Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-03-08 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: March 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 Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 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 2.1310 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 at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/default.asp or Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Application to Allow the Demolition of a 5,860 Square Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-Use Project. The Project Includes a Three-Story 35-Foot Tall, 4,027 Square Foot Mixed Use Building and 17 Two-Story (29’-8”) Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement and Includes 62 Parking spaces. The Project Also Requires a Design Enhancement _______________________ 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. Exception to be Considered by the City Council. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on March 6, 2017 and the comment period will end on March 27, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 4.February 8, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment February 8, 2017 Draft PTC 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 Susan Monk 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 # 7749) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 3/8/2017 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 Assignments 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: Attachment A 3-8-17 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 VICE-CHAIR WALDFOGEL 2/22/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED 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 Michael Alcheck 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 Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting: March 29 Doc ID Short Title Placement 7792 Comp Plan Update-Supplement Draft EIR Study Session 7779 Annual Office Cap-Direction for Permanent Ordinance Public Hearing 7805 Southgate RPP Program Design Public Hearing Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7794) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/8/2017 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 at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/de fault.asp 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 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 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Existing Improvement(s): Approximately 105,700 square feet of floor area above grade, plus basement area below grade; buildings are one, two and three 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 Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 (Airport Influence Area): Prior City Reviews & Action 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) Attachment R: Castilleja Correspondence Feb. 2 through Feb 8 (PDF) Attachment S: Correspondence with residents February 6 through March 1 (PDF) Attachment T: Comments from DTSC (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 From:Adrienne Lee To:Scharff, Gregory (internal) Subject:Castilleja School Underground parking, tree removal and expansion Date:Saturday, February 04, 2017 10:36:12 AM Hello Palo Alto City Leaders, Please help Kimberly Wong and Nelson Ng maintain a more peaceful existent next toCastilleja School. The current off-site parking required is best for all of palo alto neighbors. Regarding traffic and commercialization of neighborhoods, I am writing to you as a residentand business owner of a professional optometric practice with employees. I hope that you would help to maintain reduced traffic, encourage shuttle, bus, carpooling, publictransportation use and centralization of commercial activity. Our Embarcadero Road commute is harrowing in the morning. Please do not make it more crowded and hazardous forour kids walking and biking to school by allowing Castilleja and other private schools (with majority non locals attending) which adds traffic from 101 and alma to the surface streets. We have been almost killed 10 times by people rushing around in the past 8 years. A possible solution to Castilleja's need to increase enrollment: require that they admit majority localsinto their school if they insist upon exceeding their permitted enrollment number. Local kids would most likely bike to to school! My employees to carpool and take the bus. They wouldrather live in town and bike to work but housing is unavailable. Please do your best to encourage more dense housing and affordability. I would not preclude in law unit permitexpansion while requiring mandatory driveway parking use. Regards, Adrienne Lee 50 Morton Wayhome 650-856-2785 cell 408-887-4491work 650-326-1649 From:Mamelok_yahoo To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja Expansion Date:Saturday, February 04, 2017 1:42:50 PM Dear Planning Commission, I think that Castilleja is a fine school but it has very limited benefit to Palo Alto per se. Traffic around the school, despite their good faith efforts, is very bad. This will get worse if the number of students enrolled at their current campus increases. A large construction project will disrupt a residential neighborhood for a number of years. I urge you not to approve their application for expansion. It was bad enough that Casti increased enrollment secretly, in violation of their Use Permit. They should be denied the ability to expand on the current site. Sincerely, Richard D. Mamelok, MD 364 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301-3601 Tel: +1 650 853 1445 Mobile: +1 650 924 0347 mamelok@pacbell.net This email (including any attachments) may contain material that is confidential and privileged and is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. From:Annie Yamashita To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Wolbach, Cory; Tanaka, Greg; Planning Commission Cc:yamashita shinichi Subject:Letters regarding Castilleja"s expansion Date:Monday, February 06, 2017 4:28:38 PM Attachments:170206 - Signed 3 letters to The City Of PA_regarding Castilleja.pdf Dear Palo Alto Council Members, Attached, please read and accept our letter on the above subject.Thank you for taking your time to read it. Best regards,Robert & Annie Yamashita305 Kellogg Ave.,Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:jamespoppy@comcast.net To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja project does not make sense for Palo Alto Date:Monday, February 06, 2017 4:54:52 PM Hello PTC Members, I have lived at 135 Melville Ave for 39 years and have been a patient neighbor of Castilleja. They are a great institution, but their proposed expansion project has no business in a R1 neighborhood! The increased traffic along Embarcadero will solidify the gridlock on that important road for all of Palo Alto and Stanford. The impact on the neighborhood would be irrevocable. A massive underground garage emptying hundreds of cars onto neighborhood streets? That is not in keeping with the aesthetics of an R1 neighborhood. Not to mention the safety issues. The corner of Emerson and Embarcadero is already a blind turn and very dangerous for pedestrians. Cars exiting the garage would be backed up, causing them to find alternative routes through the neighborhood, when Paly is also in session. Castilleja wants to hold 90 events with as many as 700 people. That is not in keeping with an R1 neighborhood, and no other private schools in the area are allow nearly that many events under the condition of their CUP. Demolition of the Lockey House and an additional single family home will change the character of that block forever. A minimum of 6 years of construction is more than a neighborhood should have to endure. The environmental impact of all of this needs to be studied in a full EIR. Castilleja pays no taxes. They have not acted in good faith and should not be rewarded for 15 years of code violations. NO TO THE EXPANSION!!!! Regards, James C Poppy From:Jessica Radomski To:Planning Commission Subject:Support for Castilleja School"s CUP Date:Monday, February 06, 2017 5:32:39 PM Good Evening, My name is Jessica Radomski and I am currently an employee of Castilleja School. I am writing today to let you know that I support Castilleja and hope you approve their upcoming CUP. A new CUP will allow Castilleja to admit and educate more qualified young girls. Thank you for your time! -- Jessica Radomski Database Manager Castilleja School 650-470-7744 From:Michelle Cale To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja School: support for the Master Plan proposal Date:Monday, February 06, 2017 5:45:51 PM Dear Planning Commission: I am writing in support of Castilleja School's proposed Conditional Use Permit. My family has been resident in Palo Alto since 2001. My two daughters are current Castilleja students (in9th and 12th grades). Castilleja's Master Plan is creative in the solutions it offers for both the school and the neighborhood, redirecting traffic, reducing on-street parking, improving thefacility, and overall reducing the environmental impact of the institution. Even with the enrollment expansion, the school will still be a small one, especially compared to the nearbyPalo Alto High School which has four times the enrollment and a smaller parking lot since its recent building expansion. Over the past couple of years, the school has made great efforts to control and educate theschool population on neighbor-friendly parking and car use. The proposal to build an underground garage at the school is an excellent solution to the "parking problem" perceivedby a few of the school's neighbors. Hopefully the neighborhood will see that and be in support of it. There will, obviously, be some short term disturbance, as there is for any building project(and Palo Alto is hardly short of construction in residential areas!) but there will be a great gain for both the neighborhood and the students, as a small expansion of the schoolpopulation, as envisaged by the CUP, will allow a greater range of courses to be offered in the high school grades. I think it is tremendously important that the Bay Area has high quality options for girls'education. Castilleja provides one of the few opportunities in Northern California for girls to attend an all-girls school, and it is a school that is consistently rated among the best in thestate. That makes it a jewel in Palo Alto's crown. Indeed, Castilleja School is a main reason we still live here in Palo Alto despite the high cost of living generally! It has been demonstratedthat girls fare better in STEM education in an all-girl environment. I am pleased to say that my elder daughter - who is the captain of Castilleja's robotics team - will probably be studyingMechanical Engineering at the University of Oxford in the UK in the Fall. A lot of her success and opportunity to succeed in a traditionally "male" subject is down to the quality of theeducation she has received at Castilleja. The successful implementation of the Castilleja Master Plan will not directly benefit my family or my daughters but, as a Palo Alto resident and a strong believer in high qualityeducation for girls, I believe the city should support this proposal for the benefit of future generations of young women in our community. Best wishes -Michelle Cale 1555 Edgewood DrivePalo Alto, CA 94303 -- Michelle Cale From:Douglas Kerr To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja School Date:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 7:53:04 AM Dear City Planning, I write in support of Castilleja’s expansion. I value girls’ education and see the school as doing important and necessary work. I have lived on Churchill Ave for over 10 years and find the school to be a respectful neighbor, especially with the changes they have implemented over the last 2-3 years. To be honest, the traffic and inconvenience added is negligible, and I am dumbfounded as to why people are complaining. Being on Churchill, we see ten times the traffic-- foot, bike, car-- because of Paly, but I am happy to say that both schools contribute to a thriving community. It is only the safety issues on Churchill that I believe warrant any real attention and concern. Sincerely, Douglas Kerr 241 Churchill Ave From:Planning Commission To:Nelson Ng Bcc:French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan Subject:RE: Continuance for the Castilleja project Date:Thursday, February 09, 2017 9:35:00 AM Hello Mr. Ng, At last night’s PTC meeting, the Commission continued the Castilleja item to March 8, 2017. Regards, Yolanda Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Nelson Ng [mailto:lofujai@ymail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 5:41 PMTo: Planning CommissionSubject: Continuance for the Castilleja project Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I understand the PTC public hearing for Castilleja project is rescheduled from tonight to March 8th. Can you please confirm that there is a continuance for the Castilleja project. Thanks Nelson Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7660) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/8/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3877 El Camino Real Site and Design Review Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Application to Allow the Demolition of a 5,860 Square Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-Use Project. The Project Includes a Three-Story 35-Foot Tall, 4,027 Square Foot Mixed Use Building and 17 Two-Story (29’-8”) Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement and Includes 62 Parking spaces. The Project Also Requires a Design Enhancement Exception to be Considered by the City Council. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on March 6, 2017 and the comment period will end on March 27, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings subject to conditions of approval for Site and Design review. Report Summary The project is located on a 32,825 square foot L-shaped parcel with street frontage along El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue. The site includes two zoning designations; commercial and residential zoning. The proposed project involves demolition of the vacant commercial building located along El Camino Real and construction of a new mixed-use project. The project consists City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 of a three-story mixed-use building including six residential flats along the site’s frontage on El Camino Real (the CS zoned area), 11 residential two-story townhouses in the rear portion of the site, and a below-grade parking garage that would include all of the required parking for the site. A total of two income deed restricted housings units are being provided on site. The project seeks approval of a Site and Design application, which requires review before the PTC, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and City Council. The applicant seeks approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to allow a decreased setback below grade for the basement garage. This exception does not affect the above ground improvements. The subject application is a pipeline project that is exempted from the interim retail conversion ordinance. Background Project Information Owner: Zijin, LLC c/o Ran Lin, 15001 Montalvo Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Architect: EID Architects, LLC c/o Stuart Welte Representative: Not Applicable Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 3877 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 313 feet deep x 77 feet wide (El Camino Real) + 53 feet wide x 164 deep (Curtner) 32,825 square feet Housing Inventory Site: No. Located w/in a Plume: No. Protected/Heritage Trees: No. Historic Resource(s): No. Existing Improvement(s): 5,860 square feet 2-stories & 22-feet tall (1938) Existing Land Use(s): Vacant restaurant and parking lot Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-30 (residential multi-family) West: CS & CN (Commercial Uses), Oil change shop, coffee shop, restaurants. East: CS (Commercial Uses) Gas station, credit union South: CN (Commercial Uses) Special Setbacks: None. Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: DigitalGlobe, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Google 2017 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: CS & RM-30 Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial and Multiple Family Residential Context-Based Design: Yes. Downtown Urban Design: Not applicable SOFA II CAP: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Yes. Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes. Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None. PTC: None. HRB: None. ARB: Preliminary Review on December 19, 2013 (13PLN-00439) http://midpenmedia.org/watch/pacc_webcast/December/PAARB_12 1913.html City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Project Description The project site consists of approximately 32,825 square feet and supports an existing 5,860- square-foot vacant building. The site is “L” shaped with street frontage on both El Camino Real (CS zoning district) and Curtner Ave. (RM-30). The proposed project involves demolition of the existing building along El Camino Real and construction of a new mixed-use project. The contemporary-designed building is proposed to be three stories containing 4,035 square feet of commercial area (including 896 square feet of common area—lobby, etc.) and six residential flats (five market rate and one affordable unit) on the commercially zoned portion of the property (0.25 acres). The project is designed with smooth stucco, composite paneling, rain-screens and glass. Behind this building on the portion of the lot zoned RM-30 (0.50 acres), the proposed residential townhouses would be two stories each and are configured as four duplexes and one triplex for 11 more two bedroom units, or a total of 17 units for the site. The total residential floor area is 22,243 square feet; the total project floor area is 26,278. All of the parking for the project is provided below grade. The garage would include 34 spaces assigned to the residential units, seven guest spaces, and 21 commercial parking spaces for a total of 62 parking spaces. The proposed parking slightly exceeds the City’s requirements. Garage access is provided with a two-way driveway ramp accessed from Curtner Avenue and an ingress-only (one-way) ramp on El Camino Real. Trash facilities for the project are located in the basement area as well as bicycle lockers. Both stairwells and elevators are provided. The Design Enhancement Exception request is for the decrease in the 10’-0” setback in the rear at the basement to 6’-2”. The project is required to provide on-site affordable housing and in doing so, qualifies as an eligible state density bonus project. The applicant seeks a code authorized concession related to floor area (see discussion below). The pedestrian access to the commercial portion of the project would be provided from the existing sidewalk along El Camino Real. A wide walkway would be created at the southwestern corner of the building leading to the interior of the site. This would provide access to the lobby for the residential portion of the mixed-use building and to a pedestrian gate leading to the common open space area at the northern end of the mixed-use building and farther into the site to access the residential townhouses. Proposed landscaping includes the addition of grass mounds and seating walls in the common open space area; retention of the existing street tree; planting of one new street tree; and, potted plants along the vehicle ramps into the parking garage, cascading vines at the garage entries, and trees planted along the site perimeters. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Site and Design: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and design is intended to provide a review process for development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Site and Design is also required for mixed-use projects with nine or more units. If recommended for approval, the project requires review before the Architectural Review Board before the project is forwarded to the City Council for final action of all requested entitlements. Site and design applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. The findings to approve a site and design application are provided in Attachment B. Requested Entitlement, Findings Not subject to PTC Purview: Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). The process and evaluation criteria for evaluating a DEE request is provided in PAMC Section 18.76.050. A DEE may be used to grant a minor exception to zoning regulations when doing so will enhance the design of a project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties. The code specifically provides that minor changes to parking lot design and setbacks as reasons for granting an exception, subject to findings. The Director typically acts on DEE requests, however, as this project includes the requested Site and Design application, the City Council will make the determination to grant the subject DEE. For informational purposes the DEE findings are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is mid-block on El Camino Real. A coffee shop (Starbucks) is located immediately east of the project site and an automobile service use (Nine Minute Oil & Lube) is immediately west. A medical office (Agile Physical Therapy) is on the corner of El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue. A multi-family residential development is located to the north of the commercial properties that front on El Camino Real. Land uses on the southern side of El Camino Real are similar, with commercial properties fronting El Camino Real and multi-family and single-family residential properties to the south. Within the vicinity of the site, buildings are generally low, one to two-story buildings. Buildings are located along the sidewalk, however, the sidewalk within the vicinity is not wide. The 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 project proposes development that is consistent with the zoning code development standards and the vision of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. This includes providing the wide sidewalk, where none exists now and providing the build-to setback as encouraged in the guidelines. The buildings within the vicinity are not mixed-use; only commercial buildings. The proposed mixed-use building is consistent with the zoning development standards and design guidelines, however, there is no other comparable development nearby. The portion of the project that is solely residential is consistent in mass and height to the surrounding multi-family development as depicted in the following pictures. From El Camino Real City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 From Curtner Ave Townhouse: Typical Mixed-Use Building Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. The project is also subject to the CS and RM-30 context-based design criteria and standards in PAMC Section 18.23 (Performance Standards). These performance criteria are 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 8 intended to provide additional criteria to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family and commercial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. An evaluation of the project to these performance standards is provided in Attachment G. The project meets the density requirements and meets the development standards, except for the deviation requested for the rear setback at the basement level. A summary table is provided in Attachment E and F which demonstrates that the proposed project complies with applicable development codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The allowed residential density for the site is 30 dwelling units per acre (Both CS and RM-30 districts), which based on the project site amounts to 22 dwelling units that would be allowed. However, the project only proposes 17 dwelling units. State Density Bonus / Below Market Rate Housing Ownership housing projects with five or more units are required to meet the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program (BMR). In accordance with PAMC Section 18.14.030, this project’s total BMR requirement is 2.7 units. When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund may be made for the fractional unit instead of providing an actual BMR unit. To satisfy this requirement, the applicant is required to provide two BMR for-sale housing units affordable to lower income households within the project in accordance with the requirements set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapters 18.14 and 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the BMR Program rules and regulations. The fractional unit will result in an in-lieu payment to the housing fund. By meeting the City’s BMR requirements, the project also qualifies as a state density bonus housing project pursuant to state law, which is codified in the City’s municipal code in PAMC Chapter 18.15. This law allows a developer to increase the density of housing units in a project beyond the standard provided in local regulations; take advantage of reduced parking requirements; and, receive concessions, or deviations from the development standards in order to help off-set the cost of providing the affordable units. The amount of concessions granted is dependent on the percentage and restricted income level of the affordable units provided. To help guide developers toward incentives that do not have a specific adverse impact to the public health, safety or the physical environment, the city has adopted a list of incentives that the city has already determined acceptable. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The proposed project is below the maximum allowed density for the site (22 units allowed 17 units proposed) and the applicant is not seeking a density bonus for additional units. However, the applicant is providing two deed restricted housing units or 11.7% of the units as affordable to moderate income levels (120% of the median County income). This qualifies the applicant to receive one development concession. As authorized in the City’s zoning code (PAMC 18.15.050(d)(iv)) the applicant has selected an increase to residential floor area. The code allows an increase in the floor area ratio up to 25% or up to the square footage of the restricted affordable units, whichever is less. A 25% increase to the project’s floor area ratio dedicated to housing is 4,924 square feet of area. The proposed deed restricted housing includes a total of 2,596 square feet of area. Since the latter floor area is less than the 25% calculation, this is the maximum floor area that can be added. While eligible for a parking reduction, the applicant is not seeking any modification to required parking requirements. As designed, the project complies with the requirements of the BMR program and the state density bonus law. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The project site has two land use designations. The El Camino frontage is Service Commercial, while the Curtner Avenue frontage is Multi-Family. Review of the project finds it consistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, including the following, but described in greater detail in Attachment G. The commercially designated portion of the project site includes a mixed-use building and the balance of the property is located within the Multi-family designation. The mixed-use building does propose a mass and scale that is larger than the surrounding, however, the project transitions well from the El Camino Real frontage to the rear and towards Curtner Avenue. The project supports the goals of a well-designed, compact city that provides a place to live, work and shop with open spaces. The comprehensive plan supports the development of mixed-use. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project’s transportation was evaluated by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (included as Appendix G of the project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Attachment I). The traffic study evaluated a larger, but similar project (18 dwelling units and 4,024 square feet of commercial compared to 17 dwelling units and 3,139 square feet). Based on the study, the project would generate 256 daily trips that would include 14 peak hour morning trips and 23 peak hour afternoon trips. The traffic study indicates no impacts to signalized intersections within the study area. 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 10 The study also evaluated the parking for the project and determined that since the project proposes to be consistent with the standards (drive aisle widths) that there would be adequate back up distance; provided the DEE is ultimately approved. The study recommends that additional red-curb be added on either side of the ramp along Curtner Avenue to ensure adequate sight-distance. The project provides an amount of vehicular and bicycle parking that exceeds the City requirements and access to and throughout the site is sufficient. Each townhouse provides bicycle parking near the front entrance in a void caused by the stairwell of each building. This area would be secured and include bicycle parking apparatus so that the space can only be used for parking bicycles. The Curtner Avenue frontage is a suggested walking and bicycle route to Barron Elementary School. The opposite side of El Camino Real is a suggested walking route to Barron Elementary School. The conditions of approval require that a “logistics plan” be submitted to the City for review and approval. This would include information about phasing, construction staging and construction routes. This would be the opportunity for the City to ensure that construction, while temporary does not impact the safety of those within the vicinity of the project site. Consistency with Application Findings The project is subject to Site and Design Findings. Compliance with these findings is included in Attachment B and generally relate to the proposed project being constructed and operated in a manner that is orderly, harmonious and compatible with existing uses of nearby sites; a desirable investment when evaluated to adjacent areas; designed with sound principals of environmental design and ecological balance; and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. If the PTC supports the project moving forward, the ARB will then evaluate the project to specific architectural review findings and will provide a recommendation on the DEE request. All findings and conditions presented in this report are drafts. Staff will continue to refine these statements and requirements as the project is reviewed by the PTC, ARB and upon receiving public comments. 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. Specifically, the project is subject to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared by Dudek. The document was circulated on March 6, 2017 for 20 days. A link to the MND is provided in Attachment I. There are mitigation measures related to biological resources. The on-site trees could support nesting activity by birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Disturbance to nesting birds would result in a significant impact. To avoid this City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 impact, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires nesting bird surveys to be conducted prior to and during construction and identifies assessment and avoidance measures that must be taken during construction if nesting birds are located on site. Additionally, the existing building and trees on site could support bat roosting. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires a survey for roosting bats prior to building demolition and avoidance measures that must be taken during construction if roosting bats are located on site. 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 February 24, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 24, 2017, which is 13 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend approval of 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 Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (408) 540-5642 (650) 329-2679 sahsing@m-group.us jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: CS Zoning Comparison (DOCX) Attachment E: RM-30 Zoning Comparison (DOCX) Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Comparison (DOCX) Attachment G: Performance Standards (DOCX) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment I: CEQA Document (DOCX) Attachment J: Project Narrative (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment B 1. Site and Design Findings a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. According to the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the project’s construction would result in some temporary impacts; however, they would not result in any incompatible activities. A logistics plan is required to ensure that construction activities would not be harmful to the neighborhood. Regarding the operation of the site, the site would comply with regulations regarding late-night uses, noise ordinance, and solid waste handling. These are in place to ensure compatibility between different sites and uses. While at this time, there is no specific use proposed, the project would develop commercial spaces that would include retail and office uses. Those uses are consistent with other uses along El Camino Real and the surrounding neighborhoods that include both commercial and multi-family residential. Future specific uses would need to be consistent with the City’s regulations. The design of the site includes appropriate separation between the mixed-use building and the solely residential component and the adjacent multi-family properties. The project is consistent with the City’s Performance Standards set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.23, ensuring compatibility between commercial and residential uses. Proposed lighting is directed downward to prevent spillover to adjacent properties. Trash enclosures are located in the basement of the project. The project provides the required setback above ground and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. Mechanical equipment areas are screened appropriately. The site circulation facilitates access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. On-site vehicular traffic will be directed underground, leaving the above-ground for pedestrians and bicyclist. Wide walkways and plazas surround the commercial areas and provide connectivity to the residential areas. In compliance with the City’s affordable housing requirements, the project proposes to include two below market rate dwelling units. This makes the project eligible for the State’s density bonus concessions. In which the project proposes to provide additional square footage to the project (2,596 square feet). Even with the additional square footage, the design of the project blends the additional square footage into the overall site design. b) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project proposes a transformation in the site from a vacant commercial building with a large surface parking lot into a mixed-use (vertical and horizontal) site that is consistent with current zoning regulations, with the exception of a setback deviation for the basement parking, which does not affect the above ground improvements. The mixed-use building along El Camino Real proposes ground-floor commercial that is consistent with the City’s requirements and would provide a place for commerce and interactions for residents and business owners. The project is located in an area that has numerous older low-intensity commercial buildings. The proposed project is an example of a project that is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the vision for mixed-use development. The project’s mixed-use building along El Camino Real is larger than the surrounding buildings along El Camino Real as expected because it includes both commercial on the first and second floor and residential uses on the upper floors, however, the balance of the site transitions to solely residential and is consistent in massing and height with the adjacent properties. c) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The project provides the required setback above ground and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. The site includes plazas and open areas to promote connectivity spaces for wildlife to flourish. These open spaces include vegetation and trees along the side and rear setbacks of the property. While the plant palette demonstrates many non-native species of plants, these trees will provide the potential habitat for birds and other wildlife. The parking for the project is located completely underground, which avoids a surface parking lot. However, at the same time the project will follow the appropriate regulations regarding dewatering and providing the basement space. d) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. These include: Goal L-1, Policy L-4, Policy L-5, Policy L-9, Goal L-4, Policy L-19, Policy L-20, Policy L-21, Policy L-22, Goal L-9, Policy L-72, Goal T-3, Policy T-23, Goal, N-4, Policy N-21 and Goal B-5. The project is a mixed-use development that would include commercial and residential spaces, with some affordable housing units consistent with the City’s regulations. The project will comply with the stormwater codes, and include the appropriate amount of vehicular and bicycle parking. The site includes plazas and open space to encourage connectivity and interaction between the residents and commercial spaces. The buildings are placed orderly providing a mixed-use building along El Camino Real, where it is expected to have more intensive commercial development, with multi- family density located on the balance of the property, which is consistent with the surrounding development. Parking for the site is located completely below ground, which avoids many negative aspects of parking lots. The project provides two below market rate housing units, which promotes the availability of affordable housing. 2. Design Enhancement Exception Findings a) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district. The site is “L”-shaped, has frontage on two streets and includes two separate zoning and comprehensive plan land use designations. There are no other properties within the vicinity with similar design and shape characteristics that would support a mixed-use project. While the adjacent property has a similar “L”-shape with frontage on two streets, there is not sufficient area in the rear to anything more than a driveway and parallel parking, unlike the project site where there is sufficient land area to develop. The project proposes to transform a vacant restaurant building and adjacent surface parking lot into a vertical and horizontal mixed-use project that would be compatible with the zoning development standards and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. In order to do so, the parking for the site would need to be underground, which is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the context-based findings for development. The only vehicular designed area that would be visible from the streets would be the ramps leading down to the basement. The exception is to allow a reduction in the required rear setback that applies to the basement from 10-feet to six feet. This would allow for the necessary space to provide drive aisles, appropriate turning radius and back-up distance and parking spaces to accommodate the project. b) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d). Not granting the setback deviation from 10-feet to 6-feet would necessitate surface parking and would compromise the congruent design of the site introducing negative aspects of vehicular activity. Having the parking below ground allows for the site above ground to have more flexibility in site design. These leads to more open space for gathering and wildlife to flourish. c) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Allowing the setback deviation of four feet below ground does not affect the surrounding development above ground. The above ground project provides an additional four feet at the surface than what is required. Traffic associated with the site would enter either from El Camino Real or Curtner Avenue, while traffic exiting the site will only exit onto Curtner Avenue and it is expected that traffic would then use the signalized intersection of Curtner and El Camino Real, rather than traverse through the residential neighborhood. The design of the frontage and vehicular ramp at Curtner Avenue would have sufficient sight-distance to ensure that pedestrians would not be at any unduly risk. Attachment C Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "3877 El Camino Real December 01, 2016,” stamped as received by the City on December 2, 2016 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. INDEMNITY: 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, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. IMPACT FEES: The owner or designee prior to issuance of any building permit shall pay the applicable Development Impact fees. 7. Density Bonus/Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement: This project’s total BMR requirement is 2.7 units. When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund may be made for the fractional unit instead of providing an actual BMR unit, except that larger projects of 30 or more units must provide a whole BMR unit for any fractional unit of one-half (0.50) or larger. To satisfy this requirement, the applicant shall provide 2 BMR for-sale housing units affordable to lower income households within the project in accordance with the requirements set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapters 18.14 and 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the BMR Program rules and regulations. The applicant shall also provide in lieu fees equal to 7.5 percent of the greater of the actual sales price or fair market value of each unit in accordance with the schedule set forth in H3.1.2 (e) to satisfy the fractional component of the BMR requirement. The fractional in-lieu fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the project; provided, however, that prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the applicant may elect to provide one additional inclusionary unit instead of paying the fractional in lieu payment. All Density Bonus/BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. A BMR Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the 2 BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. 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. 8. The development impact fees for this project are estimated to be $PENDING, 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. 9. 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. Public Works Engineering Department PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT AND GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT SUBMITTAL 10. MAPPING: Applicant shall file for a Minor or Major Subdivision Application. Five parcels would trigger a major subdivision. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map or Tentative Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map or Final Map requirements. If a Map is required, it shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit or excavation and grading permit. 11. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: Owner shall create a public access easement for the additional area behind the property line needed to create a 12-foot wide sidewalk along El Camino Real. Plot and label the Public Access Easement along El Camino Real that provides the 12-foot wide sidewalk. 12. Subdivision Improvement Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite per PAMC Section 21.16.220. 13. Please verify if the existing sub-surface transformer within the sidewalk will continue to serve the development. If the existing transformer cannot serve the project then a new transformer upgrade may be required. The new transformer shall be located completely within private property. Plot and label the location of the new transformer, if needed. Or provide a note on the plans that indicate existing transformer to be used and if a new one is needed it will be located within private property. 14. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Submit a copy of the off-site improvement plans that includes the replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, landscape, etc. Provide Caltrans standard details along the project frontage. Plans shall include the proposed public access easement, grades along the conforms. 15. Submit a construction cost estimate associated with the off-site improvements. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 16. Map shall be recorded prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Grading and Excavation Permit 17. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to building permit demolition that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Plan shall include the following, but not limited to, construction fence, construction entrance and exit, stockpile areas, equipment and material storage area, workers parking area, construction office trailer, temporary bathroom, measures for dewatering if needed, crane location, working hours, contractor’s contact information, truck traffic route, setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas, erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during construction. 18. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. Also plot and label the tree protection zone. 19. GRADING PERMIT: The grading and drainage plan must include an earthworks table with the estimated cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. Provide the following note on the Rough Grading Plan and the Final Grading Plan. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade.” 20. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. Plot the construction fence, entrances, shoring, limits of over excavation, tree protection zone, construction workers parking area, staging and storage areas within the private site for equipment and material. The plans shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. Note that there is a project immediately adjacent to another active construction site located at 405 Curtner Avenue. On the Logistics Plan provide a note for the project contractor to coordinate directly with the general contractor of 405 Curtner Avenue, to avoid conflicts in right-of-way. At no point will both projects be permitted to close off Curtner Avenue. 21. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works or Caltrans. On the Basement Plan, provide a dimension between the property lines and the basement walls, to verify that the shoring will be located completely within the subject property. In particular, near the proposed driveway ramps. 22. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement- level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7- 3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 23. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within three (3) feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within two (2) feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Applicant shall install a water station for the reuse of dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed next to the right-of-way and shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station shall also be sued for onsite dust control. Applicant shall meet with Public Works to coordinate the design details. 24. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. The street work permit to dewater must be obtained in August to allow ample to time to dewater and complete the dewatering by October 31st. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp The following links are included to assist the applicant with dewatering requirements. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30978 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51366 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47388. Green Building Green Building Requirements for Mixed Use Projects 25. The project shall meet both the residential and non-residential requirements for the corresponding areas. Green building requirements are subject to field inspection. Residential Area 26. For design and construction of residential projects, the City requires use of the Build It Green (BIG), Green Point Rated (GPR) program to comply with the mandatory measures of Chapter 4.(Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013) • The project is a new construction residential building and therefore must achieve BIG GPR minimum requirements and achieve 70 points + 1 point per additional 70 square feet over 2500 square feet. The applicant must hire a Green Point Rater and should use Green Point Rated Multi-family Checklist. • The project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at tier 2 (75% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013) • The project is a new multifamily residential project and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. For resident parking, the project must supply one EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each residential unit in the structure. For guest parking, the project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of the guest parking, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE installed. See PAMC 16.14.370 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5263§ 1 (part), 2013). Non-Residential Area 27. For design and construction of non-residential projects, the City requires compliance with the mandatory measures of Chapter 5, in addition to use of the Voluntary Tiers. (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013) • The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 6.14.180 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project has indicated sustainable design objectives. The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. Green building requirements are subject to field inspection. The submittal requirements are outlined here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. • The project is a nonresidential new construction projects with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the prescribed potable water reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.220 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined on the following site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape. asp. • The project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater then 1,000 square feet and therefore must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. • The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. • The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). • The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 28. C&D • The project is a nonresidential new construction project and has a value exceeding $25,000 and therefore must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. • The project includes non-residential demolition and therefore must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.270 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 29. Energy Star • The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.a sp. 30. EVSE: • The project is a new non-residential structure and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5263 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details. 31. Zero Net Energy Design Review: • The project is a new construction commercial project and therefore may elect to engage the City of Palo Alto consultant, BASE Energy Inc, free of charge. BASE will assist the project in targeting Zero Net Energy and exceeding the Title 24 Energy Code. Rebates may be available via working with Base. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/commercial program or call 650.329.2241. The applicant may also contact Ricardo Sfeir at BASE Energy at rsfeir@baseco.com to schedule a project kick-off. 32. Utilities Incentives & Rebates • The project may be eligible for several rebates offered through the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/rebates/default.asp 33. Bird-Friendly Building Design • The west elevation on sheet A4.2 contains a glazed façade that covers a large area. Glazing shown on A4.1 does not indicate finish and appears to be clear. The project should consider bird-safe glazing treatment that typically includes fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. The applicant should consider consulting the San Francisco Standards for Bird Safe Buildings. TRANSPORTATION 34. The turn-around area in the parking garage adjacent to parking stall #1 as shown on sheet A1.1 may be mistaken as a common parking space. The area shall be filled with crosshatching and potentially additional pavement markings and/or signage to prohibit parking or stopping within the turn-around area. Utilities-Water, Gas & Wastewater PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 35. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 36. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 37. The applicant shall submit completed water-gas-wastewater service connection applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 38. City prefer to install utilities on Curtner Ave instead of El Camino Real 39. Water meter(s) up to 2” to be located in the public right of way 40. Due to limited space for individual meters, applicant can consider possibility for master metering. The buildings can only be master metered for gas if: The building will contain central heating, air conditioning, or central domestic hot Water and can be shown (using methods of calculation acceptable to CPAU) to be more energy efficient and at a more favorable cost-benefit ratio than would be the case if individual Metering were installed. 41. 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. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 42. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 43. The applicant may 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. 44. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 45. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of public water, gas and wastewater utilities improvement plans (the portion to be owned and maintained by the City) in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures (see last condition). For projects that take more than one month to complete, the applicant shall provide progress record drawings of work completed on a monthly basis. 46. 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. 47. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 48. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 49. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 50. Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 51. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 52. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 53. All WGW utility installations shall be from Curtner Street instead of El Camino Real (see note #31). 54. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape for landscaping areas in excess of 1,500 SF (including tree canopies). Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 55. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For water meters 4” and larger the applicant's contractor must provide and install an 4’ by 8’ meter vault with meter reading lid covers and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail WD-05. Water meters 4” and larger shall be in a PUE on private property, water meters 2” and smaller shall be located in the public right of way per the CPA WGW Utilities Standards. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 56. If a new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 57. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 58. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must meet the WGW Utility Standards. The City of Palo Alto normal service pressure is 7” WC (.25 PSI). Increased pressure must be requested in writing and is only provided if the houseline size calculates out at greater than 2” diameter for domestic (note: domestic can only be increased to 14” WC max.) and greater than 4” diameter for commercial at standard houseline pressure (7” WC) or the appliance requires increased pressure at the inlet. Further, due to meter limitations there must a minimum of 800 CFH demand for pressures greater than 14” WC. The only available pressure increments above 7” WC are 14” WC (1/2 psi), 1#, 2# and 5# after approval. Pressures in excess of 14” WC, will require testing the house piping at not less than 60 psig for not less than 30 minutes per the California Plumbing Code section 1204.3.2, witnessed by Palo Alto Building Inspection. The City of Palo Alto will not provide increased pressure just to save contractor money on the houseline construction. Requests to increase the pressure will be evaluated with the following submittals: The manufacturer’s literature for the equipment requiring increased pressure; the specific pressure you are requesting; the gas load; and the length of house gas piping from the gas meter to where the gas houseline starts branching off. 59. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 60. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 61. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 62. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. 63. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 64. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: • The pump(s) shall be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity and • The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out. • The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 65. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 66. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 67. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 68. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all WGW utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 69. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Santa Clara county department of transportation for all utility work in the county road right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 70. The applicant shall obtain a construction permit from Santa Clara county valley water district for the utility service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. Public Works-Urban Forestry PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 71. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL‐ PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T‐1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. i. (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter shall state that the plans have incorporated design changes and are consistent with City Standards, Regulations and following information: ii. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. iii. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) a. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. b. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection iv. Zone (TPZ) for each tree. c. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical v. Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 72. BUILDING PERMIT CORRECTIONS/REVISIONS‐‐COVER LETTER. During plan check review, provide a separate cover letter with Correction List along with the revised drawings when resubmitting. State where the significant tree impacts notes occur (bubble) and indicate the sheet number and/or detail where the correction has been made. Provide: 1) corresponding revision number and 2) bubble or highlights for easy reference. Responses such as “see plans or report” or “plans comply” are not acceptable. Your response should be clear and complete to assist the recheck and approval process for your project. 73. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T‐1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full‐sized, Sheet T‐1 (Tree Protection‐it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at i. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #2‐6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full ii. implementation by Contractor, Monarch Consulting Arborists, Tree Inventory and Assessment Plan, dated September 18, 2014, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T‐1 (T‐2, T‐3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. 74. PLANS‐‐SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T‐1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35‐Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 75. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Plans with Public Trees shall show (a) Type II street tree fencing enclosing the entire parkway strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline (for rolled curb & sidewalk or no‐sidewalk situations.) a. Add Site Plan Notes. i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T‐1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree‐‐before working in this area contact the Monarch Project Site Arborist at 818.331.8982"; iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T‐1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over‐excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496‐5953.” v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650‐496‐5953) for any work on Public Trees”. 76. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT‐OF‐WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly‐owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. i. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650‐496‐5953).” ii. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T‐ 2, or specific approval communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 77. NEW RIGHT‐OF‐WAY TREES‐‐PLAN REQUIREMENTS. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut (see Note #4 above). a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in‐ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650‐496‐5953).” i. Plans shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and include relevant Standard Planting Dwg. #603, #603a or #604 (reference which), and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. b. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30‐inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2‐inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1‐inch. i. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right‐of‐way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” ii. Automatic irrigation shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. 78. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, each new large* tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Dwg. #604/513. Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. Sidewalk Mitigation in lieu of compacted root conditions may use Alternative Base Material methods such as: structural grid (Silva Cell), Engineered Soil Mix base or other method as approved. 79. Minimum soil volume for tree size growth performance (in cubic feet): Large: 1,200 cu.ft. Medium: 800 cu.ft. Small: 400 cu.ft. a. Landscape Plan. When qualifying for parking area shade ordinance compliance (PAMC 18.40.130) trees shall be labeled (as S, M or L). i. Engineered Soil Mix (ESM). When applied, Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas, such as a sidewalk base or channeling to a landscape area, to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering ESM Specifications, Section 30 and Standard Dwg. #603a. Designated areas will be identified by crosshatch or other symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. 78. LANDSCAPE PLANS a. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on‐and off‐site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. All new trees planted within the public right‐of‐way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30‐inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2‐inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1‐inch. ix. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right‐of‐way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. i.Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). b. Add Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: ii. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. iii. ii. Note a turf‐free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) for best tree performance. 79. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 80. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air‐spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2‐1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 81. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, Monarch Consulting Arborists, 831.331.8982, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 82. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 83. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T‐1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 84. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1‐5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20‐2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 85. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 86. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off‐site trees in the publicly owned right‐of‐way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650‐496‐5953). 87. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 88. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 89. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650‐329‐2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 90. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices‐Pruning (ANSI A300‐2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3877 El Camino Real, 14PLN-00464 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.25 acres (10,957.5 sf) 0.25 acres (10,957.5 sf) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 9 feet 12 feet Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 75 feet 16 feet Interior Side Yard (if abutting residential zone district 10 feet Not applicable Not applicable Street Side Yard 5 feet Not Applicable Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback (7) 70 feet (97%) No Street side yard 36 feet (50%) Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Not applicable Not applicable Max. Site Coverage None 53.47% (5,860 sf) 50% (5,462.5 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 22 feet 37’-6” Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Retail: 0.4:1 (4,383 sf) Residential: 0.6:1 (6,574.5 sf) Total: 1.0:1 (10,957.5 sf) 53.47% (5,860 sf) Retail: 36.75% (4,027 sf) Residential: 59.7% (6,542 sf) + 1,285 sf BMR bonus (18.15.050d) Total: 0.96:1 (10,569 sf) Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.15:1 (1,644 sf) Not applicable 1,682 sf (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/200 sf of gross floor area for a total of 21 parking spaces 63 spaces 21 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/2,400 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) equals 2 spaces 2 (1 long term, 1 short term) Loading Space 2 loading spaces for 30,000 - 69,999 sf * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3877 El Camino Real, 14PLN-00464 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximu m Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 21,867.8 sf (0.50 acres) 21,867.8 sf (0.50 acres) Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet Parking lot 23 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Parking lot 14 feet above ground 6’1” below ground* Interior Side Yard 6 feet Parking lot 6 feet above ground 6 feet below ground Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet Parking lot 29’8” Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Max. Site Coverage 40% (8,747 sf) Parking lot 37% (8,067 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 60% (13,121 sf) Parking lot 60% (13,105 sf) + 1,311 sf for BMR floor area ** Minimum Site Open Space 30% (6,560 sf) Not Applicable 56.3% (12,333 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (1,650 sf) Not Applicable 7,001 sf Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (825 sf) Not Applicable 1,114 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (550 sf) Not Applicable 5,887 sf * Design Enhancement Exception requested. ** Increase per 18.15.050d Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. 34 spaces required Guest Parking: 1 space + 10% of total number of units. 3 34 spaces 7 spaces required Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) 17 required None. 28 spaces ATTACHMENT F COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 3877 El Camino Real / File No. 14PLN-00464 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Service Commercial and Multi-Family. The project continues the Service Commercial and Multi-Family land uses. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. The project redevelops a site into a horizontal and vertical mixed-use project. The project is consistent in mass and scale and considers appropriate transitions between commercial and residential properties. The project has streetscape consideration along El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue providing context- based treatment. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City’s residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts. The project redevelops a site and is considered infill. The El Camino component includes a vertical mixed- use along El Camino. The mixed-use component along El Camino Real includes a large sidewalk consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses. Guidelines. The project also includes an outdoor plaza area for the ground floor retail. Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. Policy L-21: Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. Policy L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Center though an aggressive maintenance, repair and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a variety of paving materials and landscaping. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. The buildings onsite are placed orderly and provide sufficient open space and connectivity between the streets, entrances and open spaces. The parking for the site is provided below ground, which frees up space on the ground level for the buildings, and landscaping. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City. The project provides plazas that are open to the public. The project supports full height tenant facades to help create a streetscape. The project will pay the in-lieu fee to support the public art program. Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. The project is mixed-use that would include commercial services and residential uses. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. The project includes on-site bicycle parking for the commercial and residential uses. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Business and Economics Element Goal B-5: Attractive, Vibrant Business Centers, Each with a Mix of Uses and a Distinctive Character. The project will redevelop into a mixed-use project. Performance Criteria 18.23 3877 El Camino Real 14PLN-00464 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The trash enclosures are located in the basement parking area. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to the project’s residents. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. Future commercial uses will have to comply with the City’s Late Night Ordinance requirements. At this time, it is unknown what tenants would occupy the commercial spaces. Any loading would occur off of El Camino Real for the commercial component. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project provides the required setback above ground and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. Mechanical equipment areas are screened appropriately. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The project will comply with the City’s noise ordinance. The trash enclosures are located in the garage basement. The commercial areas are located along El Camino Real and there is a buffer area between the commercial building and the surrounding residential buildings. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project provides all of its parking below grade. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. On-site vehicular traffic will be directed underground, leaving the above-ground for pedestrians and bicyclist. Wide walkways and plazas surround the commercial areas and provide connectivity to the residential areas. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. 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: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3877 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2017-02-28 3877 El Camino Real-full submittal” Attachment I Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study The project Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study is available on-line at the following address, which includes the Initial Study and Appendices. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2488&TargetID=319 February 28 2017 1 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 l Environmental Innovations in Design Eco-functional Architecture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 412 Olive Avenue | Palo Alto | CA | 94306 dir. 650.793.2856 | off. 650.226.8770 Application Number: 14PLN-00464 Company Name: EID Architects, Environmental Innovations in Design Contact: Stuart Welte stuart@EIDarchitects.com Mark Wommack mark@EIDarchitects.com Project Address: 3877 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Regarding: ARB Submittal for Major Project Planning Commission Hearing Document: Project Narrative including summary of comprehensive City Department review comments and EID responses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 08, 2016 To: Sheldon Ah Sing | Senior Planner SAhsing@m-group.us City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Fifth Floor Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 EID is resubmitting revised drawing sets for 3877 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA for Major Architectural Review. EID Responses to City comments are below the project summary section of this letter. Scope of work: Existing Use: The parcel is an “L” shaped lot with frontage on both El Camino Real and Curtner Ave. There is a vacant 2-story commercial building on El Camino Real with on grade parking accessed from Curtner Avenue. All existing structures and paving is to be removed. Proposed Use: A new mixed use project to include (17) residential units and approximately 4,035 square feet of commercial/retail area. The commercial/retail space will be combined into a 3-story mixed use building that will also include (6) residential flats. The remaining (11) residential units will be within 2- story townhomes located behind the mixed use building and on the portion of the site that extends to Curtner Ave. All vehicular parking will be located within a parking garage that will be completely below grade. February 28 2017 2 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 Design Concept: The parcel is divided by a zoning boundary. The El Camino Real frontage is zoned CM and requires a more urban design solution that conforms to the requirements of the ECR Design Guidelines. The rest of the site is zoned RM-30. This includes the leg of the parcel that extends to Curtner Ave. This portion of the site is surrounded with other RM-30 zoned lots, so a more residentially scaled design solution is needed in this area to respect the context of the existing residential community. Our design concept responds to this by transitioning in form and scale from the larger urban mixed use building that fronts on ECR down to the smaller scaled townhomes that we propose on the balance of the site. Below-grade parking, provides significantly more open space and landscaping than typical of the surrounding neighborhood, enhancing both the private and public open spaces within the site, creating a welcoming, pedestrian friendly community. The townhomes are clustered to create open areas between the units and to break the massing of the buildings down into a residentially scaled structure. Materials and Methods of Construction: To reflect the complexity of the contextual aspects of the site, we’ve selected sustainably minded materials that respond to the functions of each building with the intention of creating a synergy among our two public entrances, the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and the vitality of the ECR. Contextually there is little to draw from the immediate neighborhood in terms of style or detailing, as the neighborhood is primarily comprised of painted stucco and concrete block construction, with nondescript modular aluminum sliding windows and very little focus on neighborhood greeting, nor particularly identifiable public open space. All proposed entrances to this new design create recessed plaza courts allowing for ease of access to generous common use areas. The commercial building employs large storefront windows to connect the retail functions with ECR, and external terra cotta sunshades to filter the sunlight from this direction while allowing inviting views into the Ground Level retail-commercial event spaces. We’ve framed the storefront with refined smooth finishes comprised of composite wood-resin building panels, smooth hard troweled stucco, and complimentary bronze colored metal and glass storefront entry systems which are arranged to focus the eye in towards the retail plaza and storefront. As the site moves away from the busy ECR corridor, we reduce the scale of the windows and transition into more residentially scaled materials. Individual home entries and balconies are accented with the warmer hues and texture of the composite wood-resin siding materials rendered in narrower board widths to complement the human scale. Each resident’s private bicycle parking is conveniently located in sheltered, lockable closets adjacent to their front door and multidirectional, landscaped walking paths allow for variety in one’s daily commute, whether it be to the basement parking garage via stair or elevator, or to public sidewalks and convenient bicycle, bus and commuter vehicle transportation, all the while provided with a variety of landscaped seating, waiting, meeting areas. Zoning Summary: • Zoning: RM-30 & CS • Lot Size: 32,825 SF / 0.75 Acre CS Zone: 10,957.5 SF RM-30 Zone: 21,867.8 February 28 2017 3 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 • APN: 132 41 091 CS Zone: • Lot area: 10,957.5 SF • Density Du/Ac : Permitted = 7.5 / Proposed = 6 (5 flats plus one BMR flat) • Max FAR Allowed: Commercial: 0.4 = 4,035 s.f. Residential: 0.6 = 6,574 s.f. BMR FAR Increase: 1,285 s.f. • Proposed Floor Area: Total Commercial: 4,034 s.f. Total Residential: 7,859 s.f. RM-30 Zone: • Lot area: 21,867 SF • Density Du/Ac : Permitted = 15 / Proposed = 11 townhomes (10 townhomes plus one BMR townhome) • Max FAR Allowed: Residential: 0.6 = 13,120 s.f. BMR FAR Increase: 1,311 s.f. • Proposed Floor Area: Total Residential: 14,416 s.f. Project Description: The proposed design will transform this blighted parcel into a vibrant and sustainable mixed-use community at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue. The project will include a mix of commercial and townhome style condominiums, which will be provided with ample parking located within the basement below grade. The existing structure, which has been unoccupied since 2008, is located on a parcel with two long and narrow legs. The existing structure is an eclectic mix of poorly executed additions and renovations. The balance of the site is paved to provide on-grade parking for this commercial building, this parking being accessed from Curtner Ave. The immediate neighborhood is a mix of older structures in various stages of reuse and condition. On El Camino, the immediate neighbors are a Starbucks that occupies a building that formerly served as a fast food restaurant and an auto oil changer in a WWII vintage Quonset hut with a “western storefront” facade. The residential neighborhood is predominantly comprised of 1960’s vintage two-story residential apartment blocks. On one adjacent parcel a new 3-story 6-unit townhome building is under construction. Our team is collaborating with the City of Palo Alto Community Development staff to thoughtfully synthesize a highly sustainable mixed use community for the proposed site. The project will complement and support the existing urban fabric, and will be harmonious with the new developments underway in close proximity to our site. The commercial spaces within the mixed use structure will contribute significantly to the revitalization of El Camino Real. New retail will be located on two levels and will open onto a large open courtyard space. February 28 2017 4 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 Designed for pedestrian interaction, the commercial spaces are open, inviting, and buffered from the busy El Camino Real traffic. We are proposing a mix of housing options that includes two bedroom flats and three bedroom townhomes. These units are planned to maximize energy efficiency and provide a range of entry level housing options that will promote a healthy living environment for residents. This, in conjunction with the inclusion of two affordable housing units within the project will provide housing for a diverse range of income levels. Parking is provided on site for the variety of uses including residential, retail and office, in numbers consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed parking infrastructure has been carefully designed to meet the demands of each use and is supported by the analysis contained in the project traffic report. Locating this parking completely below grade maximizes site landscaping and enhances both the private and common open spaces within the parcel to an extent that far exceeds the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Summary of design revisions: The purpose of the redesign was to respond to comments received during the previous ARB hearing that identified areas of concern that had not been raised in prior ARB hearings. The objective of this redesign was to address the following concerns raised at our last ARB meeting: 1. We moved the parking level down to position the parking and podium deck completely below grade. This resulted in a reduction of the mass and bulk of the proposed project to levels that are smaller than the adjacent neighborhood. This solution also creates much larger and more functional private yard areas for the townhome residents. 2. Direct access from El Camino Real to the parking garage is provided via a one-way driveway ramp. This ramp is limited to entering the site to balance concerns regarding negative impacts on traffic on El Camino Real that a new driveway would create with ARB’s desire to provide direct access to parking from El Camino Real. All traffic leaving the garage would exit onto Curtner Ave, where a signalized intersection facilitates a safe path to re-enter El Camino Real traffic. 3. Provide a redesigned commercial building façade that conforms to the build-to setback line and to provide a more contextual design solution for the community. 4. Provide enhanced common open areas that are positioned located closer to the intended users. 5. Provide a more direct, more open pedestrian path through the property with a clear link to El Camino Real. 6. Reduce overall commercial area to conform to the maximum permitted based on the more clearly identified boundary of the CS district. BMR concession and Design Enhancement Exception. We are requesting one on-menu concession consistent with providing 15% low income BMR units and one Design Enhancement Exception for the rear yard setback of the underground basement parking. We are requesting one on-menu concession to permit an increase in FAR by an amount that equals the area of the BMR units that will be provided. This area is equal to the area of the BMR units and does not exceed the maximum 25% permitted by section 18.15.050 (d) (iv). February 28 2017 5 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 We are also requesting one Design Enhancement Exception for a 6 foot rear yard setback in the RM-30 zone for the below grade parking garage, which occurs entirely underground. This exception conforms to the criteria outlined in 18.76.050 (b) Applicability and (c) Findings: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district: This parcel is very unusual in regards to the parcel size and shape. The L shaped parcel extends to both El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue and crosses a zoning boundary. The narrow width of the parcel affords few options for resolving vehicular parking and circulation while balancing the need to create an attractive pedestrian environment. All of the neighboring residential parcels along Curtner Avenue employ long driveways to access on grade parking and/or rows of garages and carports. The narrow 55’ width of the Curtner frontage would make a similar solution on this site very unattractive. The requested 6’ rear yard setback would apply only to the below grade parking structure and would be completely invisible to all of the neighbors. This reduced setback permits double loaded parking within the basement, which is necessary to achieve the required parking count for the various uses proposed for the site. (2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); This DEE promotes the development of a project that will enhance the residential character of the RM-30 portion of the site with generous open space and landscaping while facilitating the more urban use of the CS portion of the site with the requisite build-to setback requirements and corresponding density. Given the limited options for vehicular access and the narrow lot dimensions, a more traditional parking solution is not possible and would require significantly more on grade vehicular paving. (3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Far from being detrimental, this solution will enhance the property or improvements in the vicinity by minimizing vehicular circulation and is in no way detrimental to the public. Sincerely, MARK WOMMACK, ARCHITECT Director of Architecture Environmental Innovations in Design Eco-functional Architecture EID A R C H I T E C T S ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 412 Olive Avenue | Palo Alto | CA | 94306 dir 650.226.8862 | off 650.226.8770 mark@EIDarchitects.com www.EIDarchitects.com Please be advised that our office has a new address. Thank you!