castilleja. Thank you, Kimberley Wong Sent from my iPhone From:Andie Reed To:French, Amy Cc:Nelson Ng; Kimberley Wong; Mary; Jim Poppy; Hank Sousa; neva yarkin; Rob Levitsky; Jacqueline Taylor; Steven M. Levitan; Polina Levitan Subject:NOP received Jan 20, 2017 Date:Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:14:11 AM Dear Amy, Thank you for posting the NOP for the Castilleja project. Upon review of the Notice, and to ensure that there will be a full EIR, we are hereby requesting additional areas of potentially significant environment impact be analyzed (your Pg 2, bottom third) including but not limited to: 1. Aesthetics: Although this is not included in your NOP, we do see this in the Initial Study which we received this week, so we assume this has been added. 2. Air quality: Needs to be studied for potential impacts after completion of this project if it were to be approved, not just during construction, as is currently stated. 3. Hydrology & water quality: Effects of potential underground water depletion, impacts to the integrity of surrounding buildings, impermeability of garage roof and impacts of run-off, substantially altering existing drainage pattern. 4. Population and housing: We disagree with Dudek's Initial Study on this issue. 1235 Emerson and 1263 Emerson are slated to be demolished. These beautiful old homes represent 30% of the total residences in that short block of Emerson, and thus their demise would leave a substantial void and decimate the residential feel of the block. 5. Traffic/Transportation: It is important that 24 hour/7 days a week car counts are conducted, not just "peak periods". Weekends and nights are very busy with school activities, far in excess of any comparable schools. We assume any traffic consultant will install automatic car counters and study total impact to the Single Family R1 neighborhood compared to surrounding streets. 6. Where can we see study of Staging Area of heavy construction equipment and mitigation plan for the 5+ years of construction for gas emissions, noise and traffic? Please confirm back to me that these additional items will be included in the final NOP and Initial Study prior to the scoping meeting on February 8. Thank you, Andie Reed 160 Melville Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809 ph From:French, Amy To:Rob Levitsky Subject:Re: dudek castilleja report Date:Tuesday, January 24, 2017 6:33:07 PM Attachments:image1.PNG Thank you for catching that. It is great to have such quick feedback on the IS. I haveforwarded your comment to our consultant. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:10 PM, Rob Levitsky <roblevitsky@yahoo.com> wrote: Amy page 30 of the Dudek report says that "the proposed project does not involve the demolition of housing and thus will not displace people or housing. Thus the project will have no impact" <image1.PNG> Sent from my iPhone From:French, Amy To:Penny Ellson Cc:Star-Lack, Sylvia Subject:Re: SCOPING MEETING Feb 8, 2017 Thursday City Hall: Re: Castilleja Girl"s School Master Plan impact to the Embarcadero Corridor Date:Tuesday, January 24, 2017 6:51:46 AM The deadline is much later - 30 days from yesterday - but yes all comments at the CSTSCmeeting will be forwarded to our consultant, and additional comments in writing can be submitted well after that date. I will make sure to cover that in the meeting Sent from my iPad On Jan 23, 2017, at 11:36 PM, Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> wrote: To clarify. Comments from the 2/9 CSTSC meeting will be included in the scoping comments. Yes? Or should the site reps submit comments by the 2/8 deadline? Penny From: French, Amy [mailto:Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 4:57 PMTo: Penny EllsonSubject: RE: SCOPING MEETING Feb 8, 2017 Thursday City Hall: Re: Castilleja Girl'sSchool Master Plan impact to the Embarcadero Corridor Thanks I just got it on my calendar, thanks to Sylvia. I had known about it before and agreed to come. But of course, having it on personal calendar is everything! Let me know if you have anything I should know (duration and what about a presentation I could give would be most helpful?) From: Penny Ellson [mailto:pellson@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 4:55 PMTo: French, Amy; 'Kimberley Wong'Cc: Safe Routes; Star-Lack, SylviaSubject: RE: SCOPING MEETING Feb 8, 2017 Thursday City Hall: Re: Castilleja Girl'sSchool Master Plan impact to the Embarcadero Corridor CSTSC meeting will be February 9, 10am-noon this month. Sylvia’s team writes the agenda. Best, Penny From: French, Amy [mailto:Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 4:48 PMTo: Penny Ellson; 'Kimberley Wong'Cc: Safe Routes; Star-Lack, SylviaSubject: RE: SCOPING MEETING Feb 8, 2017 Thursday City Hall: Re: Castilleja Girl's School Master Plan impact to the Embarcadero Corridor Hi Penny, thank you for responding to Kimberley. Please remind me what time the CSTSC meeting is, and where? I’ve attached the Initial Study for the Castilleja School project that we uploaded to the City’s website today. This will be discussed at the February 8 PTC scoping session, 6 pm. When the PTC staff report has been reviewed and uploaded to the City’s website, I will email this group the link to the staff report. From: Penny Ellson [mailto:pellson@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 4:31 PMTo: 'Kimberley Wong'Cc: Safe Routes; Star-Lack, Sylvia; French, AmySubject: RE: SCOPING MEETING Feb 8, 2017 Thursday City Hall: Re: Castilleja Girl'sSchool Master Plan impact to the Embarcadero Corridor Hi Kimberley, Yes. I do remember meeting you. Thanks for your outreach and your interest in student safety. I have notified Safe Routes to School Coordinators at affected school sites of the upcoming Castilleja meeting and I have forwarded project materials to them. The Castilleja item is on our February 9 City School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC) agenda. I’m a member of this committee as I am a co-chair of the Palo Alto Council of PTA’s Traffic Safety Committee, a democratic committee. I cannot unilaterally take a position for the PTA on a development project, nor can any other committee member. Our committee provides recommendations to staff. I don’t know if any PTA site reps intend to weigh in at the 2/8 scoping meeting, but I have been told that comments given at the CSTSC meeting will be included in the scoping comments. That said, the school site reps are aware of the issue, the Feb. 8 scoping session date, and your concerns. It is their responsibility to work with their site PTAs and decide how they wish to proceed. My job is to make sure they have information they need to inform their PTAs in advance of the CSTSC and the scoping session so that the site PTAs can take action as they see fit. I have done this. Thank you very much for the update. I will share your note with the reps at the affected school sites today. Best, Penny From: Kimberley Wong [mailto:sheepgirl1@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:56 PMTo: Penny EllsonCc: 'Safe Routes'; Sylvia.star-lack@cityofpaloalto.orgSubject: SCOPING MEETING Feb 8, 2017 Thursday City Hall: Re: Castilleja Girl's School Master Plan impact to the Embarcadero Corridor Hi Penny, I'm not sure if you remember talking to me at the swearing in meeting of the new city council members? I sent a note to Sylvia, but perhaps it got lost in the vacation mail over the holidays. I just wanted to make sure that the safe routes committee is on top of the Scoping meeting for the Castilleja expansion project where public input is allowed on Feb 8, 2017, Thursday at 6pm. We want make sure your group weighs in on asking for an extensive study to evaluate the impacts of the rerouting of car traffic into an underground garage on Bryant street being that this is your concern and expertise. We need to see how this will impact bicycle safety and traffic flow especially during early morning commute hour on this already very busy corridor at Embarcadero and Bryant. For your information, this updates are available on the City website for Castilleja. And I've attached a plan for the garage and added traffic arrows so you can see the areas we are concerned with. I am not including Amy French given that we have already inundated her with many of our concerns regarding this project already. <image001.gif> Kimberley From: Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> To: 'Kimberley Wong' <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Cc: 'Tina Peak' <tmpeak@yahoo.com>; 'Safe Routes' <SafeRoutes@CityofPaloAlto.org>; "'French, Amy'" <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 6:42 PM Subject: RE: Castilleja Girl's School Master Plan impact to the Embarcadero Corridor of Palo Alto near PALY Hi Kimberley , I am home now. Yesterday I touched base with city staff to understand where they are in the planning process and asked if it might be appropriate to bring this as an agenda item to the City School Traffic Safety Committee. Here (pasted below) is the reply from the assigned planner Amy French and Safe Routes to School Coordinator Sylvia Star-Lack. Let’s stay in touch about this. It sounds like this is the wrong moment to weigh in, but I agree it is important to follow this project. If you see further progress, please ping me. I try to keep an eye on these things, but we are tracking a lot of projects right now. We can help each other. An important moment to weigh in will be the scoping meeting mentioned below. Let’s both watch for that notice. Thanks for your interest in school commute safety. Best, Penny (Please read on….) (from Amy French) This project will have an Environmental Impact Report process that will start with a scoping meeting. We will be preparing FAQs and hiring a consultant to prepare an EIR in the coming month, and we will also be updating the project description and webpage. After that, we can talk a bit more about timing with school commute task force meeting. From: Star-Lack, Sylvia Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:30 PMTo: Penny EllsonCc: French, Amy; Atkinson, Sue-EllenSubject: RE: Castilleja Girl's School Master Plan impact to the Embarcadero Corridor ofPalo Alto near PALY Hi Penny, I forgot to tell you that I did speak with Amy French, the planner on this project. (I’m copying her on this as well.) She told me that this project does not have a complete application yet, so the project is on hold until the City receives a complete application. The project will get extra scrutiny with regard to turning movements and traffic because it is on the School Commute Corridors Network. Amy also let me know that sending this project to the CSTSC at this time will not be helpful. The project needs a complete application first. Information about the project can be found here: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning Enter the address: 1310 Bryant Thanks for the phone call earlier! -Sylvia As a part-time employee for the City of Palo Alto , I look forward to responding to your email shortly. Thanks for your patience! <image002.gif> Sylvia Star-Lack | Coordinator, Safe Routes to School Planning & Community Environment | Transportation Division 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto , CA 94301 T: 650.329.2156 |E: Sylvia.star-lack@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Kimberley Wong [mailto:sheepgirl1@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 3:41 PMTo: pellson@pacbell.netCc: Tina PeakSubject: Castilleja Girl's School Master Plan impact to the Embarcadero Corridor of PaloAlto near PALY Penny, I was given your name and email by Tina Peak , my friend since our boys were in kindergarten at Addison together. And now they are both ready to head off to college this fall! Sigh! Just wondering if you saw this article about the Aug 6 Daily Post article re: Castilleja's CUP application and "Master Plan"... Wondering if I could possibly talk to you about bike safety for the students of Palo Alto , especially for those using the Embarcadero corridor and its immediate surroundings near and around PALY. To give you some background. Castilleja has submitted request to increase their CUP by 30% over a few years plus a master plan to build an underground garage which directs traffic from Westbound Embarcadero onto the campus via Bryant Street, through the garage and right turn only up and onto Emerson Street (which by the way is directs cars to front door!) and right back onto Eastbound Embarcadero. Not even mentioning the 168 trees that will be removed, or torn out to make way for this garage. From my viewpoint, it will be a nightmare and a negative impact on the safety of students, bike, cars and pedestrians using the Embarcadero corridor to get to Paly, Town and Country, and to Stanford University . The other major intersection is Bryant and Embarcadero which many North Palo Alto students cross on the bike boulevard to Jordan Middle School . Tina thought that you might have some thoughts on these issues and how might you approach the problem or who to contact about my concerns. Do you know of someone at Paly who is also involved in the safety of students traveling to and from the school? I've provided the CUP and Master Plan application as well as a flyer for tomorrow's meeting at City Hall re: Embarcadero Corridor. Plans from Castilleja will definitely impact theirs in terms of traffic counts, traffic flows and accounting for many many more cars and traffic incidents involving bikes and cars on the road and intersections. If you have time to go, that may be of interest to you. Unfortunately I might have another meeting at that time. I'd be happy to meet you some time to talk this over. My cell number is 650-906-6893. I live at 1260 Emerson Street , which appears on the August 6 issue of the Daily Post. My husband, Nelson Ng is the one quoted in this article. Regards, Kimberley Wong No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12794 - Release Date: 08/11/16 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13818 - Release Date: 01/23/17 No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13818 - Release Date: 01/23/17 No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13818 - Release Date: 01/23/17 From:Jacqueline Taylor To:Nanci Kauffman Cc:Kathy Layendecker; Mary - SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD; Nelson Ng; Kimberley Wong; Andie Reed; Neva Yarkin; Rob Levitsky; Steven M. Levitan; Hank Sousa;French, Amy; Polina Levitan; Michael Manneh Subject:Re: Meeting at Castilleja on 11/17/16 Date:Monday, January 23, 2017 5:33:50 PM Dear Nanci Thanks for your reply and suggestions. Unfortunately, the kind of small group meeting you propose would not meet our needs at all. Of the neighborhood meetings you listed in your presentation on 11/17/16, over 2/3 were with a "small working group" of 4 neighbors who live right next to each other on Kellogg. Those neighbors, despite sincere efforts on their part, failed to represent the needs and concerns of the neighborhood (as you yourself acknowledged to me on 11/17). We thinks such meetings lack transparency and are ultimately counterproductive. We would consider having a larger meeting of neighbors -- not the entire group of concerned neighbors immediately impacted by Castilleja's expansion plans -- but perhaps between 8 to 10 of us and including neighbors from different parts of the area most impacted by your plans. We do not wish simply to voice the concerns that you've already listened to and taken note of. As Nelson Ng has previously requested, we are interested primarily in what concessions or mitigation measures Castilleja is prepared to make. Amy French's letter of incomplete to you suggested some mitigation measures: lower enrollment, less construction, moving to another site. We therefore ask that for any meeting with neighbors you invite senior representative members of, or even the full, Board of Trustees of the school -- those empowered to make decisions concerning compromise, concessions and mitigation measures. Such a meeting would need to take place in a neutral setting, such as a public conference room in Palo Alto (e.g., the library). We would not accept having Geoff Ball as a facilitator. If a facilitator seems advantageous, both the neighbors and Castilleja should hire and pay for a facilitator. If Castilleja has no desire to consider compromise with or concessions to the neighbors, and plans to go ahead with plans for the new CUP and construction as stated in the June 2016 (incomplete) application, then there is little to be gained in our having a meeting at this time. I hope this clarifies our stance, and thank you again for responding in writing to my initial message to you. regards, Jacqueline On Monday, January 23, 2017 12:08 AM, Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> wrote: Hi Jacqueline, I am so glad to hear back from you. I would be happy to clarify what I have in mind for a meeting, but we would also like to hear from you about what would feel respectful and satisfying for you. I understand that our use of the word "forum" felt misleading to those who expected more debate at the meeting, whereas we were using it to express that there would be a public forum for everyone to speak and be heard. In light of that miscommunication, I am proposing a smaller neighbor group meeting, so that there is more opportunity for discussion. Would that meet your needs and the needs of other neighbors who might join you? Our experience with other small neighbor groups would suggest that at least 4 neighbors but no more than 6 makes for the ideal group. You mentioned in your email that you think I already have a good idea of neighbors' concerns. While I have listened carefully to every public comment, and I have read every letter, I have assumed that your disappointment with the format of the last meeting is an indication that you still have more feedback to share with us. Geoff Ball has facilitated many of our small neighbor group meetings, so we may want to consider having him facilitate this one too. In that case, you could speak in advance with Geoff and let him know the format that works best for you. Why don't you think it over and I will follow-up with you in a few days. Thanks, Jacqueline. I appreciate the return email and I hope we can arrange a meeting. Regards, -nanci On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Jacqueline Taylor <taylor_jacqueline@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Hi Nanci Thanks for your note sent earlier this month. As I said in my original email, the concerned neighbors would like Castilleja representatives to communicate respectfully with us. Advertising your on campus November meeting as a "forum" for neighborhood discussion, and then running the meeting as a series of school presentations seriously misled neighbors. A forum suggests an open exchange of ideas and the setting of common goals. Your actual plan for the meeting did not include the advertised forum. I think you do have a good idea of neighbors' concerns as the neighbors likewise have a good idea of Castilleja's plans for expansion and enrollment increase. We can make informed decisions on whether to accept your invitation to engage with Castilleja representatives only if you clearly set out in advance the meeting's format and objectives; this might include the extent to which your are willing to discuss compromise on the part of Castilleja and have a dialogue aimed at achieving it. sincerely, Jacqueline On Sunday, January 15, 2017 6:02 PM, Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> wrote: Hi Jacqueline, Happy New Year. I'm following up on my offer made back in November to meet with you to hear more about the concerns you have regarding Castilleja's application for an enrollment increase and for permission to improve the campus. I know you were disappointed by the way we structured the last meeting, so I followed up to suggest we meet again. I didn't hear back, so at the time I assumed you weren't interested in further discussion. Here we are in January, and I am writing to double check and to say that Kathy and I will be happy to meet anytime to discuss your concerns. Thanks, Jacqueline. -Nanci On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> wrote: Thanks for your email, Jacqueline. I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to respond. Every single time we have a neighborhood meeting, I write to our parents to invite them. Typically, only a handful show up. Usually they come because they want the latest update, and they rarely say a word. In recent weeks, however, the door-to-door canvassing and the storefront petitioning, both organized by neighbors, have caused parents to feel it is time for them to engage. I suspect we will see ebbs and flows in their participation. In light of your disappointment, would you like to get together with us for further discussion? Kathy and I are always willing to make ourselves available to individuals and to small groups, as we have done many times. The larger meetings are a great opportunity for those who have not been part of these smaller gatherings, and unlike at a smaller meeting, these larger meetings often include many first timers. We had meaningful discussions with them at each station. Thank you for acknowledging the work we did to prepare. Please let me know which topics you'd like to discuss, and I will be sure to include the relevant participants in a meeting. Regards, Nanci On Friday, November 18, 2016, Jacqueline Taylor <taylor_jacqueline@sbcglobal.n et> wrote: Dear Nancy and Kathy, I write on behalf of myself and neighbors to thank you for hosting a meeting with neighbors last evening. It was evident you put a great deal of time and effort into preparing your presentation. At the same time, we request that in future you provide a more accurate description of the purpose of any announced meeting. We, the immediate neighbors of Castilleja, received postcard invites from the school advertising a "forum for neighborhood discussion." The greater part of the hour was taken up with your presentation, and we had no real forum for an exchange of ideas and meaningful dialogue. A number of Castilleja parents who are not immediate neighbors were also in attendance. When queried they told us that they did not receive your postcard invite, but rather an email message from either Mary Spicer or Nancy Tuck. The presence of these more distant neighbors c(who have numerous opportunities to meet with you) further diluted any attempt at meaningful dialogue with more immediate neighbors with real concerns about the impact of increased enrollment and significant campus construction. We do not know whether Nancy Tuck and Mary Spicer were acting at your request in emailing the more distant neighbors, or whether Castilleja approved the content of their email messages. But in any case this was an ill-chosen strategy. Your advertisement to us of a "forum for neighborhood discussion" may not have been disingenuous, but it undermines the credibility of Castilleja's assertions (e.g., in the supporting materials for your CUP application) that you have reached out to the immediate neighbors affected by your future plans in an effort to achieve a solution for more harmonious coexistence between the school and this neighborhood. Full disclosure of whether a meeting is a presentation or a forum, or something else, will allow us to make an informed decision about whether to allocate our valuable time in attending. Thank you. Jacqueline Taylor -- Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 650-470-7718 Twitter: @nancikauffman WOMEN LEARNING I WOMEN LEADING For an appointment, contact Kathy Burch <kburch@castilleja.org> or 650-470-7702 -- Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 650-470-7718 Twitter: @nancikauffman WOMEN LEARNING I WOMEN LEADING For an appointment, contact Kathy Burch <kburch@castilleja.org> or 650-470-7702 -- Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 650-470-7718 Twitter: @nancikauffman WOMEN LEARNING I WOMEN LEADING For an appointment, contact Kathy Burch <kburch@castilleja.org> or 650-470-7702 From:French, Amy To:"Rob Levitsky" Cc:Passmore, Walter; Dockter, Dave Subject:RE: castilleja EIR scoping meeting Date:Monday, January 23, 2017 2:25:00 PM Rob, have informed our Urban Forestry staff about the scoping meeting, and have forwarded the Initial Study to them. You may have already reviewed the Initial Study uploaded today to the Castilleja webpage the city maintains (the IS, item 5 in the list of ‘city staff and consultant documents’, is viewable via a link on page two – click on the link). I have noted to Urban Forestry that they are welcome to attend the meeting, or they may choose to provide comments on the IS via response to my email that alerted them to the Initial Study. Note that regarding the question: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? the initial study states: The project would require removal of trees regulated under the City’s Tree Ordinance. The project’s impact on tree resources is potentially significant and will be analyzed in the project EIR. Please note that our CEQA consultant will attend the meeting, as will I. The meeting will be recorded and Urban Forestry staff can review the proceedings via mid-pen media center video recording the day after; so they will be able to hear your input about what the EIR should study with respect to trees and potential tree removals. I will send the link of the recording to them the following day, if they are not planning to attend the scoping session. From: Rob Levitsky [mailto:roblevitsky@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:44 PMTo: Passmore, Walter; Dockter, DaveCc: French, Amy; Rob LevitskySubject: castilleja EIR scoping meeting Walter,Dave there is an EIR scoping meeting set for 6pm on Feb 8 2017 for the castilleja proposal. i assume that the planning/EIR consultants have requested that UrbanForrestry attend this important scopingmeeting, since 168 or more trees, manyof them protected Oaks and Redwoods,are in danger if this project is allowed to go forward in its current design thanksrob levitsky http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/default.asp Sent from my iPhone From:French, Amy To:Al Kenrick Subject:Re: Project at 1310 Bryant / Castilleja. Date:Friday, December 23, 2016 9:23:39 AM Hello I am out of office but want to make sure you are aware you can sign up to get emails from the city about this project - perhaps you are already signed up for that? In any case, we are targeting February 8, 2016 for a scoping session in a public hearing at the Planning and Transportation Commission. I encourage you to attend or review the documents that will be published prior to that meeting. The consultant contract for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report includes a traffic consultant to perform various traffic studies beyond what the applicant provided with the application. The studies will be described in the documents released prior to the upcoming scoping session. Sent from my iPad > On Dec 22, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Al Kenrick <al.kenrick@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ms French, > I am a neighbor of this project and live at 134 Melville. In general I am very concerned about the project as I think the School has outgrown its footprint and it's historic lack of compliance with enrollment requirements casts great doubts about their ability/willingness to comply with representations of future enrollment connected with this project. > > Additionally, I am very concerned about additional traffic along the Embarcadero and Alma corridors. > > How does the projected project map impact the traffic on Melville between Emerson and Alma ? I'm very concerned that the exit of the proposed garage will flood Melville street for those cars exiting toward Alma. The Melville to Alma left turn is very dangerous and additional traffic is a real hazard. > > What kind of traffic studies is the City going to do to evaluate the impact of the project ? > > These are the primary concerns I have as a nearby resident. > > Thank you. > > Al Kenrick > 134 Melville Ave. > > From:Levitan, Steven M. To:French, Amy Subject:Castilleja groundwater analysis Date:Friday, December 16, 2016 11:25:28 AM Hi Amy, Regarding the attached notice, why did the city ask Castilleja to conduct this groundwater analysis and report? Does it have to do with the new CUP application, or is it for another reason? I am surprised because I had thought the new CUP application had been rejected as incomplete, and not yet re-filed, and I did not expect any further environmental or other analyses to be requested or conducted until a complete application was on file. Thanks, Steve Levitan About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see www.hoganlovells.com. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed; it may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system. From:French, Amy To:"Kitty Price" Subject:RE: Concern about Castilleja expansion Date:Monday, November 28, 2016 10:00:00 AM That is okay. I appreciate your concerns about traffic. That is another part of the EIR effort; the City is retaining a traffic consultant to prepare analysis and they would consider existing and proposed conditions related to Embarcadero and other roadways. From: Kitty Price [mailto:kitty.price@att.net] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 9:49 AMTo: French, AmySubject: Re: Concern about Castilleja expansion Sorry for not putting my comments all together, but another area of concern is regarding traffic backing up on Embarcadero due to cars entering Castilleja's parking garage. Any backup on Embarcadero would be ridiculous particulary given that I read recently that it is designated as a higher speed road. ----- Original Message ----- From: French, Amy To: Kitty Price Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 9:27 AM Subject: RE: Concern about Castilleja expansion Thank you for your comments. I am not familiar with the Pinewood School history, as the school is not located in Palo Alto. I do know a gym for the school is located in Palo Alto. FYI we anticipate being able to begin environmental review of the proposed expansion this week. The Environmental Impact Report would include possible alternatives to the proposed expansion at the site. From: Kitty Price [mailto:kitty.price@att.net] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 5:26 PMTo: French, AmySubject: Concern about Castilleja expansion Hello Amy, I live one block from Castilleja and feel strongly that the proposed expansion would impose an undue burden on the neighborhood and that Castilleja should be told to expand to a second site just like Pinewood School has done. The fact that they have a mentoring tradition from their upper school to their lower school is not sufficient reason to force the entire neighborhood to suffer under their very large expansion here. Upper school students can communicate with lower school students without being on a single campus. Sincerely, Kitty Price 1445 Bryant St From:jamespoppy@comcast.net To:French, Amy; City Mgr Subject:Castilleja"s "Neightborhood Forum" Date:Sunday, November 20, 2016 10:16:07 AM Hello Ms. French and Mr. Keene, I have lived on the 100 block of Melville for nearly 40 years and I feel very threatened by the Castileja project to urbanize our neighborhood. Castilleja held what was billed as a neighborhood forum on the 17th, but then invited a room full of non-neighbor parents to speak out in favor of the school. The neighbors who spoke were 100% in favor of Castilleja's mission to educate young women. That is not the issue. The project is out of scale with the neighborhood and will negatively impact our quality of life, not to mention property values. I hope you will keep Castilleja accountable for their statements and actions during this process. It is clear they do not intend to listen to neighbors. Regards, Jim Poppy From:marysylvester@comcast.net To:French, Amy Cc:Nelson Ng; Kimberley Wong; Jacqueline Taylor; Hank Sousa; Poppy, Jim; Rob Levitsky; Neva Yarkin; Polina Levitan; Steven M. Levitan; Diane Rolfe; William Powar; Paula Powar Subject:Re: November 17th Castilleja Meeting at 7:00pm Date:Thursday, November 17, 2016 11:45:06 PM Good evening, Amy! Given the number of speakers at the Castilleja meeting tonight, the meeting had to be extended and the time was limited to 2-minutes per speaker. It was not a productive meeting or a good use of anyone's time as Castilleja parents came to sing the school's praises and the neighbors came to "discuss" and comment on the project, which we had been told was the purpose of the forum. Meaningful discussion did not take place nor was there an attempt to stimulate it by the school or its facilitator. I appreciate your clarification about your role as to Castilleja's community outreach meetings and we won't expect to see you as a matter of course. City representation at tonight's meeting was requested only because of the school's efforts to generate attendance and speakers from the greater Castilleja community causing neighbor concern about not having sufficient time to make our issues and questions known. Unfortunately, that concern was realized when a number of neighbors chose to leave the meeting at the designated conclusion time of 8:00, believing the meeting was purely a Castilleja public relations effort to promote itself before the City and media, a message that had gone out to parents this morning via email correspondence. I am interested in your email from tonight that you refer to "Castilleja's mandate to have the meetings," and neighbors went tonight thinking it was a required meeting, either because of the school's use permit or submission of the Master Plan. Can you please clarify, was the meeting tonight required or not, and why? I believe 2 meetings are required each year by Castilleja's CUP, is that correct? Is the school required to have public meetings now that they have submitted the Master Plan? Are there any rules or guidelines that govern the content of what can take place at these meetings? Appreciatively, Mary From: "Amy French" <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: "MARYSYLVESTER" <marysylvester@comcast.net> Cc: "Nelson Ng" <lofujai@ymail.com>, "Kimberley Wong" <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>, "Jacqueline Taylor" <taylor_jacqueline@sbcglobal.net>, "Hank Sousa" <thomashenrysousa@gmail.com>, "Jim Poppy" <jamespoppy@comcast.net>, "Rob Levitsky" <roblevitsky@yahoo.com>, "Neva Yarkin" <nevayarkin@gmail.com>, "Polina Levitan" <polinalevitan@yahoo.com>, "Steven M. Levitan" <steve.levitan@hoganlovells.com>, "Diane Rolfe" <onedianerolfe@comcast.net>, "William Powar" <wkpowar@sbcglobal.net>, "Paula Powar" <pkpowar@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 6:19:40 PM Subject: RE: November 17th Castilleja Meeting at 7:00pm Unfortunately, I am not able to attend tonight’s meeting. I have other plans that I had made before, and I have a few work deadlines as well. The speaker rules for applicant-hosted meetings are not mandated by the City. And actually, the city allows anybody to speak at public hearings, they do not have to be immediate neighbors of the project. It is not my role to moderate Castilleja’s community outreach meetings. It is Castilleja’s mandate to have the meetings, and to invite City staff (me). I have no obligation to attend the meeting (I would if I could, and will if I can). I attended the tree meeting, and I have met with groups of neighbors here at City Hall. As you may be aware, anybody can appeal a Conditional Use Permit or Major Architectural Review, which are among the application processes the Castilleja project is subject to. Appeals of two story, single family home applications are limited to immediate neighbors. In the case of this project, as I have stated, the Planning and Transportation Commission will be holding a scoping hearing for environmental review. We are looking toward early 2017; there is some consultant work to be done in advance of the hearing. And council will be involved because of the EIR that is anticipated. At the upcoming public meetings in the Council Chambers for this project, the chair of the committed (and Mayor, for Council) can allow 3 minutes per speaker (or less if there are many speakers). I do not yet have dates for the meetings. From: marysylvester@comcast.net [mailto:marysylvester@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 4:05 PMTo: French, AmyCc: Nelson Ng; Kimberley Wong; Jacqueline Taylor; Hank Sousa; Poppy, Jim; Rob Levitsky; Neva Yarkin;Polina Levitan; Steven M. Levitan; Diane Rolfe; William Powar; Paula PowarSubject: Re: November 17th Castilleja Meeting at 7:00pm Hello Amy! I'm following up on yesterday's email to you about a City representative attending tonight's meeting at Castilleja. Another confidential email has gone out today by a Castilleja parent and neighbor encouraging attendance at tonight's meeting by Castilleja parents. I don't know where all the individuals listed as cc(s) reside but I know one lives on Ramona and Addison and another lives on Churchill and Bryant, neither affected by the proposed construction. Perhaps for future mandated meetings pursuant to the school's conditional use permit, the City can play a role in defining who must be allowed an opportunity to speak. Priority needs to be given to "immediate" neighbors of the school, maybe within 1-2 blocks of the school, before others outside the neighborhood are allowed to speak. Thank you for consideration of this request! Mary Sylvester 135 Melville Avenue Palo Alto, CA. From: "MARYSYLVESTER" <marysylvester@comcast.net> To: "Amy French" <amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 7:53:09 PM Subject: November 17th Castilleja Meeting at 7:00pm Hi Amy! I'm just checking in to see if you'll be attending tomorrow night's meeting at Castilleja? I can imagine how busy you are, the last thing you need is one more night meeting. There's concern in the neighborhood though that Castilleja may have invited parents to tomorrow night's meeting who may not be immediate neighbors of the school and will use available Q &A time expressing their support for the school's Master Plan and denying neighbors adequate time to speak. Will there be any City monitoring of the meeting tomorrow night so as to ensure fairness and avoid a biased presentation of the "neighbor's" concerns to the City and community-at-large? Appreciatively, Mary Sylvester From:French, Amy To:"Tom Shannon" Subject:RE: Castilleja School Application Date:Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:03:00 AM Correct, still incomplete. I seriously doubt the application will be deemed complete by the end of the year. Good question about utilities, I do not have answers at this time, but could forward your email to Utilities and see what they have to say about that. You could also bring this concept up at the scoping meeting, I am hoping to have at end of November. Stay tuned for that. From: Tom Shannon [mailto:tshannon2@cs.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:50 AMTo: French, AmySubject: Castilleja School Application Hi Amy, Couple of quick questions on Castilleja's application: The City's website states that the application is "under review." Assume that means that it is still incomplete? How will we know when the City deems the application complete? Do you feel the application will be "complete" before the end of the year? Utilities: Will Castilleja be required to underground the electrical, telephone and cable lines surrounding the school on Bryant, Kellogg and Emerson Streets? All these utilities are in easements on the school's side of the street. Thanks, Tom Shannon 408-230-7095 From:Nelson Ng To:Gitelman, Hillary Cc:marysylvester@comcast.net; Keene, James; French, Amy; Mullen, Jarrett Subject:Re: Copy of Your Review Comments for Castilleja Notice of Incompletion Date:Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:17:39 PM Ms Gitelman, Thanks very much for your quick reply. I hope after reading through the materials that I submitted in the previous message, you have a better understanding on the magnitude of thedirect negative impact to my family and our neighborhoods. The concerned neighbors of Castilleja are working very hard together to protect our quality of life. It is great to hear that an EIR will be required. Thanks for the brief overview of the long review process that we will be embarking on together. Can you please let me know when webe able to get a detailed timeline with specified milestones for this public review process? I will communicate it to the concerned neighbors. I understand you and the city staffs are verybusy. With more publicly available information in a timely manner, it will help to reduce the amount email overhead to you and your team as this case with Mr. Mullen. We recognize thecity staff time is valuable and we also want to have more effective use our tax dollars. By the way, as I mentioned to Ms French, I hope all these staff hours are being charged toCastilleja. I will follow up with Ms. French in separate email to get the transportation-related comments and to make sure it will be published along with the Notice of Incomplete in thePalo Alto City Planning website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=3625&TargetID=319. In addition, we would like to be part of the process for theTIA given traffic is such a big impact to the neighborhood. Another example of having timely public information is important. I just learned yesterday that Castilleja is performing “trenching” to study the root system of the impacted trees. Therewas no prior notice of such activity. So we don’t know if this activity was approved by the City. Our concerned neighbor Mr. Rob Levisky only found out when he was looking over hisyard. Since then he read through the “Tree Preservation and Management Regulations” of Palo Alto Municipal Code and learned “trenching” is explicitly outlawed. So we are not sureif/why the city is allowing this to happen. Given this is a public process now, if this is an City approved activity or any other activities in the future, shouldn’t it be communicated all allconcerned citizen of Palo Alto. Don’t you agree? Mr. Levisky and I will be following up in a separate email with Mr Dave Dockter and Ms French to understand if proper permit wasissued for this activity and how to ensure Castilleja will maintain their trees in the meantime. Again, thanks very much for your help and speedy reply. I am looking forward to the information so the concerned neighbors of Castilleja can be more informed on the Castillejaexpansion activities. Looking forward to further discussions with you in the future. Regards Nelson Please excuse my iPhone for any typos On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>wrote: Nelson:   Thanks for reaching out.  We are at the beginning of a long process to review Castilleja’s application.  That process will include “scoping” and preparation of a full environmental impact report (EIR).    There  will be multiple opportunities for you to articulate your concerns, starting with the EIR “scoping” phase, when we will provide an initial description of the proposal and request oral and written comments on the issues and alternatives requiring analysis in the EIR.  This phase should begin later this fall and would be a good time for us to connect and make sure that we understand your perspective and that you have the information you need to provide meaningful comments.    Amy is our designated project manager for this project, and she can facilitate a meeting.  Also, she can let you know what transportation-related  comments we have provided to the applicant.  I believe we will be requiring our EIR consultant to contract with a qualified traffic engineering firm to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), the scope of which can be informed by the comments we receive during the EIR scoping process.   Regards,   Hillary      <image001.jpg>  Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!   From: Nelson Ng [mailto:lofujai@ymail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:49 AMTo: Gitelman, HillaryCc: marysylvester@comcast.net; Keene, James; French, Amy; Mullen, JarrettSubject: Re: Copy of Your Review Comments for Castilleja Notice of Incompletion Dear Ms Gitelman, How are you doing? It was nice meeting you on March 2nd in the Planning Department to discuss the Castilleja traffic issue. Shortly after returning from summer vacation, I learned from the City Planning Department website that Castilleja’ CUP application is proposing to have an underground garage exit pointing directly at my front door. I immediately wrote an email to Ms. Amy French explaining my objection to the Castilleja expansion plan. On August 4th, a group of concerned Castilleja neighbors Ms Mary Sylvester, Mr. Michael Manneh, my wife Ms Kimberley Wong and I met with Ms French. She explained to us that the City replied to Castilleja with the Notice of Incomplete on July 30th. However, she is still waiting for Mr. Jarrett Mullen's feedback for the Transportation section of the notice. Since then Ms. French has been helpfully and promptly replying to our inquiries via emails and providing us with requested public documentations relating to the CUP application. I continued to check for Mr Mullen's Transportation input via email on August 10th, 14th and 15th as included below without any success. Last Thursday was Castilleja's first day of school. Please see the 2 min traffic video showing a continuous line of stop and go traffic wrapping around Emerson to Kellogg to Bryant. The neighbors are very concerned with the additional traffic brought to our neighborhood and the city by Castilleja’s 70%+ of non Palo Alto student body. Therefore, we would like to meet with you and your team to learn how we can work together to protect the quality of life for our neighborhood and Palo Alto City as a whole. Please let me know when you will be available to meet and we are looking forward to discussing with you soon. Thanks Nelson ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> To: "French, Amy" <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; "Mullen, Jarrett" <Jarrett.Mullen@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: "marysylvester@comcast.net" <marysylvester@comcast.net>; Michael Manneh <michael.manneh@gmail.com>; Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:39 PM Subject: Re: Follow up for Aug 4th 2016 meeting Amy, It was nice seeing you in the Planning & Transportation Commission meeting tonight. Sorry that we didn't have a chance to talk as I had to leave for other engagement. I would like to check back on the status for the rest of the documents that we requested last Thursday. Also did you receive the city approval letter for Castilleja 2016-2017 enrollment to stay above 415? If not, should we contact Jim Keene directly since he signed a similar letter for the previous year? Jarrett, Can you please forward me a copy of your review comments for the Transportation item for the Notice of Incomplete? Also can you please let me know what is necessary for a neighborhood to request for a PA traffic camera as shown below? Thanks Nelson ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> To: "French, Amy" <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jarrett Mullen <jarrett.mullen@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: "marysylvester@comcast.net" <marysylvester@comcast.net>; Michael Manneh <michael.manneh@gmail.com>; Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 8:33 PM Subject: Re: Follow up for Aug 4th 2016 meeting Amy, Again. Thanks very much for all the documents that you and the team provided. Did you receive Jarrett's comment for the Transportation item of the Notice of Incomplete? If so, can you please forward it? Jarrett, If you have not forwarded your comments for the Transportation item of the Notice of Incomplete to Amy, can you please forward it to us as well? Thanks very much and have a nice day Nelson ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> To: "marysylvester@comcast.net" <marysylvester@comcast.net>; Amy French <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Jarrett Mullen <Jarrett.Mullen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Michael Manneh <michael.manneh@gmail.com>; Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 9:49 PM Subject: Re: Follow up for Aug 4th 2016 meeting Amy, Thanks very much for your explanation on Castilleja's violation extension for 2016-2017. We will contact Mr. Jim Keene to see how we can inject public review/input to this process to avoid continuing this indefinite extension. Thanks for the explanation of item 1 & 2 below and we will monitor it through Building eye. As for #3, I understand that you don't publish the email to public. I am just wondering beside you and other City of PA personnel are they being shared with Castilleja? Thanks for letting us know that you are still waiting for the comment on Transportation Item. We will check back in a week. Thanks Nelson From: "marysylvester@comcast.net" <marysylvester@comcast.net> To: Jarrett Mullen <jarrett.mullen@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: James Keene <james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hillary Gitelman <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>; Amy French <amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org>; Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 10:06 AM Subject: Copy of Your Review Comments for Castilleja Notice of Incompletion Good morning, Mr. Mullen! I have been an immediate neighbor to Castilleja School for 39 years. Over that period of time there has been an increasing number of problems caused by the school to the surrounding neighborhood, and none more so than traffic and parking problems. I know you have been involved with the review of the school's 2016 CUP application as well as their accompanying Master Plan. Neighbors of the school are requesting your review comments for the transportation item of the Notice of Incompletion. While we know that City staff have very busy calendars without the addition of Castilleja's large and complex project, our community believes your comments are important to our understanding of the City's position as to neighborhood traffic in our area and consequently how to move our concerns forward to a larger audience. I believe you have been contacted several times this month about your comments by my friend and long time neighbor, Mr Nelson Ng, who lives directly across from the school on Emerson Street. The neighborhood is also interested in how to secure elevated traffic cameras on the Castilleja perimeter, particularly at Emerson and Embarcadero for a more thorough understanding of the implications of Castilleja's plans on an already congested and dangerous thoroughfare. The traffic camera behind Gunn High School is an example of what we are interested in. Can you assist us with this matter? Please forward as your earliest convenience, the requested materials to either myself and/or Mr. Nelson Ng lofujai@gmail.com. Appreciatively, Mary Sylvester From:marysylvester@comcast.net To:Mullen, Jarrett Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; French, Amy; Nelson Ng Subject:Copy of Your Review Comments for Castilleja Notice of Incompletion Date:Monday, August 22, 2016 10:07:00 AM Good morning, Mr. Mullen! I have been an immediate neighbor to Castilleja School for 39 years. Over that period of time there has been an increasing number of problems caused by the school to the surrounding neighborhood, and none more so than traffic and parking problems. I know you have been involved with the review of the school's 2016 CUP application as well as their accompanying Master Plan. Neighbors of the school are requesting your review comments for the transportation item of the Notice of Incompletion. While we know that City staff have very busy calendars without the addition of Castilleja's large and complex project, our community believes your comments are important to our understanding of the City's position as to neighborhood traffic in our area and consequently how to move our concerns forward to a larger audience. I believe you have been contacted several times this month about your comments by my friend and long time neighbor, Mr Nelson Ng, who lives directly across from the school on Emerson Street. The neighborhood is also interested in how to secure elevated traffic cameras on the Castilleja perimeter, particularly at Emerson and Embarcadero for a more thorough understanding of the implications of Castilleja's plans on an already congested and dangerous thoroughfare. The traffic camera behind Gunn High School is an example of what we are interested in. Can you assist us with this matter? Please forward as your earliest convenience, the requested materials to either myself and/or Mr. Nelson Ng lofujai@gmail.com. Appreciatively, Mary Sylvester From:French, Amy To:"Tom Shannon" Cc:carlab@cb-pr.com; akcooper@pacbell.net; mcleod.bruce@gmail.com Subject:RE: Castilleja Notice of Incomplete Date:Thursday, August 04, 2016 9:48:00 AM 1. The immediate next steps and notifications include: a. A walk through of the site by staff who have not yet provided written comments to me. Looking at August 15th currently. Several other staff members walked the site last week. b. I am preparing a scope of work for a consultant to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation, Peer review of transportation submittal, and draft Initial Study of potential environmental impacts (and following CEQA documents). c. The applicant is considering revisions to the conceptual site plan. Staff had commented on potential impacts given the basement footprint and exit ramp locations, with respect to existing trees and a potential historic resource. Any revised plan set would be posted on the site once received. I can alert you when any plans are received. d. When the applicant submits the Architectural Review application, that ‘Acella’ entry will upload to the ‘building eye’ site. I can send you a link to that site; we would also replace the verbiage on the site postings to reflect that application, so you would see that happen. 2. The applicant told me the City Manager had approved continuation at current level for the school year that begins August 22. I am looking for that letter now and will respond more thoroughly to your questions via separate email this week. 3. The CUP is associated with a Master Plan as proposed. We identified the need for environmental review (and deposit of full amount to cover consultant cost) and submittal of an Architectural Review (AR) application to continue our review of the project. I don’t believe these application components will be separated from the CUP, though you are correct that the code says they are. The CUP and AR process will include Planning and Transportation Commission review (our code says PTC reviews CUP upon a request for hearing – this is not an ‘appeal’ and has no fee attached) and ARB review of the master plan concept and first phase project (below-grade parking/circulation and tree/house demolition proposal) followed by Council review, all associated with a CEQA document that would be published after preparation for a 30-day (minimum) public comment period. From: Tom Shannon [mailto:tshannon2@cs.com] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 9:17 AMTo: French, AmyCc: carlab@cb-pr.com; akcooper@pacbell.net; mcleod.bruce@gmail.comSubject: Re: Castilleja Notice of Incomplete Hi Amy, Thanks for forwarding the NOI. A couple of questions have come up with neighbors: 1. Could you tell us what the immediate next steps are and how we will be notified about them. What might happen over the next 3 months? I assume we are somewhat in a holding pattern until Castilleja responds to the NOI. However, the NOI stipulates several submittals. How can we find out when those documents and fees have been submitted by Castilleja to the city? Will they appear on the website? 2. The NOI states that Castilleja's enrollment of 438 was approved by the City for the year 2015 - 16. Neighbors are concerned about this issue because Castilleja continues to be in violation of the current CUP which stipulates a maximum enrollment of 415 students not 438 students. We know Castilleja will not have an amended CUP for school year 2016 - 17. Does that mean they get to continue to be in violation of their CUP for 2016 -17 or will they be required to reduce enrollment to what is stipulated in the current CUP? Many neighbors have voiced that they City is not enforcing the current CUP. Please advise us as to how this will be handled for the 2016-17 school year? Where does the City get the authority to override an existing CUP for now what has turned into 4 years since the over enrollment infraction first surfaced in 2013. Shouldn't the school be required to comply with the current CUP at some point? 3. Typically CUP Amendments are first heard by a zoning administrator and can then be appealed to the Council. Will that be the process for Castilleja's Amendment? How do we separate the Master Development Plan process from the CUP Amendment application process? Thanks, Tom Shannon P.S. Please do a "Reply-All" to the addresses noted in this email. The three other persons are all members of the small neighborhood working group: Carla Befera, Bruce McLeod and Alan Cooper. -----Original Message----- From: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Tom Shannon <tshannon2@cs.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2016 11:41 am Subject: RE: Castilleja Notice of Incomplete Here you go. From: Tom Shannon [mailto:tshannon2@cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:37 AMTo: French, AmySubject: Castilleja Notice of Incomplete Hi Amy, Robin alerted me via email yesterday that you would be back in your office today. Can you email me a copy of the Notice of Incomplete that you issued last week on Castilleja's application? Or, should I come in person to City Hall to pick up a copy. It would be helpful in answering neighbors' questions. Many neighbors are asking our representative group how the City responded to the application. Thanks, Tom -----Original Message----- From: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>To: Tom Shannon <tshannon2@cs.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 2, 2016 8:18 amSubject: RE: Castilleja Notice of Incomplete Good morning Tom, I do not have a copy of the notice. Amy is scheduled to be back in the office tomorrow. Robin Robin Ellner | Administrative Associate III| P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2603 |E: robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org     Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!     From: Tom Shannon [mailto:tshannon2@cs.com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:24 PMTo: Ellner, RobinSubject: Fwd: Castilleja Notice of Incomplete Hi Robin, Amy's email directed me to you. Can you send me a copy of the Notice of Incomplete that Amy sent out to Castilleja last week. Thanks, Tom Shannon 408-230-7095 -----Original Message----- From: Tom Shannon <tshannon2@cs.com> To: Amy.French <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>Sent: Mon, Aug 1, 2016 3:58 pm Subject: Castilleja Notice of Incomplete Hi Amy, Could you email me a copy of the Notice of Incomplete that you issued last week on Castilleja's application? Thanks, Tom Shannon 408-230-7095 From:Gee Gee Williams To:French, Amy Subject:Expansion of Castilleja School Date:Monday, July 11, 2016 3:59:56 PM Dear Amy French, I live at 340 Churchill Avenue and am opposed expanding Castilleja School students. We are not upset that we share the neighborhood with them but I am mindful of their presents and expanding it 102 more students a day does not feel good. Adding 27 more students a year means more traffic. All you have to do is go out on Alma Street in the morning and cope with the traffic and the school will see that this area does not need more cars, buses, trains or bikes. Thank you for representing my opinion. I am not opposed to good education and think Castilleja is a model but more people in this neighborhood is not welcomed. Have they considered other locations for their expansion? Gee Gee Williams 650-324-1140 manageablecare@gmail.com From:John Stucky To:French, Amy Subject:Castilleja School Development project Date:Monday, July 11, 2016 11:19:29 AM Dear Ms. French--- As a neighbor of the Castilleja School, living directly across the street on Bryant, I am writing to give the school my full support. I strongly believe that Castilleja’s mission to teach young women of the Bay area how to think and develop as well as contribute to society is among the noblest and most necessary of goals. I applaud their mission. I do understand that some of my neighbors have had specific issues with traffic in our area due to Castilleja’s presence. The thought of a larger student body may seem even more threatening. However, from my experience Castilleja has given an immense and conscientious effort to develop ways to alleviate or lessen the effect of increased traffic. I have been extremely impressed. Considering these efforts, which I am sure will continue, I do not view the growth of Castilleja’s student body as a threat. Considering their mission I can only support this growth as Castilleja continues to help in the development of strong, willing and well educated young women. Their students are an invaluable asset to our society. Regards, John Stucky, MA, MLIS 司馬章 / ジヨン スタツキ Library Director C. Laan Chun Library Asian Art Museum 200 Larkin Street San Francisco, California 94102-4734 Phone: 415-581-3692 Email: jstucky@asianart.org Website: http://www.asianart.org/collections/library Library catalog: http://opac.libraryworld.com/opac/signin? libraryname=C%20LAAN%20CHUN%20LIBRARY. 前事之不忘後事之師也 . 司馬遷 --史記 Those who don’t forget the past will be masters of the future. --- Sima Qian – Records of the Grand Historian. From:Ed Williams To:French, Amy Subject:Castilleja Condtional Use Perit Date:Sunday, July 10, 2016 2:19:44 PM Dear Amy French, I own and live at 340 Churchill Ave. just two blocks from Castilleja School and I strongly oppose an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit. They are a commercial facility in a residential zone and if they limit their enrollment to 415 students, I believe they could coexist peacfully in this neighborhood. Otherwise, the opposition to Castilleja expansion plans will continue to receive increasing opposition. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Edgar M. Williams 650-324-1140 ewilliams340@comcast.net From:Levitan, Steven M. To:Mullen, Jarrett Cc:Mello, Joshuah; French, Amy; Gitelman, Hillary; akcooper@pacbell.net; lofujai@ymail.com Subject:RE: Castilleja School Follow-Up Date:Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:07:44 AM Attachments:Castilleja neighbor statement 3.12.16.pdf Dear All, Please see the attached Summary Statement prepared by a group of Castilleja’s neighbors. I thought this might be useful to understand our positions. Best regards, Steve From: Mullen, Jarrett [mailto:Jarrett.Mullen@CityofPaloAlto.org] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 11:34 AMTo: Levitan, Steven M.; akcooper@pacbell.net; lofujai@ymail.comCc: Mello, Joshuah; French, AmySubject: Castilleja School Follow-Up Hi Steve, Nelson, and Alan, Thanks for meeting with Josh, Hillary, Amy, and I yesterday morning to discuss Castilleja School and share your concerns. Below are a summary of the three preliminary drop-off alternatives Josh shared at the beginning of the meeting and attached is a copy of the transportation demand management (TDM) report I have available. Please note the alternatives are by no means final or represent the only configurations open to evaluation. The alternatives would typically be implemented as a condition of an approved amendment to the conditional use permit (CUP) or other planning entitlement process. Alternative 1 Embarcadero Road Access & Widening: Castilleja would have direct access from Embarcadero Road maintaining four through lanes on Embarcadero. This would require widening of Embarcadero between Emerson and Bryant to add a left turn lane. Alternative 2 Embarcadero Road Access Without Widening: Castilleja would have direct access from Embarcadero Road with one eastbound lane on Embarcadero Road to avoid widening. Essentially, the existing one lane configuration within the Embarcadero Road/Alma underpass would extend to Bryant Street. Alternative 3 Emerson & Bryant Access Without Widening: Provide motor vehicle access from Emerson and Bryant to/through the school site, but configured to minimize travel along Bryant or Emerson. Site driveways would be as far north as possible on both Emerson and Bryant streets to limit school traffic circulation to the site access points. Conversion of Embarcadero Road from four through lanes to three through lanes with a left turn lane. If you have any specific transportation-related questions, please do not hestiate to contact me directly. Amy can assist with any questions you may have about the CUP submittal process/schedule and enforcement activiteis. Best regards, Jarrett Mullen| Associate Transportation Planner Planning & Community Environment – Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2218 E: jarrett.mullen@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you. About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see www.hoganlovells.com. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed; it may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system. Proposed Castilleja School Expansion of 125 Students Summary Statement Prepared by Neighbors Situation: Castilleja recently announced a proposal to increase enrollment to 540 students – 125 more than the current CUP max of 415 students, amounting to a 30% increase, the largest ever proposed. While we appreciate Castilleja’s mission to deliver a top notch education to young women, we feel the City should deny approval of an enrollment increase beyond the current cap of 415 for the following reasons: 1. Traffic congestion, on-street parking, safety – Castilleja juniors, seniors, staff, visiting parents, sports participants, test-takers, lecture attendees, etc. drive to school and park on neighborhood streets not just 5 days, but 7 days a week, with events occurring mornings, afternoons, evenings, weekends and throughout the summer. 73% of Castilleja’s enrollment comes from outside Palo Alto, so the majority of this traffic is externally generated. The neighborhood bears all the impact of this private enterprise’s traffic, busses, parking, deliveries, events – and is now facing spillover parking from those in downtown/Professorville seeking parking outside the permit zone. These streets are corridors for local residents walking to local public schools (Addison, Paly, Walter Hayes, Jordan), as well as a major bike boulevard. Neighbors hear brakes squeal and horns honked every day, and feel the situation has become unsafe for local children and adults. 2. Comparison – Other private schools in Palo Alto are held to stricter standards. The CUP for Stratford Garland, operating on 10 acres, allows a max of 482 students (48 students/acre), hours are 8am–4pm, evening activities are NOT permitted, street parking is not allowed, etc. Palo Alto High School is approx 64 studentst/acre. Castilleja is currently at 73 students/acre, no limit on evening/weekend events. It is seeking to increase to 90 students/acre. 3. City’s prior directive - In 2000, Palo Alto Planning Director John Lusardi was forceful in his CUP approval letter to Castilleja: “The approved Conditional Use Permit does not provide for any increase in students over 415, and any subsequent request for additional students will not be favorably looked upon by the City. … the City is not willing to continue to approach increasing school enrollment for Castilleja School in an incremental manner.” The neighbors saw this as a conclusive decision. They did not realize this directive would be ignored by Castilleja, starting in 2001, and go unenforced by the City. 4. Palo Alto Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan: Castilleja’s use no longer satisfies the City’s definition of an R-1 conditional use. Per the PAMC, a CUP will “not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience (in the vicinity)” and it shall “be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” The Comp Plan states that the city “seeks to promote community /commercial uses but not at the expense and quality of the residential neighborhoods.” 5. Continuous Violation - Castilleja has exceeded the existing CUP enrollment cap of 415 for the last 16 years, and to this day continues in violation with its current 438 students. At $42,000 tuition per student, the school has collected some $20 million in revenue from over-enrollment in the past 16 years. The school ignored many other current CUP requirements - until it sought another amended CUP. Neighbors have had no viable enforcement leverage. Neighbors have no confidence that future CUP conditions will be met, nor that conditions can be sustained or improved with 125 additional students being delivered to this small section of Palo Alto. If the school needs to expand to meet demands, we suggest that, like many others, it consider dividing into two appropriately-sized campuses. Many thanks for your time and attention to this matter. – Neighbors of Castilleja 3/11/16 Nelson Ng’s Public Records Request of January 25, 2017; Response due February 4, 2017    Request: All documents related to Castilleja CUP/Master Plan application and communications  between the City and Castilleja. Please see attached file for the list of 25 items:     1. Any and all documents in the City’s possession and referencing “Design Enhancement  Exception (DEE)” that are specifically related to the above‐entitled project. PCE  2. Development Review Committee notes from the date that the application was submitted to  the City to today’s date and that relate in any way to the above‐entitled proposed project. PCE  3. Architectural Review Board notes from the date that the application was submitted to the  City to today’s date and that relate in any way to the above‐entitled proposed project. PCE  4. City of Palo Alto’s contract or other written agreement with Dudek related to the above‐ entitled project. ASD/PCE  5. Any and all documents in the possession of the City that include those requested by Urban  Forestry and those from Urban Forestry to planner Amy French and regarding the above‐entitle  project. PCE/PWD  6. Any and all documents in the possession of the City, including, but not limited to: consultant  reports related to removal and relocation of trees on the Castilleja campus, replacement of  trees, and alternatives to tree removal and tree relocation. PCE/PWD  7. Any site plans that relate in any way to the above‐entitled project. PCE/DSD  8. Each and every document, consultant report, consultant letter, site plan, architectural plan,  and other type of plan requested by the City in Amy French’s letter of July 27, 2016 in which she  describes the project application for the above‐entitled project as “incomplete.” PCE  9. A copy of any soil study, geo‐tech study, arborist study in the possession of the City and  related in any way to Castilleja School and obtained by the City at any time during the last 20  years. PCE/DSD/PWD/FD  10. Any and all forms of oral, written and electronic communications including voice mail  between anyone representing Castilleja School and anyone in the City of Palo Alto Planning  Department between January 1, 2010 and today’s date. PCE  11. Any and all forms of oral, written and electronic communications including voice mail  between anyone representing Castilleja School and anyone in the City of Palo Alto Planning  Commission between January 1, 2010 and today’s date. PCE  12. Any and all forms of oral, written and electronic communications including voice mail  between anyone representing Castilleja School and anyone in the City of Palo Alto City Council  Members between January 1, 2010 and today’s date. CLK  13. Any consultant reports, Historic Resource Evaluations, letters from architectural historians,  letters from anyone representing Castilleja, regarding the houses that are proposed to be  demolished as part of the above‐entitled project. PCE  14. Studies regarding mitigation measures and alternatives: smaller project; lower enrollment;  off‐site growth; additional site for school. PCE?  15. Any and all communications between the City and anyone representing Castilleja regarding  recommendations for environmental mitigations for the above‐entitled project? PCE/CMO?  16. Any and all documents regarding Castilleja’s compliance and non‐compliance with any of its  use permits between January 1, 2014 and today’s date. PCE  17. Any documents in which Castilleja has in any way modified its application for permits  related to the above‐entitled project. PCE/DSD  18. Any correspondence, notes, emails, and other documents which reference discussions  between anyone representing Castilleja and Amy French about changes to the application for  the aboveentitle project. PCE/DSD?  19. Any and all consultant reports regarding noise, geology, biological resources, traffic and that  dealwith the Castilleja School and are dated between 2000 and today’s date.  PCE/DSD/PWD/FD  20. Any interoffice memos, emails, letters, and notes between any City department and Amy  French regarding the above‐entitled project. PCE  21. Any interoffice memos, emails, letters, and notes between any public agency and Amy  French regarding the above‐entitled project. PCE  22. Any interoffice memos, emails, letters, and notes between the Palo Alto City Attorney and  Amy French regarding the above‐entitle project. ATT/PCE  Response: Attorney‐amy emails are protected by attorney client privilege.  23. Any and all emails, memos, letters, and notes reflecting communications between the EIR  preparer and Amy French related to the above‐entitled project. PCE  24. Any and all written communications from the City Departments handling Utilities, Fire,  Building and Public Works supplied to Castilleja and related to the above‐entitled project,  except the following, which we received on Jan 12, 2016: UTL/FD/DSD/PWD  a. 8/1/16 Utilities Electric Engin memo,  b. 7/26/16 Utilities Water‐Gas‐Wastewater Engin memo  c. 8/16/16 Public Works Engin memo  25. Any documents in the City’s possession, reflecting the location of easements on the  Castilleja School property and dated at any time up to and including today’s date. PCE    1  City of Palo Alto Development of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act REVISED NOTICE OF PREPARATION This Notice of Preparation has been revised to extend the public comment period and to clarify that the project has been determined to have potential environmental impacts in the resource area of aesthetics. No changes in the proposed project have been made. TO: Responsible and Trustee Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties FROM: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Contact: Amy French, Chief Planning Official SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Master Plan, Parcel Map with Exception and a Variance to allow the pedestrian access and vehicle ramp into the subterranean garage to encroach into the Embarcadero Road special setback and the Emerson Street side setback, and some subterranean parking to encroach into the Embarcadero Road and side setbacks. AGENCIES: The City of Palo Alto requests that public agencies provide comments regarding the scope and content of the EIR as it relates to an agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b). ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERESTED PARTIES: The City of Palo Alto requests comments and concerns from organizations and interested parties regarding the environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Castilleja School PROJECT LOCATION: 1310 Bryant Street and 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Project site is 286,783 sf comprised of three parcels: (1) APN 124-12-034 (1310 Bryant, school site), (2) APN 124-12-031 (1235 Emerson, “Emerson House” aka ‘Lockey/Alumnae House’, 75’ on Emerson St), and (3) APN 124-12-033 (1263 Emerson, “Head’s House’, 105’ on Emerson St). Notice of Preparation of an EIR  Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan  2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Castilleja School is an all-girls private school in Palo Alto that has been operating since 1907. Currently, the school serves grades 6 through 12. The school’s facilities include an administrative building, a maintenance facility, a chapel theater, classrooms, a gymnasium, pool, above ground parking areas, athletic fields, and a dining hall. The project proposal is to demolish two homes on adjacent Castilleja-owned parcels (at 1235 and 1263 Bryant) and merge the two parcels into the Castilleja campus parcel via Parcel Map with Exception, and demolish four existing buildings and replace them with a single building. The applicant seeks to expand enrollment and redevelop the existing campus in three construction phases: 1. Construct a below-grade parking structure under the merged parcels to accommodate 130 vehicles, re-route drop-off and pick-up through the garage, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 490 students; 2. Relocate the existing pool, complete bikeway station on Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 520 students; and 3. Relocate deliveries and waste pick-ups further from the street and below grade, reduce number of food service deliveries by 10%, implement sustainability plan, and increase enrollment to a maximum of 540 students. In order to accomplish the proposed project, Castilleja School Foundation has submitted an application to amend the school’s existing Conditional Use Permit and an Architectural Review application. Including future phase construction of a new campus building, the project would result in an increase in the total building square footage within the campus by 26,700 square feet, all of which would be below grade - above grade the square footage would remain the same. The applicant also proposes to increase the number of off-street parking spaces from 73 to 170. Of these, 130 would be below ground and 40 of which would be in surface parking lots. This would reduce the number of above ground spaces by 33 spaces. The amount of open space would also increase by 6,182 square feet. Finally, the project includes a Transportation Demand Management Plan to offset transportation impacts and a proposal for no net new automobile trips, as well as a Sustainability Program. Additional project details and figures are provided in the Initial Study, which is available for review at the City of Palo Alto website for this project: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school.asp POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: As documented in the Initial Study, the following areas of potentially significant environmental impact will be analyzed in the Draft EIR: Aesthetics, Air Quality (project construction only), Biological Resources (trees and migratory birds), Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Potential cumulative impacts and Notice of Preparation of an EIR  Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan  3 potential for growth inducement will be addressed; alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, will be evaluated. SCOPING MEETING: The City of Palo Alto will hold a scoping meeting as part of the Planning and Transportation Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on February 8, 2017. The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. and will be held at the City of Palo Alto Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 250 E. Hamilton Avenue. The meeting agenda will be posted to the City’s website:  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. Interested parties are welcome to attend and present environmental information or concerns that you believe should be addressed in the EIR. This NOP and Initial Study as well as future CEQA documents for this project will be available for review at the City’s website for this project: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school.asp If you require additional project information, please contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: This NOP is available for public review and comment pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b), for 30 days. The comment period for the NOP begins January 23, 2017 and ends on March 15, 2017. The City has extended the public comment period beyond the 30-days mandated by state law. RESPONSES AND COMMENTS: Please indicate a contact person for your agency and send your responses and comments to: Amy French, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto PCE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 1 French, Amy From:Stan Shore <stanshore@ihot.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 01, 2017 10:12 AM To:French, Amy Subject:LAST EMAIL: Bldgs should blend with neighborhood; Set Backs, Height requirements ; Scoping Meeting Good morning Amy,  This is my last email to Planning and Transportation  Commission. As I   will be speaking at the February 8 meeting, I need to know:   How much   time will  I be allowed  to speak?   Do I sign in to speak, similar to   what happens at a City Council meeting? Will this email and my previous   email been  read by the commission?   Should I bring copies of my emails   to distribute to the Commissioners?      Below comments deal with new construction,  building height requirements and building set back requirements for  Castilleja.      1.    This is a residential neighborhood, look and feel of all new   buildings  should conform with the character of a residential   neighborhood.  New Castilleja building should be low  key and blend  in   with the surrounding residential neighborhood.  New buildings  should   NOT be a giant monument to Castilleja.  To keep the character of this   residential neighborhood, Castilleja  needs to reduce building heights   and increase building setbacks.      2.  New Castilleja building should NOT exceed average height of all   residential homes surrounding Castilleja.   I estimate average height of   surrounding homes  is twenty‐two (22) feet. City staff should calculate   average height of all homes, on opposite  side,  of  Castilleja.  Then   notify homeowners of the average height of the surrounding homes.   A   condition to any CUP approval would be that all  new Castilleja   construction cannot exceed the average height of the  residential homes   surrounding Castilleja.      3.    To keep the character of this residential neighborhood any  new   constructed building fronting: Emerson street, Kellogg Ave, Bryant   street  and Embarcadero Rd,  should   be set back a minimum of   seventy‐five (75) feet from the paved road.   This 75 foot set back   means that there will  be no gates, fences, patios or street level   parking between the paved street and the foundation of any new    building.  The 75 foot set back, on all four streets,   would  soften   the mass and scale of this project located in a quiet R1 residential   neighborhood.    2   4.    The 75 foot set back would be filled in with appropriate   landscaping to compliment  the single family homes on the opposite of   the street.      5.   Planning and Transportation Commission,  should be aware, that this   massive construction project is in  a quiet R1 residential area and   operating under a Conditional Use Permit. Because the school is in a   residential area the mass and scale of all new buildings should  conform   with the character and size of all surrounding residential homes.    Proposed  mass and scale of the Castilleja  project is over whelming.      The project, as proposed,  does  NOT blend in with the surrounding R1   residential homes.   The project screams out, "LOOK AT ME".     Old Palo   Alto and Professorville is not a place for a gigantic, in your face,   commercial structures.      I am 100% opposed to the mass and scale of this  project.    Amy, thank you for your time.      Sincerely,    Stan Shore    Kellogg Ave., Palo Alto